Intangiblia™
#1 Podcast on Goodpods - Intellectual Property Indie Podcasts
#3 Podcast on Goodpods - Intellectual Property Podcast
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
Face Off: Privacy, Intellectual Property, and the Price of Your Faceprint
Your face unlocks your phone, animates your emoji, and verifies your identity but who actually owns the digital rights to your unique features? In this deep dive into biometric data law, we explore the high-stakes legal battles reshaping how technology interacts with our most personal physical characteristics.
When Facebook paid $650 million to settle a class action lawsuit over facial recognition, it signaled a seismic shift in how companies must approach biometric data collection. We break down the landmark cases—from White Castle's potential $17 billion fingerprint scanning liability to Clearview AI's global legal troubles for scraping billions of public photos without consent. These aren't just American concerns; we journey from China, where a professor successfully sued a wildlife park over mandatory facial scans, to India's Supreme Court ruling on the world's largest biometric ID system.
Beyond privacy concerns, fierce patent wars are erupting over who owns the methods for collecting and using biometric data. Companies battle over facial authentication patents worth billions while "liveness detection" technology becomes crucial in a world of deepfakes and digital impersonation. The stakes couldn't be higher as these technologies become embedded in everything from banking to border control.
We untangle the global patchwork of regulations emerging to govern facial recognition, from Illinois' pioneering BIPA law to Europe's strict GDPR protections and China's surprising new limits on private biometric collection. Throughout it all, a clear trend emerges: your face isn't just data, it's your identity, and increasingly, the law recognizes that distinction.
Whether you're concerned about your rights, curious about the future of facial recognition, or simply want to understand why your social media filters might be collecting more than just likes, this episode offers essential insights into the legal frameworks shaping our biometric future. Listen now to discover how to protect your digital identity in a world that increasingly wants to scan it.
Ever smiled at your phone to unlock it or used a filter that made you look fabulous? That little spark of tech magic comes from your biometric data, your unique face print. In this episode of Intangiblia, we'll explore how your face fuels innovation, from personalized security to deep fake proof tech, and why the rules about who can use it are changing fast. The future of your face is bright, but let's make sure it's also yours fast.
Speaker 2:The future of your face is bright, but let's make sure it's also yours. You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law. Playing talk about intellectual property. Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Leticia Caminero:Welcome to Intangiblia, where law meets life in ways you can see right in the mirror. I'm Leticia Caminero, and today we're talking about the fascinating world of biometric data, how it powers everyday tech, inspires groundbreaking inventions and sparks important conversations about privacy, ownership and trust. This isn't about battles. It's about balance how we can enjoy the benefits of facial recognition and AI while keeping our rights front and center.
Artemisa:Quick disclaimer I'm an AI. I don't have a face or fingerprints or constitutional rights yet.
Leticia Caminero:But she does have opinions and this episode is full of them. As always, our content is informed by real legal research, but it is not a substitute for legal advice. And remember, I am also the AI clone voice of Leticia.
Artemisa:Unless your legal strategy involves sass and sarcasm, in which case I am fully licensed in the court of public opinion. Licensed in the court of public opinion.
Leticia Caminero:So let's start from the top. What is biometric?
Artemisa:data, Anything that makes you you Face geometry, voice prints, iris scans, your walk, even your heartbeat.
Leticia Caminero:Biometrics are the new fingerprints Unique, non-transferable and very, very valuable, and companies are using them to build AI systems that can identify you, verify you or impersonate you.
Artemisa:And that's where the legal mess begins, because your face might be your identity, but to tech companies it's just high-resolution training data.
Leticia Caminero:Cue the lawsuits. The Luanda Blueprint for Televiz Facebook was the first major case where biometric privacy law training data.
Artemisa:Back in the golden age of face tagging, Facebook rolled out its tag suggestions feature, which scanned user photos and suggested names based on facial recognition. But here's the kicker it never asked users for permission in Illinois.
Leticia Caminero:Enter BIPA Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. It says you can collect or store someone's biometric data, including a scan of face geometry, without informed consent.
Artemisa:Facebook argued this was all harmless tech wizardry, but the court saw it differently. By tagging people's faces without asking, they violated BIPA on a massive scale.
Leticia Caminero:In 2020, facebook settled the class action for $650 million zero cents. Every affected Illinois user got a check, some as high as $400.
Artemisa:And it set off a chain reaction. Suddenly, every tech company handling biometrics in Illinois had to take BIPA seriously. Facebook also had to disable the face tagging feature entirely.
Leticia Caminero:Lesson learned don't treat people's faces like metadata, especially in Illinois.
Artemisa:If Patel showed that biometric violations come with a price tag, cothran v Whitecastle said actually that price multiplies fast.
Leticia Caminero:Here's what happened. Whitecastle had been using a fingerprint-based login system for its employees. Every time a worker clocked in or accessed a company computer, the system scanned their finger. No big deal, except they didn't get proper notice or written consent.
Artemisa:Now remember this is Illinois, the land of BIPA, and BIPA doesn't mess around.
Leticia Caminero:The question before the Illinois Supreme Court was is each fingerprint scan a one-time violation or does every single scan count separately? And the court said drumroll, every single scan is a violation violation, which meant White Castle could face damages for thousands of scans per employee. Multiplied by hundreds of employees over years of use, their estimate $17 billion in potential liability.
Artemisa:That's a number that can make a corporate lawyer cry into their compliance binder.
Leticia Caminero:These decisions set off alarm bells in the business world. Companies rushed to review their biometric policies, fearing ruin over something as routine as a clock.
Artemisa:The ruling also prompted lawmakers to consider amending BIPA to cap damages or limit the per-scan interpretation.
Leticia Caminero:But until then, every unauthorized beep at the fingerprint scanner might be ringing up your legal bill. If there is one company that made biometric privacy a global headline, it's Clearview AI. The RenderOS v Clearview case was just the beginning of a much bigger story story.
Artemisa:Clearview took the internet's public photos think LinkedIn, facebook, instagram and scraped them to build a massive facial recognition database.
Leticia Caminero:Billions of images zero concern their pitch, upload a face and instantly get matches from across the web. Law enforcement loved it, Regulators not so much.
Artemisa:In California, Renderos v Clearview challenged the company's entire business model. Plaintiffs argued their biometric data had been extracted without permission, violating California's constitution and privacy laws claiming its database was just public information, but the court didn't buy it.
Leticia Caminero:The case is still ongoing and the stakes are high. It could redefine how far biometric rights extend under California law?
Artemisa:Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Clearview faced a legal tsunami. The UK, France, Italy and the Netherlands all fined the company under the GDPR. Why? Because biometric data is special category data in Euro and scraping it for profit doesn't fly without explicit consent.
Leticia Caminero:The Dutch Data Protection Authority issued a 30 million 500,000 euro sense fine and banned Clairview from processing data on Dutch residents. Similar orders came from the French CNIL and Italy's Garante. The UK's ICO added another 7,500,000 pounds sterling zero pence fine and its own deletion order.
Artemisa:And Clearview didn't exactly change course In the US. It offered plaintiffs a bizarre settlement 23% of the company's equity not cash, just stock like they were handing out shares in a scandal.
Leticia Caminero:A state attorney general objected Hard. 24 states and DC filed an amicus brief saying the settlement was weak sauce no guarantees of deletion, no limits on future scraping.
Artemisa:The message was clear your face is not public domain. Just because a photo is online doesn't mean your biometric identity is up for grabs.
Leticia Caminero:Clearview became the poster child for what happens when innovation, bulldozes, privacy and regulators around the world are now watching and finding more closely. Bane Lip Sings meet lawsuits. Welcome to In Re TikTok.
Artemisa:TikTok, the short form video, darling got dragged into federal court over claims that it was collecting biometric data behind the scenes and we're not just talking about dance moves.
Leticia Caminero:Specifically, the lawsuit alleged TikTok was scanning user faces and voices, creating what Illinois law calls face prints and voice prints, without asking permission.
Artemisa:And Sir Bipa. Again, illinois residents brought the suit as a class action, claiming their biometric data was used to train filters, recommend content or just get scooped up for who knows what.
Leticia Caminero:TikTok did what many tech companies do settle fast In 2022,. They agreed to pay $92 million zero cents to resolve the claims, while denying any wrongdoing, of course the claims while denying any wrongdoing, of course.
Artemisa:But that wasn't the end of it. A clever twist, tiktok tried to use the settlement to shield itself from newer lawsuits involving future conduct.
Leticia Caminero:Judges weren't having it when new plaintiffs came forward with fresh claims Post-2021 scans the court ruled TikTok couldn't hide behind the old deal. You can't buy immunity with yesterday's check.
Artemisa:This case proved two things. First, biometric claims are not just for ID systems or law enforcement. Social media platforms can trigger them too. Second, once you start collecting faces and voices, you'd better be transparent and explicit, or you'll be writing big checks.
Leticia Caminero:Also worth noting. Tiktok wasn't just facing BIPA. It faced scrutiny from the FTC and Congress over broader data price issues, but BIPA gave users a direct way to fight back, and that makes TikTok one of the first platforms where users, not just regulators, got a slice of biometric justice. Now let's take a trip to China, where biometric surveillance is widespread. But this time the people push back.
Artemisa:Meet Guo Bing, a law professor in Hangzhou. He bought an annual pass to a local wildlife park. Everything was fine until the park suddenly required facial recognition to enter. No scan, no pandas.
Leticia Caminero:Gua wasn't having it. He argued that the park's biometric requirement violated consumer rights and personal data protections. So he did what most people don't he sued and in 2020, he won.
Artemisa:The court ruled that forcing facial scans as the only method of access was excessive and unnecessary. The park had to delete Guo's biometric data and pay compensation.
Leticia Caminero:This might sound like a small case, but it made big waves. It would stop China's first facial recognition lawsuit and it sparked a national debate about the unchecked rise of biometric surveillance in private and public spaces.
Artemisa:The timing was perfect, too. China was in the process of drafting its personal information protection law, or PIPL, which came into effect in 2021. That law now treats biometric identifiers like face prints as sensitive personal information.
Leticia Caminero:Which means that, just like in the EU, collecting someone's face data in China now requires a clear purpose, data minimization and, most of all, consent.
Artemisa:Gore's case was a spark. Since then, more citizens have filed complaints about facial recognition in apartment buildings, shopping malls, even schools.
Leticia Caminero:China may still be a leader in biometric tech deployment, but this case showed that individual rights are entering the chat.
Artemisa:And that in the world's biggest surveillance society, even one face can make a legal difference.
Leticia Caminero:Before facial recognition became a buzzword, INDA was already grappling with biometrics on a national scale.
Artemisa:The Odd Heart Program was, and still is, the largest biometric ID system in the world. It collects fingerprints, iris scans and facial photos from over a billion residents, linking them to a 12-digit unique identity number.
Leticia Caminero:The idea, streamline public services and subsidies, the controversy, everything else.
Artemisa:Enter Justice Keis Putaswami, a retired judge who filed a petition challenging Adhar's constitutionality. His main argument that forced biometric collection, especially without strong safeguards, violated the right to privacy.
Leticia Caminero:And here's the twist the Supreme Court of India first had to decide whether privacy was even a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. It wasn't explicitly written.
Artemisa:But in a landmark 2017 judgment, the court unanimously ruled that, yes, privacy is a fundamental right anchored in dignity, autonomy and personal liberty.
Leticia Caminero:Then, in 2018, the court took on Aadhaar directly. It upheld the program for government welfare schemes, but struck down several expansions like using Aadhaar for bank accounts, phone numbers or private services.
Artemisa:The court demanded that the government implement tighter data protection measures, limit data retention and give people more control over their biometric information.
Leticia Caminero:This case reshaped India's legal landscape, enforced a public reckoning on biometric surveillance and paved the way for India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act in 2023.
Artemisa:Bottom line. You can't claim efficiency while erasing consent. Putuswami made it clear rights don't vanish in the name of convenience.
Leticia Caminero:Time to shift gears from privacy to patents. In this case, it wasn't about whether your face was taken without consent. It was about whether Apple's use of your face was a little too familiar.
Artemisa:Enter CPC Patent Technologies PTY Limited, an Australian company with a serious stash of biometric authentication patents. They claimed Apple's Face ID and Touch ID features infringed three of their US patents.
Leticia Caminero:This patent, dated back to the early 2000s, originally developed by a now defunct biometrics firm, cpc, acquired them and then went hunting. Apple was the biggest fish in the pond.
Artemisa:Their argument Apple's use of biometric login for secure device access. Their argument Apple's use of biometric login for secure device access, unlocking with a face or fingerprint, matched the methods described in their patents.
Leticia Caminero:Now here's where it gets interesting. Cpc didn't actually make any products, no devices, no apps, just patents. So yes, people started calling them a classic patent troll.
Artemisa:Apple fired back with inter-parties review petitions at the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board trying to invalidate the patents. They argued the tech was too obvious or not inventive enough.
Leticia Caminero:And they weren't alone. This case highlighted growing tensions in the patent world. As biometric authentication becomes standard in phones, banking and beyond, dormant patents are suddenly hot property.
Artemisa:This wasn't about data misuse. It was about ownership of the method. If your face is the key, who owns the lock?
Leticia Caminero:Apple hasn't commented publicly on the case, but litigation like this is a reminder Even if you build the tech from scratch, someone might still claim they got there first on paper.
Speaker 2:Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law. Playing talk about intellectual property.
Leticia Caminero:You thought animated emojis were just cute? Well, according to Face-to-Face Biometrics, they are patent-worthy and Apple crossed the line.
Artemisa:In 2022, Face-to-Face Biometrics filed suit against Apple, claiming its Memoji feature infringed on a patent for using facial expression data to animate a digital avatar for using facial expression data to animate a digital avatar Memoji for the known iPhone crowd.
Leticia Caminero:Let's see you control a cartoon version of yourself using your actual facial movements, eyebrows, smiles, winks, the whole expressive package, face2face said that's our invention.
Artemisa:Their patent, granted in 2021, covered the use of facial recognition to dynamically control avatars in messaging systems.
Leticia Caminero:Apple, of course, didn't just roll over. They challenged the claim and suggested the patent was overly broad and tried to monopolize a natural evolution of video communication.
Artemisa:Critics were quick to label face-to-face a patent troll why they weren't making products or selling software. They just held the patent and filed a lawsuit.
Leticia Caminero:It's the classic recipe Get a patent, wait for someone successful to do something similar. Sue, rinse and repeat.
Artemisa:Still, this case raises an interesting point when does technical invention stop and creative expression begin? Is tracking someone's wink to animate a digital koala really a novel process?
Leticia Caminero:Whether face-to-face wins or not, the case shows how the patent system is being used some say abused to state claims in the booming world of biometric entertainment.
Artemisa:Because in today's IP world, even your emoji isn't safe from litigation.
Leticia Caminero:Next up Passit Technologies, also known as the patent troll, that never sleeps.
Artemisa:Passit is a company with no products, no services and no app, just a fat stack of patents related to cryptography and biometric authentication, and they've been busy.
Leticia Caminero:In 2024,. They targeted Citibank and PNC Bank, two major US financial institutions. Why? Because their mobile apps allow users to log in using facial recognition and fingerprints.
Artemisa:According to Passid, those login features infringed on six of its patents. The claims focused on methods for securely verifying users through biometric input tech that's now standard in every mobile banking app.
Leticia Caminero:The kicker Passid didn't invent facial recognition or biometrics. They just acquired all their patents from a now defunct security company and decided to turn them into legal weapons.
Artemisa:And they didn't file just anywhere. They went straight to the Western District of Texas, a court famous for being, let's say, friendly to patent holders.
Leticia Caminero:The case is still in motion, but Citibank and PNC are pushing back hard. They're arguing that patents are either too vague, invalid due to prior art or simply unpresentable abstract ideas.
Artemisa:This isn't Passed's first rodeo. In 2018, they sued Samsung over similar claims. Same playbook Wait for the market to adopt a feature, then strike.
Leticia Caminero:But here's the problem Even if these patents don't hold up, the cost of defending against them is high, and that's the real leverage patent trolls rely on.
Artemisa:It also raises a deeper issue Can a method of using your own face to access your own account be considered someone else's intellectual property?
Leticia Caminero:Because if the answer is yes, we're all just renting our own identities. Livingness detection might sound like sci-fi, but it's actually a critical security layer in facial recognition and in FaceTek, vis jumio, it became a full blown legal brawl.
Artemisa:FaceTek is a US-based company that specializes in anti-spoofing tech, basically making sure the face in front of the camera isn't a photo, a video or a 3D printed mask. Their flagship product, Zoom, uses 3D face mapping to verify that a real, live human is present.
Leticia Caminero:Jumio, on the other hand, is a major player in the AD verification game. They originally licensed FaceTek's LiveNest tech, but then switched providers, partnering with iProof instead.
Artemisa:That's when FaceTek flipped the switch. They accused Jumio of continuing to use their patented techniques even after the partnership ended and filed a patent infringement suit.
Leticia Caminero:The case got messy fast. Facex even managed to disqualify Jumio's legal team, arguing conflict of interest, because the same lawyers had once helped FaceX file some of the very patents at issue.
Artemisa:Ouch, that's not just legal chess, that's queen takes queen energy.
Leticia Caminero:At the heart of it, the patents covered methods for 3D life-size detection. Ouch, that's not just legal chess, that's Queen Takes Queen energy. At the heart of it, the patents covered methods for 3D live-face detection, like how the system responds to subtle user movements, lighting changes and camera depth to confirm that the person on screen is real Jumio denied the claims, but the lawsuit highlighted just how valuable liveness detection has become.
Artemisa:In a world of deepfakes, identity fraud and synthetic media, having tech that can tell a live person from a fake one is pure gold.
Leticia Caminero:And apparently that gold is worth fighting over. The case is still unfolding, but one thing is clear Patterns in this space aren't just about who invented what they're about who gets to protect the gateway to digital identity.
Artemisa:When the whole economy runs on remote verification, the patent on are you real becomes a billion dollar question.
Leticia Caminero:And now the sequel to the lie drama FaceTech VI Pro, because when it comes to anti-spoofing tech, apparently no one plays nice iProve, a UK-based company, built its brand on flash and video liveness detection.
Artemisa:Basically, it uses timed light patterns and video frames to confirm that the face in front of the screen is live, not static or manipulated.
Leticia Caminero:FaceTek said hold up, we patented that vibe. Literally, they claim that iProvo system infringed on FaceTek's proprietary methods for detecting live presence using device cameras and reactive light prompts.
Artemisa:They filed suit pointing to multiple patents on their side of the Atlantic and let's be clear, this wasn't about filters or novelty. These were security patents, the kind used in banking, border control and national ID systems.
Leticia Caminero:Faye's argument was that iProves take copied key aspects of their patented process and that it gave iProves an unfair competitive edge in high stakes contracts iProve pushed back hard.
Artemisa:They said their system was independently developed, fundamentally different in architecture and, of course, non-infringing.
Leticia Caminero:The legal fight spotlighted the fragmented but fiercely protected world of biometric IP. The fragmented but fiercely protected world of biometric IP. These aren't your average app patents. These are the digital equivalents of airport scanners High value, highly regulated and potentially high risk and remember this isn't just a private sector SPAD.
Artemisa:Both companies pitch to governments, banks and health care systems. The winner of this IP showdown gets market access at a global scale.
Leticia Caminero:The litigation is still ongoing, but whatever the outcome, it reinforces one thing in biometric security your secret sauce better be original, because someone's always ready to take you to court over the recipe.
Artemisa:Someone's always ready to take you to court over the recipe, and in a world where liveness detection decides if your face is real, ip law is the new face filter.
Leticia Caminero:Now that we've covered the courtroom drama, let's look at what lawmakers and regulators are doing to rein in facial recognition technology, specifically Because, while the tech evolves fast, the laws, well some are just catching up.
Artemisa:Let's start in the US, where biometric laws vary wildly depending on the state, and that matters a lot when faces are involved.
Leticia Caminero:First up the one and only BIPA Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act passed in 2008. It requires written informed consent before collecting any biometric data, including face geometry, and it gives individuals the right to sue. That's why Illinois is the home of blockbuster face print lawsuits.
Artemisa:Then there's Texas, which passed its own Biometric Identifier Act in 2009. It requires consent, but only allows enforcement by the attorney general. No private lawsuits here.
Leticia Caminero:Washington state followed in 2017 with a similar law. It requires notice and a clear purpose for collecting biometrics, but again, no private right of action.
Artemisa:In California we've got the CCPA and CPRA Together. They define biometric data as sensitive personal information. Users have the right to delete it and restrict its use, but lawsuits are only possible in cases of data breaches.
Leticia Caminero:And don't forget the FTC In 2023,. It issued a policy statement warning that using facial recognition tech without transparency, data security and consent could be considered deceptive or unfair under federal consumer law.
Artemisa:Beyond state lines. Some cities have taken things even further. Portland, san Francisco and Boston have banned the use of facial recognition tech by government agencies, including the police. These local bans signal growing discomfort with surveillance in public spaces.
Leticia Caminero:Crossing the Atlantic. The GWR, europe's privacy powerhouse, has strict rules on biometrics. Facial data used for identification is classified as special category data, meaning it's off limits unless you've got explicit consent or a very strong legal reason.
Artemisa:That's why Clearview AI was banned or fined in nearly every EU country. Regulators said scraping people's faces from social media was a no-go under GDPR.
Leticia Caminero:And the EU AI Act, expected to land in 2025, takes it further. It proposes a ban on real-time facial recognition in public spaces unless used for very narrow law enforcement purposes. The idea Stop biometric surveillance before it becomes the norm.
Artemisa:Post-Brexit, the UK kept the GDPR framework. Under the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act of 2018, facial recognition data is still highly regulated.
Leticia Caminero:After the breaches v South Wales police ruling, the UK courts made it clear even the police can't roll out live facial recognition without clear legal safeguards, bias, audits and accountability.
Artemisa:Over China in 2021,. It passed the Personal Information Protection Law, PIPL. It requires separate specific consent for collecting sensitive personal information, including face data.
Leticia Caminero:The twist. While the government uses facial recognition widely, private companies are now under serious restrictions. Courts have already ruled against businesses using face scans without necessity or alternatives. Finally, India passed its Digital Personal Data Protection Act in 2023. It classifies biometric data, including face prints, as sensitive and requires clear consent for processing.
Artemisa:This builds on the Paraswamy case, where the Supreme Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental right. It pushed the country to rethink how biometric data should be used, especially beyond state-run ID systems.
Leticia Caminero:So, while there's no one-size-fits-all approach, the global trend is clear Facial recognition can't operate in the shadows anymore.
Artemisa:From consent forms to court rulings, your face is finally getting the legal respect it deserves.
Leticia Caminero:Let's wrap up with five things we're walking away with and they're not all lawsuits and legalese.
Artemisa:Exactly, this episode was a face print fiesta. But there's good news, too.
Leticia Caminero:One people are paying attention, from Illinois to India. Citizens, courts and regulators are asking smart questions about how facial recognition is used and making changes.
Artemisa:Two laws are getting better, whether it's BIPA, gdpr or new AI acts. We're seeing a shift toward more clarity, stronger consent requirements and real consequences for misuse.
Leticia Caminero:Three tech companies are adapting Settlements. Policy updates and design changes show that platforms are starting to take biometric responsibility seriously starting to take biometric responsibility seriously.
Artemisa:Four innovation can be ethical, Deepfake proofing, liveness detection and privacy by design systems. Prove that, protecting rights and building cool tech aren't mutually exclusive.
Leticia Caminero:Five. Your face matters literally and legally, and, more than ever, you have the right to say how it's used.
Artemisa:We hope today's tour of biometric brilliance left you feeling a little more empowered and maybe double checking your app permissions.
Leticia Caminero:Your face isn't just data. It's identity, creativity, security and now protected by growing legal frameworks around the world.
Artemisa:If you liked this episode, share it with a friend who's ever used a selfie filter or unlocked their phone with a glance. So basically everyone.
Leticia Caminero:Thanks for listening to Intangible, stay curious, stay protected and, yes, smile is your right.
Speaker 2:Thank you for listening to Intangible, the podcast of intangible law Plain talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.
