| Lemonade
Insurance Was Sued For Iris Scans and
Biometrics Use Now Some Claims Survive
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC-Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
NY
Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
August 10–
Lemonade Insurance Company has
been sued for allegedly
unlawful collection, storage,
analysis and use of its
customers' biometric
data.
On May 31,
U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn
held a conference. Inner City
Press covered it.
The
complaint notes that Lemonade
"touts is ability to extract
1,600 data points about a
customer by asking only 13
questions."
On May 31,
allegations were made about
Lemonade's use of iris scans,
fingerprints, voiceprints and
hand and face geometry scans,
and to a similar case in
Illinois.
A stay of
discovery was requested.
Judge Netburn said she would
take it under advisement and
rule soon.
On June 1 Judge
Netburn ordered that since the
parties will not resolve their
dispute through the putative
class action settlement in
Illinois, a discovery schedule
was due on June 8.
On June 8, the
parties filed the schedule,
based off the Court entering
the parties stipulation: close
of fact discovery, 10 months;
filing of disposive motions in
16 months.
On August 9,
District Judge John G. Koeltl
dismissed some but not all
claims: "the plaintiffs have
alleged both overpayment and
injury over the course of the
contract, and their GBL § 349
claims may therefore co-exist
with their breach of contract
claims. 4. Contrary to
Lemonade's contentions,
applying§ 349 to
representations about
biometric information is
consistent with New York law.
Lemonade argues that, because
the plaintiffs rely on a
definition of biometric
information that is similar to
the definition used by an
Illinois biometric information
statute, applying§ 349 to
representations about
biometric information would
circumvent the New York
legislature's decision not to
enact such a statute. But
applying the GEL to biometric
information does not create
special protections for
biometric information. It
merely confers the same
protection against "deceptive
acts or practicesff about
biometric information as about
all other aspects of
"business, trade or
commerce.ff Applying the GEL
to representations about the
collection of biometric
information therefore does not
create a new cause of action
and is entirely consistent
with the requirements of New
York law: For these reasons,
the motion to dismiss the§ 349
claim is denied." So the case
continues.
The case is
Pruden v. Lemonade, Inc. et
al., 21-cv-7070 (Koeltl /
Netburn)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
