IAPP CIPP/US Practice Exam

Category - Professional

 A financial institution headquartered in New York collects and stores fingerprint and facial recognition data to enable seamless methods for customers to access their accounts.

The bank actively markets this seamless account access feature to acquire customers and gain market share to increase revenues. However, the financial institution has not provided notice to customers as to how the data is collected, used, and stored, nor do customers provide consent for collecting, using, and storing their biometric data.
 
Biometric data, including facial recognition data for a customer residing in Illinois, is breached. Which of the following is true?
  1. The bank may face criminal liability under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
  2. The bank faces the potential of private rights of action by customers in Illinois under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) since customers residing in Illinois never consented to collecting, using, and storing their private information.
  3. The bank is immune from liability since it is headquartered in New York state, but not New York City, which has not enacted any biometric privacy laws.
  4. The bank faces the potential of enforcement of violations as per se unfair or deceptive trades and practices at the discretion of the Washington Attorney General.
Explanation
Answer: B - Under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) allows for a private right of action by Illinois citizens who face damages and harm for biometric data breaches when the customer never consented to the collection, use, and storage of their private information. In addition, if an organization, even an organization headquartered in another state, does not obtain consent from Illinois customers before collecting, using and/or storing biometric data, those customers can seek remedy under civil suits.

Washington state’s biometric privacy laws and Texas’s Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) do not generally allow for private rights of action. Under these state laws, enforcement of violations is typically left to the discretion of the respective states’ Attorney Generals. The AG’s Office may treat violations as per se unfair and deceptive trades and practices.
Was this helpful? Upvote!
Login to contribute your own answer or details

Top questions

Related questions

Most popular on PracticeQuiz