Facebook faces class-action sueball over facial recognition pic-tagging tech to tune of $35bn

Facebook will face a class-action lawsuit with a payout potential of $35bn over how its photo tagging and facial recognition software works. A US appeal court ruled yesterday that the antisocial network's attempts to bat away the sueball should fall accordingly, opening up Mark Zuckerberg's company to potentially billions of …

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowhere near enough

Need to add several zero's to that amount.

FB are trying hard to become the real Big Brother and rule the world.

Zuck, it was a work of fiction and not a workshop manual.

[Joe W]

Re: Nowhere near enough

We now need somebody to get the ball rolling in the EU over that issue...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Nowhere near enough

I live in europe there are tons of embarassing pics of me tagged in arsebook: I claim my 5000€

AC so you dont go searching! :)

[Adrian 4]

Re: Nowhere near enough

"7 million Facebook users could be in line for a payout of between $1,000 and $5,000 each"

Why only Facebook users ? Don't they attempt to tag non-users too ?

[big_D]

Re: Nowhere near enough

Don't you think the name gives it away? Facebook Inc, FB Inc... FBI. Its just a cover.

[Bongwater]

Re: Nowhere near enough

I think you are mistaking them for Flowers By Irene.

[macjules]

Could not happen to a nicer company

I shall send flowers.

Oh wait. No I won't.

[Haku]

Re: Could not happen to a nicer company

Oh I don't know, if/when the time comes, sending them a floral arrangement that spells out "HA-HA" in Comic Sans for their grave would be appropriate.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll know how really worried Zuck and others are at Facebook by watching the reports of future insider trading. Zuck starts dumping; the company's gonna probably take a thumping.

[Pascal Monett]

I'm sure The Zuck will have his lawyers fight this tooth and nail

I just hope the courts will stay the course and nail his company to the wall.

The drop in share price alone will be a pleasure to see.

[don't you hate it when you lose your account]

My current project

Is designing Moral Recognition Software. Think there's definitely a market. The only shame is as I have morals I have to make it opt in

[Anonymous Coward]

$35bn

of which about $35m goes to the "victims". As to the rest...

[Wellyboot]

Re: $35bn

If the fine goes to the state does everyone get a tax refund at the end of the year?

[John Brown (no body)]

Every year...

"Every year, said Wessler, technology companies and their trade groups try to roll back BIPA,"

And every year, the "people" bit of "government of the people, by the people, for the people" have to tell them to fuck off, the "people" have spoken. Again. And again. And yet again.

[nematoad]

Re: Every year...

Yes, but they only have to win once.

[Charles 9]

Re: Every year...

No, because the other side can always win it BACK. And unlike The People, they lack scruples.

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile Microsoft in Win10 1903 tries to sneak in face recognition...

When I upgraded one machine after boot appeared a long list of privacy settings where total slurping ones were all enabled by default. One option was face recognition in the Photos app, asserting that if the customers accepted it, they declared they had all the required permissions for the images and the people within - something probably no one really has (but photographers in a studio, or a fully controlled sets), a lame attempt to avoid litigations, IMHO, as the option is on by default. Let's wait for someone objecting to it in a court...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Meanwhile Microsoft in Win10 1903 tries to sneak in face recognition...

MS and Courts?

MS almost never loses which is why people don't sue them as often as other companies. Hint, what OS do the court systems use?

[flayman]

How do you injure a right?

"Because a violation of the Illinois statute injures an individual's right to privacy, we reject Facebook's claim..."

What? As far as I know a right can be infringed without implying injury. Probably a purely technical point, but from a court of law the language is a bit unnerving. I suppose it means that the collection of the biometric data without consent is injurious in and of itself. Don't get me wrong, I hate that company.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: How do you injure a right?

> What? As far as I know a right can be infringed without implying injury.

"Because a violation of the Illinois statute injures an individual's right to privacy, we reject Facebook's claim..."

In the sense it is being used, injured means exactly the same thing as infringed. If lawyers used words in the same way as everyone else, legal proceedings would be far clearer and so they wouldn't be able to charge so much. So they don't.

[CrazyOldCatMan]

Re: How do you injure a right?

If lawyers used words in the same way as everyone else

They do - except the "everybody else" bit was as of ~200 years ago..

[BuckeyeB]

Maybe we can keep Facebook so busy for the next 2 years trying to defend this lawsuit(and then losing) that they'll not interfere with the next Presidential election.