FB pixel

AGs from 22 states and DC oppose Clearview’s biometric data privacy settlement

AGs from 22 states and DC oppose Clearview’s biometric data privacy settlement
 

A novel settlement of a class action biometric data privacy lawsuit by Clearview AI that would give a stake in the company to claimants is being challenged on its way to the finish line by nearly half of the states in the U.S.

The Attorneys General of 22 states and the District of Columbia have filed a motion for leave to file an Amici Curiae brief to explain their opposition to the settlement to U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.

Vermont, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Washington.

The settlement was agreed to in June, and would give the class a 23 percent share in the company, which could be worth nearly $52 million in the case of a sale at a $225 million valuation reported at the time. It also includes an opportunity to claim a 17 percent share of Clearview’s revenue over the next two years.

Coleman gave the agreement preliminary approval on June 21, and plans to hold a hearing on Monday, December 16 to consider the Amici Curiae request.

The state AGs argue that the settlement does not provide injunctive relief – in other words, a mechanism to prevent the continuation of the harm cited — and therefore “is not fair, reasonable, and adequate.”  The plaintiffs also “failed to make a sufficient showing for why the highly unusual and speculative monetary recovery is adequate here.”

The filing also criticizes the 39 percent cut that goes to plaintiff’s attorneys under the agreement.

“The information and perspective that Amici States offer is critical to understanding the continued risk the proposed settlement poses to consumers,” the AGs argue.

Clearview has filed a motion to have the Amici Curiae briefs barred, on grounds that it is not timely, as the deadline for objections has passed. The states say the deadline does not apply to them, as they are not class members.

Related Posts

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Biometrics providers and systems evolve or get left behind

Biometrics are allowing people to prove who they are, speeding journeys through airports, and enabling anonymous online proof of age,…

 

Findynet funding development of six digital wallet solutions

Finnish public-private cooperative Findynet has announced it will award 60,000 euros (US$69,200) to six digital wallet vendors to help translate…

 

Patchwork of age check, online safety legislation grows across US

As the U.S. waits for the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Texas case of Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition, which…

 

AVPA laud findings from age assurance tech trial

The Age Verification Providers Association (AVPA), and several of its members, have welcomed the publication of preliminary findings from the…

 

Sri Lanka to launch govt API policies and guidelines

Sri Lanka’s government, in the wake of its digital economy drive, is gearing up to release application programming interface (API)…

 

Netherlands’ asylum seeker ID cards from Idemia use vertical ICAO format

The Netherlands will introduce new identity documents for asylum seekers Idemia Smart Identity, compliant with the ICAO specification for vertical…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Biometric Market Analysis

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events