The New York Mets' Citi Field faces a legal challenge over the use of facial recognition technology. Chris Dowling, a fan, has filed a class-action lawsuit against Queens Ballpark Company, LLC, the operator of Citi Field, alleging violations of New York City's Biometric Identifier Protection Code. Dowling claims that the use of facial recognition technology at Citi Field violates the city's law governing the collection and use of biometric information. The lawsuit highlights concerns about data management and potential misuse, as technology experts warned the City Council that biometric data could be collected and sold to third parties without consumer consent.
The case is significant as it follows a similar lawsuit against Madison Square Garden, which was dismissed by a federal judge. The judge ruled that the Biometrics Law was not violated because Madison Square Garden was not engaged in the sale or transaction of biometric information. However, Dowling's lawsuit against Citi Field alleges violations of the Biometrics Law, New York's consumer protection law, and unjust enrichment. Citi Field has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that there is no profit from the sale of biometric data and that the use of facial recognition technology was publicly known.
The Biometric Identifier Protection Code, enacted in 2021, prohibits the sale, lease, trade, or sharing of biometric identifier information for profit. The City Council's primary concern was the management and storage of data, as technology experts warned of potential misuse. Dowling's lawsuit highlights the ongoing debate over data collection practices and the need for regulation, especially in the context of increasing use of facial recognition technology in sports and entertainment venues.
The outcome of this case will have implications for the use of facial recognition technology in New York City and may prompt discussions about potential changes to the biometrics law. As the lawsuit progresses, it will be crucial to monitor the legal arguments and the court's decision, as it could set a precedent for similar cases in the future.
