Article III

2022 was another year of high activity and significant developments in the realm of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and biometric privacy related matters, including in regard to issues arising under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and others.  This continues to be one of the most frequently litigated areas of privacy law, with several notable rulings and emerging patterns of new activity by the plaintiffs’ bar.  Following up on Privacy World’s Q2 and Q3 2022 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Quarterly Newsletters, be sure to read on for a recap of key developments and insight as to where 2023 may be headed.
…
Continue Reading Privacy World 2022 Year in Review: Biometrics and AI

CPW’s Kristin Bryan, a 2022 Law360 Privacy & Cybersecurity MVP as well as a featured subject matter expert for LexisNexis, Christina Lamoureux, and Margaret Booz have co-authored a new chapter of Lexis Practical Guidance titled “Biometric Privacy and Artificial Intelligence Legal Developments.” In this practice note, they explore emerging legal issues concerning the collection, use, and disclosure of biometric data and artificial intelligence (AI). This includes a discussion of the legal regimes often implicated in lawsuit trends that are likely a harbinger of future litigation, recent developments concerning Article III standing, damages, and class certification and settlement, among other considerations.
…
Continue Reading Available Now: CPW’s Kristin Bryan, Christina Lamoureux, and Margaret Booz Co-Author Lexis Practice Note on Biometric Privacy and Artificial Intelligence Legal Developments

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

Passage of Federal Privacy Bill Remains Possible This Year, Remains a Continued Priority | Consumer Privacy World

Webinar Registration

…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

CPW’s Shea Leitch and Kyle Dull to Speak at ACC South Florida’s 12th Annual CLE Conference

CPW’s David Oberly…

CPW’s Kristin Bryan, a 2022 Law360 Privacy & Cybersecurity MVP as well as a featured subject matter expert for LexisNexis, Jesse Taylor and Shing Tse teamed up to co-author a chapter of the Lexis Practical Guidance titled “Privacy, Cybersecurity and Data Breach Litigation: Key Laws and Considerations”. In this practice…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Consumer Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

Speaker Pelosi Expresses Concerns With Federal Privacy Bill’s Preemption Provision | Consumer Privacy World

The Cookie Crumbles – Lessons…

A Seventh Circuit district court recently clarified that a Fair Debt Collection Practice (“FDCPA”) plaintiff may not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement by alleging confusion and aggravation, even where a complaint generally alleges actual damages.

In Suxstorf v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC, Plaintiff brought claims under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e against Defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, a debt collector. In connection with an outstanding debt, Defendant sent Plaintiff a “permanent hardship” letter, in which Defendant offered to pause or cease its collection efforts upon a showing of permanent hardship. Defendant attached to the letter a “Permanent Hardship Request Form,” in which it requested certain consumer information to evidence permanent hardship, including: the consumer’s date of birth, the last four digits of the consumer’s Social Security number, the consumer’s employment status, whether the consumer is receiving unemployment benefits, whether the consumer is receiving Social Security benefits or any other financial assistance from the government, any other sources of income and a description of any financial hardship and the duration of that hardship.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant’s request for such information was under false pretenses and that the actual purpose of requesting the information was to determine whether to bring suit against the consumer based on the information obtained from the permanent hardship letter. Plaintiff alleged that this practice violated, among other statutes, the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), which prohibits a debt collector from using “any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10). Plaintiff alleges that he was confused and misled by the letter and that he was required to spend time and money investigating the letter and the consequences of his response.  …

Continue Reading Federal Court Clarifies the Article III Standing Requirement for FDCPA Violations

Welcome to the 2022 Q2 edition of the SPB Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Quarterly Review Newsletter, your go-to source for keeping you in the know on all recent major artificial intelligence (“AI”) and biometric privacy developments that have taken place over the course of the last three months. We invite you to share this resource with your colleagues and visit Squire Patton Boggs’ Data Privacy, Cybersecurity & Digital Assets and Privacy & Data Breach Litigation homepages for more information about our capabilities and team. 

Q2 did not disappoint in the AI and biometric privacy space, with a number of noteworthy litigation, legislative, and regulatory developments having taken place in these two rapidly developing areas of law. Read on to see what has transpired over the last quarter and what you should keep your eyes on as we head into the second half of 2022.…

Continue Reading SPB 2022 Q2 Artificial Intelligence & Biometric Privacy Quarterly Review Newsletter

Last week, a California federal court held that a plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring a putative class action in federal court for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”) amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. As a result, the case was remanded back to the California state court where the plaintiff chose to file his complaint.

In Kamel v. Hibbett, Inc., No. 8:22-cv-01096-RGK-E, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130753 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that he made a purchase with his credit card at one of the defendants’ stores and received a receipt which contained ten digits of his credit card number. …

Continue Reading California Federal Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand FACTA Class Action to State Court