Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 2, 2021
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
New York City businesses should be aware that the City’s new biometric privacy ordinance is now in effect. So, if you are not yet in compliance, the time to act is now.
Under New York City’s biometric privacy ordinance, which took effect on July 9, 2021, businesses must post notices and signs at their doors informing customers how their data will be collected. Failing to comply with the notice requirement can result in costly penalties.
The new ordinance regulates the use of “biometric identifier information,” which is defined as “a physiological or biological characteristic that is used … singly or in combination, to identify, or assist in identifying, an individual, including, but not limited to: (i) a retina or iris scan, (ii) a fingerprint or voiceprint, (iii) a scan of hand or face geometry, or any other identifying characteristic.”
Notably, the law does not apply to biometric identifier information collected through photographs or video recordings, if: (i) the images or videos collected are not analyzed by software or applications that identify, or that assist with the identification of, individuals based on physiological or biological characteristics, and (ii) the images or video are not shared with, sold or leased to third parties other than law enforcement agencies.
New York City’s new data privacy ordinance applies to a wide range of commercial establishments, including retail, food, and entertainment businesses. A “food and beverage” establishment is defined as one that “gives or offers for sale food or beverages to the public for consumption or use on or off the premises, or on or off a pushcart, stand or vehicle.” Meanwhile, a “retail” establishment is one “wherein consumer commodities are sold, displayed or offered for sale, or where services are provided to consumers at retail.” Finally, entertainment establishments are defined to include “any privately or publicly owned and operated entertainment facility, such as a theater, stadium, arena, racetrack, museum, amusement park, observatory, or other place where attractions, performances, concerts, exhibits, athletic games or contests are held.”
What Is Required Under the New Law?
New York City’s biometric data privacy ordinance requires any commercial establishment that collects, retains, converts, stores or shares biometric identifier information of customers to disclose such activity by placing a “clear and conspicuous” sign near all of the commercial establishment’s customer entrances. The disclosure must notify customers in “plain, simple language” that customers’ biometric identifier information is being collected, retained, converted, stored or shared, as applicable.
The ordinance also makes it “unlawful to sell, lease, trade, share in exchange for anything of value or otherwise profit from the transaction of biometric identifier information.” Notably, none of the categories of biometric identifier information are excluded from this requirement.
Businesses should be aware that, much like the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), New York City’s biometric privacy ordinance establishes a private right of action. At least 30 days prior to initiating any action against a commercial establishment for a violation of the notice requirement, the aggrieved person must provide written notice to the commercial establishment setting forth their allegation.
If within 30 days, the commercial establishment cures the violation and provides the aggrieved person an express written statement that the violation has been cured and that no further violations shall occur, no action may be initiated against the commercial establishment. If a commercial establishment continues to violate the ordinance, the aggrieved person may initiate an action. No prior written notice is required for actions alleging a violation of the provision prohibiting the sale/sharing of biometric data. A prevailing party may recover damages of $500 for each violation of the notice requirement, as well as for each negligent violation of the prohibition of the sale/sharing of biometric data. For each intentional or reckless violation of the provision prohibiting the sale/sharing of biometric data, damages of $5,000 may be awarded. Courts are also authorized to award a prevailing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Thomas Herndon, Jr., or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Author: John D. Giampolo

For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Author: George McGowan

As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
Author: George McGowan

Receiving a federal grand jury subpoena is not something most businesses or individuals anticipate. While it can be concerning, a federal grand jury subpoena does not necessarily mean that you are being accused of wrongdoing. It does, however, mean that a federal criminal investigation is underway and that federal prosecutors believe you may possess information […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!