Doorbell Cameras in Court

Doorbell cameras have become the norm in many homes, but they’ve also become the target of several class action suits arising from privacy-related claims. Most recently, Google LLC (“Google”) has come under fire as a result of the Familiar Face Detection (“FFD”) feature offered via its Nest cameras.

Per the Google Home and Nest Help page, users can use FFD to teach their Nest Camera to recognize faces of known individuals and notify users if it detects unknown individuals.[1] FFD also leverages additional signals such as body size, clothing color, etc. to assist in identifying individuals captured on camera that have their face hidden. Also on the Nest Help page, Google notes to users that FFD is not available for cameras in Illinois and that it is up to the user to check local privacy laws before saving any of a camera’s face data.

Based on FFD, plaintiffs out of Virginia have filed a complaint seeking to represent a nationwide class and Virginia subclass of individuals who have had their facial-recognition data collected, stored, or used without consent.[2] Plaintiffs raise eight different causes of action, including violations of California’s Right of Publicity, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Invasion of Privacy, and several others.

It is apparent that Google has considered that FFD would violate Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) as it precludes the features use in Illinois, however, the question as to the aforementioned causes of action have yet to be established. While less clear than the notice and consent requirements under BIPA, plaintiffs have found numerous other avenues to seek recourse, including another set of Virginia plaintiffs in Sigwalt v. Amazon.com, Inc.[3]

Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) and Ring LLC (“Ring”) have a Ring security camera which offers a similar feature to FFD known as the Familiar Faces feature. Plaintiffs similarly allege that their faces were collected without consent by the Familiar Faces feature. As a result, plaintiffs raise numerous causes of action, including Unjust Enrichment, Intrusion Upon Seclusion, and Violations of the California Consumer Protection Act.

Both complaints raise issues with similar conduct but take a somewhat different approach to recovery. We will continue to monitor as these cases develop and provide any significant updates.