Few State Breach Laws Include Biometrics, but That Could Soon Change
The almost daily influx of organizations reporting a data breach and the increasing number of businesses collecting biometrics may be pushing more states to add biometric data in their data breach notification laws.
October 24, 2019 at 09:00 AM
3 minute read
Canceling a hacked bank account is simple enough, but a breached fingerprint isn't replaceable with a call to a 1-800 phone number.
But not everyone may know when their biometric data falls into the hands of an unauthorized party. Only 16 states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Washington state—require notification if a resident's fingerprint or other biometric information is breached.
Still, while biometric data is only listed in roughly one-third of the nation's data breach notification laws, lawyers say more may add the term to their law given the increasing number of high-profile data breaches that are grabbing the public's interest.
"In this age of hearing about big data breaches, I think it's natural that the states continue to review and amend their data breach notification laws," said Alston & Bird partner Larry Sommerfeld, a former leader of the Department of Justice's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Unit. "It's something we all see in the news and [email] mailboxes and the technology is continuing to evolve."
State legislators may not only be pushed by the news, but also by the fact that more companies are collecting biometric data about residents and citizens than ever before.
"I think technology has changed, so the use of biometric information in connection with authenticating identity has grown as a business practice," said Chicago-based Ice Miller partner Reena Bajowala.
Dominique Shelton Leipzig, Perkins Coie's privacy and data management practice co-chairwoman, added that, "Biometrics is dealing with newer forms of technology that [are] being developed and honed with things like artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning. I think this increased interest in all of those areas is leading to individuals and consumers to require more transparency."
Leipzig also noted that there's a "heightened awareness of privacy and security from consumers and individuals" due, in part, to such laws as the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe.
Meanwhile, Washington, Texas and Illinois have gone beyond amending their data breach notification laws to enacting laws specifically regulating the collection and sharing of their residents' biometric data.
Though few states have followed those three, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith data privacy and cybersecurity partner Elizabeth Dill said state legislators updating their data breach notification laws to include biometrics is an indication legislators are examining biometric data collection more closely.
"What we have seen as states have expanded this definition of personal information is that they are paying increased attention to protection of more information," she said. "There are a lot of different types of information that can be used to identify individuals and states are becoming more of an advocate to protect their citizens' data."
Indeed, Drinker Biddle & Reath partner Justin O'Neill Kay noted San Francisco and Oakland, California, and Somerville, Massachusetts, have banned local authorities from using facial recognition technology over concerns regarding identification accuracy and to protect residents' privacy.
"There's a lot of interest around it and not all of the news about it has been good and I think when you combine all those factors, it's a good storm for more legislation," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250