Photo: iStock / Wirestock
Amazon Gets Ready to Go to Court Over Its Biometric Data Collection
A new lawsuit alleges that Amazon Go has been keeping tabs on its customers with biometric data in New York City, where collecting such data without making it explicitly known violates the law.
A customer, Alfredo Perez, recently filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that Amazon Go does not disclose that biometric data, including customer body shape, size and identifying palm print information, is collected in-store from visitors, NBC News reports.
New York City law requires businesses collecting such data to inform customers of it by posting signage. The lawsuit further alleges that appropriate signage was not in place until a year after the disclosure law was enacted.
Amazon said the information that it collects does not constitute biometric data. It said claims of the use of facial recognition technology are outright false and that palm print data is only collected by those voluntarily using the Amazon One identification solution.
Technology that collects or utilizes biometric data has grown more prevalent in recent years for personal use in solutions like Apple’s Face ID and at retail.
Walgreens rolled out coolers featuring iris-tracking technology and other biometric info-gathering capabilities, which facilitate inferences about customers and their behavior, The Atlantic reported when the drugstore first piloted the technology.
But such technology remains a perennial concern for privacy advocates, who take issue with the lack of transparency and customer control over what data is collected and how it is stored and used. It also continues to receive a mixed response from customers, some of whom find the technology creepy and invasive.
For instance, on the Upper West Side of New York City, the New York Post reported that a Fairway store using facial recognition technology for shoplifting prevention had drawn criticism from some shoppers who expressed concerns about being surveilled. The grocer, which features signage outside stating that it collects biometric data, has found the technology helpful in reducing shrink.
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Will privacy lawsuits eventually impact retail’s use of biometric tracking technology? Should the potential for new legislation governing this technology make retailers think twice when they pilot biometric-based solutions like facial recognition?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Lisa Goller
B2B Content Strategist
John Karolefski
Editor-in-Chief, CPGmatters
At first blush this appears to be a frivolous lawsuit, however it does shine a light on biometric tracking and privacy in general. States are already introducing privacy legislation regarding biometric data, but there are no national regulations. And while it seems this lawsuit is frivolous, it’s an example of the legal and PR peril retailers/brands face if they end up on the wrong side of a data privacy issue. The days of “collect any data you want and answer questions later” are gone.
Privacy lawsuits and laws should and will impact retail’s use of biometric data as they have in many European countries (and New York, California and Canada which I think are trying to join the EU). The technology isn’t necessarily the problem–it’s the use of the data that is collected. Retailers should think twice about how they use personal identifiable information and about being transparent in their collection efforts.
Another day another rather unnecessary lawsuit. Amazon’s “pay by palm” solution is voluntary. No one has to use it. And for those who do use it, it is patently obvious that the system is recording details of your palm: that is basic common sense and should not require an explanatory sign. All that said, as more and more data about us is collected there will be a greater need for brands to be clear about what they’re doing, how they use and store the data, and what rights we have over it.
The outcome of the lawsuit against Amazon over biometrics will have a ripple effect on the industry. The lawsuit involves Amazon and the increased scrutiny of privacy protection actions by retailers for consumers which makes everyone watch how the case plays out. The lawsuit will prompt tech companies to be more proactive about service solutions in terms of data collection and sharing of data. Since these laws and consumer tolerance to privacy issues vary greatly by country, region, state, and city it is a complex issue but one that must be addressed with the growing usage of biometric technologies.
The concern about the collection of data significantly pre-dates the biometric issue and the current political battle over TikTok. There are a lot of valid reasons to worry about how much data and what kind of data is being collected, what can be deduced by it, and how it will be used. No one wants to be seen or treated like a data point or a number. Now give me your credit card, bank routing, and social security number if you want 20 percent off your next purchase by joining our loyalty members program.
I am all for data collection and digital advancements and the ways that they can enhance our lives. I’m also all for the right level of scrutiny to be sure the evolving tools aren’t used inappropriately. Shades of Big Brother. The opportunities for abuse are plentiful. So if it takes an occasional lawsuit along the way to pressure test how new tools are being employed, so be it.
Two years ago, there were 11 states in the U.S. that had separate privacy legislation waiting to be debated in house chambers. Obviously, we have CCPA in California and, like the EU, I have no doubt there will soon be some type of national privacy law that will come up for vote. That said, Amazon’s programs are opt-in and consumer’s need to understand what this means in terms of how a retailer could use their personal data. There are tremendous advances associated with loyalty and customer 360 when retailers apply the right data at the right time. But negative situations do bubble up, as we’ve witnessed several $100 million+ lawsuits in the last three years with the EU’s GDPR legislation.
Growing tension between personalization and privacy could increase consumer pushback and legal action, shaping retail’s use of biometrics.
Yet facial and voice recognition are getting more pervasive (iPhones, stores, airports, banking). Rising levels of theft will increase demand for more sophisticated surveillance for store security.
Retailers using biometric technology need to prioritize transparency to protect consumer trust and loyalty.
I just got back from Tokyo last week — good use of biometrics at the borders to compare against our passports. And we had signed up for Global Entry, so coming back into the U.S. was one facial scan + one quick human interaction which took about five minutes — even faster than Japan! But I would expect biometrics to be used for security — I really don’t want 7-Eleven watching me decide which candy bar to pick in the U.S., and they aren’t trying anything like that overseas. Automated checkouts yes, but not taking pictures of customers.
Wait — “customer body shape?” If you put up a sign on your store’s door announcing that you were recording customers’ body shapes, people would probably head for the hills. Sure using a palm print is voluntary, but Amazon should be more forthcoming about what that entails. It’s a hard no for me.
I am guessing the customer body shape data is being used to develop their brick-and-mortar apparel store test.
Another example of how (sadly) litigious we have become. I am definitely in the camp of
“Mr. Perez does not have to shop at Amazon Go stores.” This suit feels very opportunistic to me.
If there is value in collecting the data, value that the customer “feels” whether with faster checkout times or better pricing due to lower shrink, then good for Amazon. If on the other hand they are selling that data–bad, bad, bad!
Quick answers, yes and yes. Lawsuits, but also customers voting with their dollars, will impact all businesses that gather data that is perceived as personal (looking at you body shape, gender, ethnicity, age, disability, etc.). I suppose you could have an “opt-in” program for all of the above, but I don’t know if retailers could sustainably deliver the level of value their customers would expect in return. Retailers will need to be very thoughtful when experimenting with and deploying biometric solutions and should probably be doing their due diligence on available solutions that can deliver the same or similar benefits while remaining compliant with GDPR and other current and coming privacy regulations. (Shameless plug: www.ariadne.inc)
We’ll definitely see more lawsuits, and legislation – tho given that we’re starting from a baseline of almost zero in both cases that doesn’t mean much – the real question is will they have an impact ?? And should they ?? There’s a basic argument that people have no right to privacy when they are in public – sign or no – but a countervaling argument that this violates historical norms. Personally, I’m not comfortable with it (and again, whether I’ve been “informed” by signage makes little difference).
My hunch is that shoppers won’t like the retailer’s use of biometric tracking. If there is signage announcing this collection, some shoppers will change stores.
Many customers today voluntarily provide their sensitive data online via websites, social media, and e-commerce as long as retailers make their lives easier.
Therefore, in my opinion, complying with the laws shouldn’t be difficult for retailers. By keeping customers informed about data collection, retailers can easily manage their activities in accordance with the regulations.