Meta To Pay Record $1.4 Billion To Settle Texas Facial Recognition Suit (texastribune.org) 43
Meta will pay Texas $1.4 billion to settle a lawsuit alleging the company used personal biometric data without user consent, marking the largest privacy-related settlement ever obtained by a state. The Texas Tribune reports: The 2022 lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in state court, alleged that Meta had been using facial recognition software on photos uploaded to Facebook without Texans' consent. The settlement will be paid over five years. The attorney general's office did not say whether the money from the settlement would go into the state's general fund or if it would be distributed in some other way. The settlement, announced Tuesday, does not act as an admission of guilt and Meta maintains no wrongdoing. This was the first lawsuit Paxton's office argued under a 2009 state law that protects Texans' biometric data, like fingerprints and facial scans. The law requires businesses to inform and get consent from individuals before collecting such data. It also limits sharing this data, except in certain cases like helping law enforcement or completing financial transactions. Businesses must protect this data and destroy it within a year after it's no longer needed.
In 2011, Meta introduced a feature known as Tag Suggestions to make it easier for users to tag people in their photos. According to Paxton's office, the feature was turned on by default and ran facial recognition on users' photos, automatically capturing data protected by the 2009 law. That system was discontinued in 2021, with Meta saying it deleted over 1 billion people's individual facial recognition data. As part of the settlement, Meta must notify the attorney general's office of anticipated or ongoing activities that may fall under the state's biometric data laws. If Texas objects, the parties have 60 days to attempt to resolve the issue. Meta officials said the settlement will make it easier for the company to discuss the implications and requirements of the state's biometric data laws with the attorney general's office, adding that data protection and privacy are core priorities for the firm.
In 2011, Meta introduced a feature known as Tag Suggestions to make it easier for users to tag people in their photos. According to Paxton's office, the feature was turned on by default and ran facial recognition on users' photos, automatically capturing data protected by the 2009 law. That system was discontinued in 2021, with Meta saying it deleted over 1 billion people's individual facial recognition data. As part of the settlement, Meta must notify the attorney general's office of anticipated or ongoing activities that may fall under the state's biometric data laws. If Texas objects, the parties have 60 days to attempt to resolve the issue. Meta officials said the settlement will make it easier for the company to discuss the implications and requirements of the state's biometric data laws with the attorney general's office, adding that data protection and privacy are core priorities for the firm.
California (Score:2)
How can we get in on this?
Re: (Score:1)
Were you one of the people that said conservatives should get their own sites if they don't like how progressive owned sites were run?
Re: (Score:1)
Lol I've never had a single mod point here. So, no.
Are you one of the fascists who does that to me?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in Texas and I'd like to know how I can get in on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in Texas and I'd like to know how I can get in on it.
If Paxton intended for the money to go to residents I would have expected that to be in the press release (because it would have been good press). Instead, I suspect the money will go into the general fund, where it will be used to fund something of importance to the Texas executive and legislative branches. The posturing over the next budget cycle has already begun, and $500 million a year for five years may make it easier to fund some of the initiatives.
Re: (Score:3)
The posturing over the next budget cycle has already begun, and $500 million a year for five years
It's not quite that much - $1.4B over 5 years is about $280M/year.
Re:California (Score:4, Informative)
I'm in Texas and I'd like to know how I can get in on it.
Don't kid yourself. It's Ken Paxton, an AG under indictment for about 10 years now. The money will go to something he personally likes, not you.
Re: (Score:1)
Paxton doesn't control the money.
Indictments mean nothing. They're just an accusation made from one side without any defense.
Let us know when he's convicted of something.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem of the state of Texas not doing anything for residents extends way beyond Paxton. Being the head clown it's easy to fixate on him, but that's why I didn't specifically mention him.
You're asking for a conviction, but I don't think it's illegal to be a complete failure as a public servant. Is it?
Re: (Score:1)
He wasn't indicted for being a failed public servant. We have elections to fix that, not indictments.
So NOT the EU... (Score:5, Funny)
How does this work, I thought it was only the EU who did these massive fines against US companies. Perhaps Mete will have the leave the USA ??
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully. Can we send them?
oh the irony (Score:2)
Governments seeking new ways to produce rent income from very large companies, sounds about fair given that it's what these companies always aim for :)
Why settle (Score:3)
I clearly do not understand the justice system at play here, why settle? How do the people of Texas know that abuse of their private data will not happen (again)? It sounds like Facebook is now allowed to abuse private data but only for 60 days (plus the time by the state of Texas to react). Why give them these 60 days in the future? No abuse of private data is so important that it cannot be stopped immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
parties settle because of the obligation of transparency if things happen in court and the risk of losing on either side. Not a good outcome tho for changing practices, I assume, more of "cost of doing business" stuff on Meta's part
Re:Why settle (Score:4, Insightful)
How's that a deterrent against robbing more banks or committing more crimes? How is society protected by this kind of thing?
Re: (Score:1)
That's horrible!
Except that has literally never happened. But ok.
Re: Why settle (Score:2)
That was a poor analogy I think, however the question of the deterrent to Meta (and others) remains. Is this just the cost of doing business for Meta? Is this a way to put a price on privacy?
Meta[stasize]: (Score:3)
Meta[stasize]: the world's biggest privacy rapists.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook pales in comparison with Google, on account of the fact that you can avoid using all Facebook services, while you can never escape Google.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but Google is waaaay less underhanded and creepy about it (not to give Google any sort of pass). I guess Meta[stasize] is the worst of the most public privacy rapists of all (there's probably a billion hidden data brokers that are just as or even more worse).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't avoid Facebook. Even if you've never had an account on a FB owned service they use other data to create a profile for you and track you for sale.
Ken Paxton (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, its the totally corrupt Texas Attorney General, who duped investors and recently had to pay $300k in restitution. He was recently impeached by his own party and acquitted after Dan Patrick, who presided over the trial, received a tidy bribe of $3 million.
https://apnews.com/article/pax... [apnews.com]
Meta probably realized they weren't going to beat Texas no matter what and settled. Interesting that the money will go to some unspecified slush fund.
"The attorney general’s office did not say whether the money from the settlement would go into the state’s general fund or if it would be distributed in some other way."
Re: (Score:3)
Hey we don't call those bribes anymore. The court states they are gratuities and perfectly legal if payment is made AFTER the favor.
Re: (Score:2)
>> legal if payment is made AFTER the favor
But in this case the payment was made before the favor.
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case the payment was made before the favor.
So it was To Insure Prompt Service?
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is 300k is kinda like .. money under the couch at this point. I would survive pretty easily having to pay 300k, and I'm not saying I'm rich. But it would be a speeding ticket to that set.
Re: (Score:1)
From your own link,
"DELAYS PILE UP
The criminal case moved slowly from the start and was shuffled from one judge to the next.
A significant battle began outside the courtroom when Paxton allies spearheaded attacks on the special prosecutors’ $300 hourly rate, calling it an abuse of taxpayer money. Local leaders in Collin County, where Paxton lives and which is controlled by Republicans, agreed and voted to slash the pay.
As the years passed, Paxton’s lawyers blamed the delays on special prosecutors
Re: (Score:2)
Paxton did manage to delay the trial considerably. What was your point?
"Meta saying it deleted ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
One down. (Score:3)
Personally I am amazed they settled, establishing a precedent.
There are 49 more states and some territories that could use the cache. Even Meta would buckle under that amount of settlements.
Having been fined (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearview AI (Score:3)
Wait until they find out about Peter Thiel's investment Clearview AI and other advanced facescraping AI bots like PIM Eyes. These bots are actually wildly accurate and if there is a pic of you anywhere on the web - even in the background of a shot in a crowd - it will identify you. Even if you're wearing a mask. The privacy implications are if you're in public at all, you're identifiable.
It was originally only sold to government accounts, but the same tech got out to competitors - so anyone with $50 can identify any face on the internet on random sites.
Re: (Score:3)