Google Lawsuit Claims Nest Cameras, Doorbells Collect Facial Data Without Consent

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Google has collected and stored the biometric information of millions of people through the Familiar Face Detection feature built into Nest security cameras and doorbells without providing notice to or obtaining consent from bystanders and passersby.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 26-page privacy lawsuit states that the Familiar Face Detection feature—with which Nest cameras learn to recognize the faces of friends, family members and other known individuals—was deliberately designed by Google to be invisible when scanning the faces of anyone who enters a camera’s field of view. Per the case, Nest cameras scan individuals’ faces without warning or an opportunity for a person to consent to having their biometric facial data captured.

According to the lawsuit, the feature uses artificial intelligence to create a mathematical template or faceprint of a person’s facial geometry—including the shape of their eyes, cheekbones, facial contours, and other unique characteristics. These biometric identifiers are then stored locally or in Google’s cloud and are used to determine whether an individual appearing before a camera is “familiar” or not, the case describes.

Per the suit, Google has yet to disclose exactly how long it retains the unlabeled facial data collected by its Nest cameras.

The case states that Google heavily markets Familiar Face Detection as a premium feature available for a $10-per-month subscription to Google Home Premium, creating a financial incentive for the tech giant to encourage widespread use of its surveillance technology.

However, while Nest owners can choose whether to activate the feature and consent to facial data collection, the lawsuit argues that the same cannot be said for every person who enters a camera’s view. The case stresses that a consequence of this surveillance is that an ordinary person moving through a neighborhood or past a business may unknowingly have their face scanned by multiple Nest cameras in a single trip.

Related Reading: Ring Lawsuit Claims ‘Familiar Faces’ Feature Violates ‘Basic Notions’ of Consumer Privacy

“Google has not modified the feature to obtain consent from bystanders, has not implemented any mechanism for bystanders to opt out, and has not disclosed to bystanders that their facial-recognition data is being collected,” the filing asserts.

The suit further alleges that Google provides no mechanism to distinguish or protect the biometric data of children, nor does the company obtain parental consent before scanning the faces of minors and creating faceprints.

According to the complaint, biometric information is particularly sensitive because, unlike passwords or credit card numbers, facial geometry cannot realistically be changed. The lawsuit argues that this makes the unauthorized collection and storage of faceprints especially concerning, given the threat of a data breach.

The case claims that Google is aware of the legal risks surrounding biometric privacy, noting that Illinois is the only state in which Google disables Familiar Face Detection by default due to the requirements of the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act. Elsewhere, however, the company instructs all Nest camera owners to “check [their] local privacy laws” before saving facial-recognition data, the suit adds.

The lawsuit argues that Google’s decision to disable the feature only where it faces heightened legal exposure “demonstrates a knowing, deliberate business decision to collect bystanders’ facial-recognition data wherever Google calculates that the risk is manageable.”

The Nest facial recognition class action lawsuit seeks to represent all natural individuals in the United States whose facial-recognition data was collected, created, stored or used by Google’s Familiar Face Detection feature on Nest cameras and doorbells without consent during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for the latest open class actions.