AIAccountability and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Accountability and the Use of Artificial Intelligence

As artificial intelligence (“AI”) and automated decision-making systems make their way into every corner of society – from businesses and schools to government agencies – concerns about using the technology responsibly and accountability are on the rise. 

The United States has always been on the forefront of technological innovations and our government policies have helped us remain there.  To that end, on February 11, 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (No. 13,859).  See Exec. Order No. 13,859, 3 C.F.R. 3967.  As part of this Executive Order, the “American AI Initiative” was launched with five guiding principles:

  1. Driving technological breakthroughs; 
  2. Driving the development of appropriate technical standards; 
  3. Training workers with the skills to develop and apply AI technologies; 
  4. Protecting American values, including civil liberties and privacy, and fostering public trust and confidence in AI technologies; and
  5.  Protecting U.S. technological advantages in AI, while promoting an international environment that supports innovation. Id. at § 1. 

Finally, the Executive Order tasked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) of the U.S. Department of Commerce with creating a plan for the development of technical standards to support reliable, robust, and trustworthy AI systems.  Id. at § 6(d). To that end, the NIST released its Plan for Federal Engagement in Developing Technical Standards in August 2019.  See Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech., U.S. Leadership in AI: A Plan for Federal Engagement in Developing Technical Standards and Related Tools (2019). 

While excitement over the use of AI was brewing in the executive branch, the legislative branch was concerned with its accountability as on April 10, 2019, the Algorithmic Accountability Act (“AAA”) was introduced into Congress.  See Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019, S. 1108, H.R. 2231, 116th Cong. (2019).  The AAA covered business that: 

  1. Made more than $50,000,000 per year;
  2. Held data for greater than 1,000,000 customers; or
  3. Acted as a data broker to buy and sell personal information.  Id. at § 2(5). 

The AAA would have required business to conduct “impact assessments” on their “high-risk” automated decision systems in order to evaluate the impacts of the system’s design process and training data on “accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security”.  Id. at §§ 2(2) and 3(b).  These impact assessments would have required to be performed “in consultation with external third parties, including independent auditors and independent technology experts”.  Id. at § 3(b)(1)(C).  Following an impact assessment the AAA would have required that business reasonably address the result of the impact assessment in a timely manner.  Id. at § 3(b)(1)(D).  

It wasn’t just the federal government who is concerned about the use of AI in business as on May 20, 2019, the New Jersey Algorithmic Accountability Act (“NJ AAA”) was introduced into the New Jersey General Assembly.  The NJ AAA was very similar to the AAA in that it would have required businesses in the state to conduct impact assessments on “high risk” automated decisions. See New Jersey Algorithmic Accountability Act, A.B. 5430, 218th Leg., 2019 Reg. Sess. (N.J. 2019).  These “Automated decision system impact assessments” would have required an evaluation of the systems development “including the design and training data of the  automated  decision  system,  for  impacts  on accuracy,  fairness,  bias,  discrimination,  privacy,  and  security” as well as a cost-benefit analysis of the AI in light of its purpose.  Id. at § 2.  The NJ AAA would have also required businesses work with independent third parties, record any bias or threat to the security of consumers’ personally identifiable information discovered through the impact assessments, and provide any other information that is required by the New Jersey Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs in the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety.  Id

While the aforementioned legislation has appeared to have stalled, we nevertheless anticipate that both federal and state legislators will once again take up the task of both encouraging and regulating the use of AI in business as the COVID-19 pandemic subsides.  Our team at Beckage contains attorneys who are focused on technology, data security, and privacy and have the experience to advise your business on the best practices for the adoption of AI and automated decision-making systems. 

*Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. 

Subscribe to our Newsletter

AI Hiring BiasAI Hiring Algorithms Present Big Questions About Accountability and Liability

AI Hiring Algorithms Present Big Questions About Accountability and Liability

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes an increasingly prevalent human resources tool, the algorithms powering those hiring and staffing decisions have come under increased scrutiny for their potential to perpetuate bias and discrimination.

Are There Any Federal Laws or Regulations Governing the Use of AI in Hiring?

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against job applicants or employees because of their membership in a protected class.  For decades, attorneys have relied on the jointly issued Employment Tests and Selection Procedures by the Civil Service Commission, Department of Justice, Department of Labor and EEOC.  See generally 28 CFR § 50.14; see also Fact Sheet on Employment Tests and Selection Procedures, EEOCNevertheless, the current form of the Employment Tests and Selection Procedures fail to provide any guidance on the use of AI tools in the hiring process.   

That isn’t to say Federal regulators and legislators aren’t keen on regulating this area.  On December 8, 2020, ten United States Senators sent a joint letter to the EEOC regarding the EEOC’s authority to investigate the bias of AI driving hiring technologies.  In relevant part, the letter poses three questions:  

  1. Can the EEOC request access to “hiring assessment tools, algorithms, and applicant data from employers or hiring assessment vendors and conduct tests to determine whether the assessment tools may produce disparate impacts?
  2. If the EEOC were to conduct such a study, could it publish its findings in a public report?
  3. What additional authority and resources would the EEOC need to proactively study and investigate these AI hiring assessment technologies?  Id.

As of the current date, the EEOC has yet to respond to the letter.  Nevertheless, given the questions above, the current political climate, and the lack of current guidance from the EEOC, we anticipate future guidance, regulation, and potential enforcement actions in this area. 

How Are States Handling AI Hiring Bias? 

Illinois was first state to legislate in the area of the use of AI in hiring.  On August 9, 2019, Illinois enacted the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act (“AIVIA”), imposing strict limitations on employers who use AI to analyze candidate video interviews.  See 820 ILCS 42 et seq.  Under AIVIA, employers must: 

  1. Notify applicants that AI will be utilized during their video interviews;
  2.  Obtain consent to use AI in each candidate’s evaluation;  
  3. Explain to the candidates how the AI works and what characteristics the AI will track with regard to their fitness for the position; 
  4. Limit sharing of the video interview to those who have the requisite expertise to evaluate the candidate; and
  5. Comply with a candidate’s request to destroy his or her video within 30 days.  Id

Illinois was quickly followed up by Maryland, which on May 11, 2020 enacted legislation prohibiting an employer from using certain facial recognition services during a candidate’s interview for employment unless the candidate expressly consents.  See Md. Labor and Employment Code Ann. § 3-717.  The Maryland law specifically requires the candidate to consent to the use of certain facial recognition service technologies during an interview by signing a waiver which contains: 

  1. The candidate’s name;
  2. The date of the interview;
  3. that the candidate consents to the use of facial recognition during the interview;
  4. and that the candidate has read the waiver.  Id.

As with AIVIA, the emerging nature of the Maryland law does not provide much insight into how the law will be interpreted or enforced.

There are a number of other jurisdictions which have bills in different states of progress.  On February 20, 2020 a bill was introduced into the California legislature which would limit the liability of an employer or a purveyor of AI assisted employment decision making software under certain circumstances.  See 2019 Bill Text CA S.B. 1241.  This Californian bill “would create a presumption that an employer’s decision relating to hiring or promotion based on a test or other selection procedure is not discriminatory, if the test or procedure meets specified criteria, including, among other things, that it is job related and meets a business necessity” and “that the test or procedure utilizes pretested assessment technology that, upon use, resulted in an increase in the hiring or promotion of a protected class compared to prior workforce composition.”  Id. The bill would also require the employer to keep records of the testing or procedure and submit them for review to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, upon request, in order to qualify for the presumption and limit their liability.  Id

Not to be outdone, a bill was introduced into the New York City Counsel on February 27, 2020 with the purpose of regulating the sale of automated employment decision making tools.  See Int. No. 1894.  The New York City Council bill broadly defines automated employment decision making tool as “any system whose function is governed by statistical theory, or systems whose parameters are defined by such systems, including inferential methodologies, linear regression, neural networks, decision trees, random forests, and other learning algorithms, which automatically filters candidates or prospective candidates for hire or for any term, condition or privilege of employment in a way that establishes a preferred candidate or candidates.”  Id.  The bill seeks to prohibit the sale of automated employment decision making tools if they were not the subject of an audit for bias in the past year prior to sale, were not sold with a yearly bias audit service at no additional cost, and were not accompanied by a notice that the tool is subject to the provisions of the New York City Council’s bill.  Id.  The bill would require any person who uses automated employment assessment tools for hiring and other employment purposes to disclose to candidates, within 30 days, when such tools were used to assess their candidacy for employment, and the job qualifications or characteristics for which the tool was used to screen.  Id.  Finally, the bill is not without bite, as violator are subject to “a civil penalty of not more than $500 for that person’s first violation and each additional violation occurring on the same day as the first violation, and not less than $500 nor more than $1,500 for each subsequent violation.”  Id.

What Can My Business Do Now to Prepare for Potential Liability Related to the Use of AI in Hiring?

As the current political and legal landscape continues to be in flux, one of the best things your business can do is stay on top of current statutes.  Your business could also audit both internal and external use of AI in hiring to validate and confirm the absence of bias in the system; however, testing external systems may require your vendors to open their proprietary technology and information to their customers, something that most are hesitant to do.  Finally, your business should consider conducting a thorough review of any and all indemnification provisions in its vendor agreements to see how risk might be allocated between the parties.

Beckage is a law firm focused on technology, data security, and privacy. Beckage has an experienced team of attorneys and technologists who can advise your business on the best practices for limiting its liability related to the use of AI in hiring.

*Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

2020Looking Back on 2020’s Top Privacy and Cybersecurity Trends

Looking Back on 2020’s Top Privacy and Cybersecurity Trends

As 2020 comes to a close, Beckage looks back on the ways this difficult and unprecedented year impacted the data privacy and cybersecurity landscape both domestically and across the globe.

Enhanced Privacy Challenges and Concerns Due to Covid-19

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses around the globe made a major pivot to online or virtual operations early this year. An intentional focus on data protection and a solid understanding of the regulatory landscape is a legal requirement that demands the integration of data protection up front in any network design or business practice. The increase in exposure of company assets made it necessary to implement a variety of technical safeguards. Companies still had to meet the compliance milestones of the NY SHIELD Act and California’s Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) while dealing with new privacy challenges caused by a distributed workforce and a global health pandemic. Beckage reminds organizations of the importance of revisiting their readiness through business continuity, incident response, and more expansive administrative, technical, and physical safeguards when shifting to a work-from-home model and recommends continued assessment of your company’s privacy pitfalls in this ever-shifting legal landscape.

Increased Ransomware and Cyberattacks

With rapid changes in organizational operations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, attackers became more sophisticated in their strategies and unleashed several unrelenting, simultaneous attacks on service providers and the organizations they serve in 2020. Victims of recent cyber attacks, such as the SolarWinds campaign carried out in December, include government agencies, healthcare providers, consulting agencies, and , technology, telecom, and oil and gas companies. In many of these campaigns, attackers were able to gain access and move freely throughout an organization’s server, installing additional software, creating new accounts, and accessing sensitive data and valuable resources while remaining largely undetected. In response to the uptick in data incidents this year, the Beckage Incident Response Team recommends organizations implement several preventative steps to safeguard their organization to help minimize legal risk.

Patient Access Rights and Interoperability

Recent developments in 2020 concerning patients’ right to access health information to implement interoperability and record access requirements intend to help patients obtain access to health records and payment data to make informed decisions about their healthcare. The CMS Proposed Rule and the OCR Proposed Rule represent a complete overhaul of well-established standards and an introduction of new and highly technical requirements with healthcare compliance. The experienced Health Law Team at Beckage can help to distill these lengthy and complicated rules so organizations can understand practical implications on daily operations.

Increased International Focus on Consumer Privacy

On the heels of EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), many countries followed suit by establishing legal frameworks for governing how organizations collect, use, and store their citizens’ personal data. One example is Brazil’s Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD), which went into effect in August of 2020. This general data protection law, which closely mimics the GDPR, places strict requirements on organizations that process Brazilian citizen’s personal data.

At the same time, Europe continued to elevate its enforcement of the GDPR, with major decisions from various member state Data Protection Authorities, the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the European Data Protection Board (EDBP). The most impactful for businesses across the globe was the ECJ’s decision in Schrems II, which invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield and called into question the long-term viability of the Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) to transfer data from the EU to the US. In 2021, companies should closely monitor the evolving guidance on international data transfers and be prepared to mitigate risk of global data transfers.

Beckage’s Global Data Privacy Team expects continued adoption of data protection regulations across many regions, and an emphasis on creating global security and privacy compliance programs in the year ahead.

Uptick in ADA Litigation

This past year, the Beckage Accessibility Team has witnessed a drastic increase in litigation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On average, about eight new lawsuits are filed a day by disabled individuals alleging unequal access to goods and services provided on a company’s digital platforms. While the Department of Justice (DOJ) has consistently held that the ADA applies to websites and mobile apps, they have failed to clarify the precise requirements for a business to be deemed compliant. This has prompted a wave of litigation by plaintiffs’ who claim a website or mobile app’s incompatibility with assistive technology, like screen-reading software, has denied them full access to and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, and accommodations of the website, therefore violating the ADA. Most of these lawsuits are settled quickly out of court to avoid litigating in such uncertain legal terrain.

Beckage handles the defense of website accessibility lawsuits as well as assists companies in navigate pre and post-suit settlement agreements for this unique area of the law.  Beckage also works with clients under privilege to conduct internal and remedial audits of client websites and mobile applications, evaluate platform compatibility and oversee implementation of recommended remedial or accessibility-enhancement measures.

California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA)  

Enforcement of California’s comprehensive California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) began on July 1, 2020 and has brought a range of plaintiff related lawsuits under its private right of action provision expanding California breach laws. For a data breach to be actionable, the information accessed must be identified as personal information, as narrowly defined by California’s data breach notification law. Recently, in November 2020, the Consumer Right To Privacy Act (CRPA) ballot initiative was passed, creating additional privacy rights and obligations pertaining to sensitive personal information that will go into effect. CPRA also expands data breach liability created by the CCPA, adds a private right of action for unauthorized access that permits access to an account if the business failed to maintain reasonable security, and imposes data protection obligations directly on service providers, contractors, and third parties. Beckage urges businesses who operate in or serve California citizens to continue to follow CCPA developments and carefully monitor related litigation in the coming months.

Emerging Technologies

The recent expansion of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has resulted in numerous class actions suits against organizations alleged to have collected plaintiffs’ biometric data. With the expanding use of biometric equipment, these claims often allege defendants obtained plaintiffs’ biometric data without complying with the BIPA’s notification and consent requirements. Upcoming class suits may address the issue of BIPA having an extraterritorial effect when bringing claims against out of state vendors.

Similarly, computers that manipulate the media, known as deep fakes, advance the dangers of influenced perceptions. The advancements of deep fakes are giving rise to laws regarding defamation, trade libel, false light, violation of right of publicity, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Sophisticated tech lawyers can assist in determining rights and technological solutions to mitigate harm. As former tech business owners, Beckage lawyers want to drive innovation with use of these new and emerging technologies while understanding standards and laws that may impact such development. Beckage recommends that companies proactively mitigate the risks associated with collecting biometric information and deep fakes to prevent legal repercussions and defamation. 

Key Takeaways

2020 proved to be an unpredictable year in more ways than one. The COVID-19 pandemic forced companies to rapidly adapt to new privacy and data security challenges caused by a distributed workforce, emerging technologies, and an increased focus on ecommerce with in-person shopping and events. As we move towards 2021 with no definitive end to the pandemic in sight, it is crucial for companies to prioritize data privacy and cybersecurity initiatives by consulting qualified legal tech experts who can help navigate the uncertainty next year will bring. Beckage attorneys can assist in creating, implementing, and evaluating robust data security and privacy infrastructures that will help put your business in a position to tackle all the challenges 2021 has in store.

*Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence Best Practices: The UK ICO AI and Data Protection Guidance

Artificial Intelligence Best Practices: The UK ICO AI and Data Protection Guidance

Artificial intelligence (AI) is among the fastest growing emerging information digital technology. It helps businesses to streamline operational processes and to enhance the value of goods and services delivered to end-users and customers. Given AI is a data-intensive technology, policymakers are seeking ways to mitigate risks related to AI systems that process personal data, and technology lawyers are assisting with compliance efforts.

Recently, the UK Information Commissioner Office (ICO) published its Guidance on AI and Data Protection. The guidance follows the ICO’s 2018-2021 technology strategy publication identifying AI as one of its strategic priorities.  

The AI guidance contains a framework to guide organizations using AI systems and aims to:

  • Provide auditing tools and procedures the ICO will use to assess the compliance of organizations using AI; and  
  • Guide organizations on AI and data protection practices.

AI and Data Protection Guidance Purpose and Scope

The guidance solidifies the ICO’s commitment to the development of AI and supplements other resources for organizations such as the big data, AI, and machine learning report and the guidance on explaining decisions made with AI which the ICO produced in collaboration with the Alan Turing Institute in May 2020.

In the AI framework, the ICO adopts an academic definition of AI, which in the data protection context, refers to ‘the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks normally requiring human intelligence’. While the guidance focuses on machine-learning based AI systems, it may nonetheless apply to non-machine learning systems that process personal data.

The guidance seeks to answer three questions. First, do people understand how their data is being used? Second, is data being used fairly, lawfully and transparently? Third, how is data being kept secure?

To answer these questions, the ICO takes a risk-based approach to address different data protection principles including transparency, accountability and fairness. The framework outlines measures that organizations should consider when designing artificial intelligence regulatory compliance. The applicable laws driving this compliance are UK Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The ICO details key actions companies should take to ensure their data practices relating to AI system comply with the GDPR and UK data protection laws. The framework is divided into four parts focusing on (1) AI-specific implications of accountability principle (2) the lawfulness, fairness, and transparency of processing personal data in AI systems (3) security and data minimization in AI systems and (4) compliance with individual rights, including rights relating to solely automated decisions.

AI Best Practices

This section summarizes selected AI best practices outlined in the guidance organized around the four data protection areas. When working towards AI legal compliance, organizations should work with experienced lawyers who understand AI technologies to address the following controls and practices:

Part One: Accountability Principle

  • Build a diverse, well-resourced team to support AI governance and risk management strategy
  • Determine with legal the companies’ compliance obligations while balancing individuals’ rights and freedoms
  • Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) or other impact assessments where appropriate
  • Understand the organization’s role: controller/processor when using AI systems

Part Two: Lawfulness, Fairness, and Transparency of Processing Personal Data

  • Assess statistical accuracy and effectiveness of AI systems in processing personal data
  • Ensure all people and processes involved understand the statistical accuracy, requirements and measures
  • Evaluate tradeoffs and expectations
  • Adopt common terminology that staff can use to communicate about the statistical models
  • Address risks of bias and discrimination and work with legal to build into policies

Part Three: Principles of Security and Data Minimization in AI Systems

  • Assess whether trained machine-learning models contains personally identifiable information
  • Assess the potential use of trained -machine learning models
  • Monitor queries from API’s users
  • Consider ‘white box’ attacks
  • Identify and process the minimum amount of data required to achieve the organization’s purpose

Part Four: Compliance with Individual Rights, Including Rights Relating to Solely Automated Decisions

  • Implement reasonable measures respond to individual’s data rights requests
  • Maintain appropriate human oversight for automated decision-making

The ICO anticipates developing a toolkit to complement the AI guidance. In the meanwhile, the salient points to the ICO guidance’s rests upon these key takeaway’s organizations should understand the applicable data protection laws and assemble the right team to address these requirements.

Building privacy and security early into the development of AI can provide efficiencies in the long-term to address the growing focus of regulatory authorities on ensuring that these technologies include data protection principles.  Also working towards robust AI compliance efforts, organizations can find themselves having a competitive advantage.  Beckage’s lawyers, many who are also technologists and have been trained by MIT regarding business use of AI, have been quoted in national media about AI topics.  We stand ready to answer any of your questions.

*Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

BIPABIPA Suits Against Third Parties: An Emerging Trend

BIPA Suits Against Third Parties: An Emerging Trend

Companies should take note of the recent expansion of biometric privacy laws, that could have significant impact on their businesses, changing how they collect and process biometric data and how third party vendors handle such data.

Background on BIPA

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) was passed on October 3, 2008, and regulates how “private entities” collect, use, and share biometric information and biometric identifiers, collectively known as biometric data.  BIPA imposes certain security requirements including:

1. Developing a publicly available written policy regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in an entity’s possession.

2. Providing required disclosures and obtaining written releases prior to obtaining biometric data.

3. Prohibiting the sale of biometric data.

4. Prohibiting the disclosure of biometric data without obtaining prior consent.

Expansion of BIPA to Third Party Vendors

In a significant turn of events, courts in Illinois are applying BIPA to third party vendors who do not have direct relationships with plaintiffs, but whose products are used by plaintiff’s employees or in other settings to collect plaintiff’s biometric data.

This is an alarming expansion of BIPA’s scope of which all third-party providers should be aware.  Under this caselaw, putting a biometric-collecting product into the stream of commerce does not immunize the manufacturer of that product from suit in Illinois.

Since the passing of BIPA, numerous class actions suits have been filed against those alleged to have collected plaintiffs’ biometric data, but claims brought up against vendors that sell the biometric equipment are exponentially growing.  These claims allege not that plaintiffs have had direct contact with the vendor defendants, but that the defendants obtained the plaintiff’s biometric data through timekeeping equipment without complying to BIPA’s requirements.

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a biometric time clock vendor could be liable for violations of BIPA in the context of employment, extending the liability to people who “collect” biometric information.  

Another recent decision, Figueroa et al v. Kronos, held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the collection function extended to the company, Kronos, and was responsible, along with the employer, for obtaining required employee consent.

These cases, among others, signify that third-party vendors are becoming defendants in BIPA consent cases and broaden third party contribution claims brought by employers against the vendors of Biometric clocks for failure to obtain required consent.  These decisions also allow insured employers to seek contributions from clock vendors for any judgement assessed against an insured employer under the Employment Practices Liability (EPL).

However, BIPA’s Section 15(a), which requires publicly available policies for the retention and destruction of biometric data, makes it difficult for plaintiffs to make claims against third parties in federal court.  BIPA Section 15(a) creates an issue of standing.  A state federal court could exercise jurisdiction over a vendor in connection with a BIPA claim if the vendor maintained continuous and systematic contacts with Illinois.  If the vendor is located in the forum state, then there is no jurisdictional dispute, but since many vendors sell their equipment nationally, the issue of whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction of the vendor must be addressed.

For example, in Bray v. Lathem Time Co., the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois alleged that the defendant sold a facial-recognition time keeping product to the plaintiff’s employer and violated BIPA because they failed to notify employees and obtain their consent.  The plaintiffs had no dealing with the defendant, who was located in Georgia but was sued in Illinois.  The court found no contacts between the defendant and the state of Illinois and concluded that the time keeping equipment was sold to an affiliate of the plaintiff’s employer and then transferred to Illinois by the employer.  The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant vendor.

Expansion of BIPA Outside Illinois?

Vendors being located in states outside of Illinois raises the question of whether BIPA is applicable to conduct in other states.  But while BIPA is applied to violations in Illinois, upcoming class suits may address the issue of BIPA having an extraterritorial effect when bringing claims against out of state vendors.  The extraterritorial application of BIPA is fact-dependent and courts acknowledge that decertifying extraterritoriality as being evaluated on an individual basis may be appropriate.  Companies collecting, using, and storing biometric information will face an increased risk in BIPA lawsuits.

Take-A-Ways

All companies should assess whether they are collecting biometric data, directly or through third parties.  Next is to evaluate the legal requirements regarding the handling of such data.  Note, many state data breach laws include biometric data as protected personally identifiable information (PII).  Companies should take steps to comply with applicable laws, including developing policies and practices around handling biometric data.  Also, contracts with third party vendors should be reviewed to help protect the business if there is mishandling of biometric data.

About Beckage

At Beckage, we have a team of skilled attorneys that can assist your company in developing BIPA compliant policies that will help mitigate the risks associated with collecting biometric information.  Our team of lawyers are also technologists who can help you better understand the legal implications surrounding BIPA and the legal repercussions that follow suit.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

*Attorney Advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. *

1 2