Meta Faces Biometric Privacy Backlash: Texas v. Meta Platforms

Introduction

In a significant development in privacy law, the Madras High Court emphasized the need for a nationwide legal framework mandating paternity leave for biological and adoptive fathers. This observation emerged while overturning an order of desertion against a Tamil Nadu police inspector, highlighting the necessity for legal protections in evolving societal norms.

A landmark case reflecting the growing importance of legal frameworks in the digital age is the ongoing lawsuit, State of Texas v. Meta Platforms. Texas has taken legal action against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) for alleged biometric data privacy violations.

 

Background 

Biometrics and Privacy Concerns

Biometric data, encompassing fingerprints, retina or iris scans, facial geometry, and voiceprints, is increasingly used in various applications, from security to social media. With advancements in technology, the capture of biometric profiles without a live subject has become common, raising significant privacy concerns.

Facial recognition technology, which creates electronic maps of faces from photos or videos, is a prevalent use of biometrics. These face maps are unique identifiers, similar to fingerprints, and are used for various purposes, including security and law enforcement. However, their widespread use has led to growing concerns about privacy and data security.

 

Texas Biometric Privacy Law (CUBI)

Anticipating the risks associated with biometric data capture, Texas enacted a law in 2001 to regulate this practice. Recodified in 2009 as the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier (CUBI) law, it mandates: 

- Informed consent before capturing biometric data.

- Secure storage and transmission of biometric identifiers.

- Destruction of biometric identifiers within a reasonable time, not exceeding one year after the purpose for collection expires.

- Limited disclosure to third parties, only under specific conditions.

 

Allegations Against Meta

Filed in 2022, the lawsuit accuses Meta of capturing biometric data billions of times from user-uploaded photos and videos on Facebook without informed consent. The "Tag Suggestions" feature, which suggested tags for users' friends in photos, is at the heart of these allegations. Texas claims this feature created one of the largest databases of human face maps. 

Meta has acknowledged challenges in providing prior notice or obtaining consent for its facial recognition processes. Additionally, the company has been accused of unauthorized disclosures of biometric data and failing to destroy it within the required timeframe. The lawsuit seeks to impose penalties of up to $25,000 per violation under Texas law.

 

Legal Framework and Implications

Violations of Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code

1. § 503.001(b): Prohibits capturing biometric identifiers without informed consent. Meta's actions allegedly violate this provision, subjecting the company to substantial penalties.

2. § 503.001(c)(1): Restricts disclosure of biometric identifiers unless consent is obtained or legal conditions are met. Meta's unauthorized disclosures constitute separate offenses under this law.

3. § 503.001(c)(3): Requires destruction of biometric identifiers within a reasonable time. Meta's failure to comply represents another violation of CUBI.

 

Broader Implications and Conclusion

The lawsuit against Meta underscores the critical need for robust legal frameworks to protect individual privacy in the digital age. As biometric technologies become more advanced and widespread, the risks associated with unauthorized data capture and misuse grow exponentially. 

This case highlights the importance of regulatory oversight and the enforcement of privacy laws to safeguard individual rights. It also sets a precedent for Big Tech companies, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and respect for user privacy.

As courts and policymakers continue to address these issues, the outcome of State of Texas v. Meta Platforms will likely influence future regulatory approaches and set important precedents for the protection of biometric data in the United States and beyond. This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle to balance technological advancements with the protection of individual privacy rights.

 

Authored by: Ansh Verma,

Symbiosis Law School, Noida