Why Hollywood Should Pay Attention to Biometric Privacy An Illinois biometric law is sparking a wave of class actions [] The Illinois law <http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3004&ChapterID=57> was enacted in 2008 upon the appearance of finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations and school cafeterias. There was growing concern of how biometric identifiers could be misused. In the past year, though, this statute has captured the attention of class-action attorneys. Much like the spate of lawsuits targeting entertainment companies <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/how-entertainment-companies-are-fig...> over the Video Privacy Protection Act, there have been a growing number of class actions over biometric privacy. And they are proving a nuisance for defendants. In April, Shutterfly settled a lawsuit <https://www.dataprivacyandsecurityinsider.com/2016/04/shutterfly-settles-ill...> after a judge refused to accept its argument that the Illinois law's exemption on photographs left it immune from claims. Two weeks ago, a judge rejected Facebook's argument <http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/5/11605068/facebook-photo-tagging-lawsuit-bio...> that its terms of service meant that it was only bound by California and federal laws. Google is also facing a biometric suit. And it's not just tech companies. The Illinois law has already hit the outer reaches of the entertainment industry. Last October, video game maker Take-Two Interactive was hit with a putative class action over its /NBA 2K15/ and /NBA 2K16/ games. It's alleged in the complaint that Take-Two had failed to obtain informed consent from those using PS4 and Xbox cameras to scan their facial geometry to create personable basketball player avatars. The case is being litigated in New York thanks to a forum clause in the user agreement, but that's not stopping the judge from examining whether Take-Two is violating Illinois' biometric statute by collecting and storing face scans. Interestingly, a ruling last week by the U.S. Supreme Court could impact these lawsuits. In /Spokeo v. Robins/, the high court ruled <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/13-1339_f2q3.pdf> that to have standing, plaintiffs must show an injury that is both “concrete and particularized.” In other words, merely showing a company is storing biometric data might not be enough. There's got to be concrete harm, whatever that means. The Supreme Court kicked it back to a lower appeals court to examine. Just a day after it did so, Take-Two told its judge about the /Spokeo/ development. Take-Two has a pending motion (read here <https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2840029-TakeTwo-Biometric.html>) that's premised on the argument that because there's no allegation that /NBA 2K16 /users have been "aggrieved" by biometric collection, the lawsuit should be dismissed. [] <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/why-hollywood-should-pay-attention-...>