NAVIGATING THE SHIFTING LEGAL LANDSCAPE OF BIOMETRIC DATA
The news cycle is currently buzzing with the "narrowing" of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Between the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion in the Amazon case and the Seventh Circuit’s move to a per-person rather than a per-scan damages model, it might seem like the pressure is lifting for developers and investigators working with facial comparison technology.
But if you are building, deploying, or utilizing computer vision (CV) tools, reading "narrowing" as "safe" is a critical technical and professional error. For developers managing biometric pipelines, this shift doesn't reduce the need for robust architecture; it changes the nature of the technical debt you’re accruing.
From Per-Scan to Per-Person: The Architectural Pivot
From a backend perspective, the shift from a $7.5 million theoretical liability (based on per-scan counts) to a $5,000 cap (per person) sounds like a win for the bean counters. However, the litigation frequency tells a different story. With over 100 new class actions filed in 2025 alone, the volume of litigation is actually increasing.
For developers, this means the focus moves from "how many times did we process this face?" to "how definitively can we prove the origin and consent of this specific vector?" If you are using facial comparison—calculating the Euclidean distance between two face embeddings to determine a match—your logs need to be more than just timestamped entries. They need to be court-ready audit trails.
In investigative workflows, we differentiate strictly between facial recognition (scanning mass crowds) and facial comparison (analyzing specific images within a case). The latter is a standard investigative methodology, but the algorithms are only as good as the reporting they generate. If your CV tool provides a match but can't provide the mathematical confidence intervals or a professional report to back it up, the lower BIPA damages won't save you from a malpractice claim or a tossed case.
Euclidean Distance and the Accuracy Gap
Many investigators have been forced to choose between enterprise-grade tools costing $2,000/year and consumer-grade search engines with a 2.4/5 reliability rating. For a developer, the technical frustration here is obvious: the underlying math—Euclidean distance analysis—is a known quantity. There is no reason for high-caliber analysis to be locked behind a five-figure government contract.
At CaraComp, we’ve focused on bringing that enterprise-grade Euclidean distance analysis to solo investigators at 1/23rd the price. For the person writing the code, the challenge isn't just the match; it’s the reliability of the true positive rate. Using tools that rely on unreliable scraping or "black box" algorithms puts the investigator at risk of missing a critical match or, worse, identifying the wrong subject.
When you’re processing a batch of case photos, you need an API-less, simple UI that handles the heavy lifting of comparison without the surveillance-style tracking that triggers the heaviest BIPA scrutiny.
Why Technical Documentation Is Your New Firewall
As the legal landscape mutates, your technical documentation becomes your primary defense. The "narrowing" of the law actually puts a spotlight on purpose limitation. Courts are increasingly interested in whether biometric workflows are proportionate to a documented investigative purpose.
If your workflow involves:
- Batch processing multiple faces across a single case.
- Generating side-by-side comparison reports.
- Maintaining clear data silos between different investigations.
...then you are building a defensible technical stack. If you are just "searching the web" with unreliable tools that don't offer reporting, you are the exact target the "new" BIPA litigation is aimed at.
The legal ceiling for damages has dropped, but the floor for technical professionalization has risen. In 2025 and beyond, the investigators who win will be the ones who adopt enterprise-caliber math without the enterprise-caliber price tag.
How is your team adjusting your data retention and logging policies in light of the new per-person damages model in biometric litigation?
