Amazon Faces Class Action Over Ring Facial Recognition on Millions of Passersby
Updated
Updated · TechCrunch · Jun 2
Amazon Faces Class Action Over Ring Facial Recognition on Millions of Passersby
3 articles · Updated · TechCrunch · Jun 2
A proposed class action filed in Seattle accuses Amazon’s Ring of collecting and storing facial-recognition data from passersby without their consent through its Familiar Faces doorbell feature.
The feature, announced in September and launched in December, lets users identify regular visitors with alerts such as “Dad is at the door,” but critics say only the device owner—not scanned bystanders—can opt in.
Charles Sigwalt, a Virginia resident, brought the suit, which says “millions of other Americans” were unknowingly scanned as they passed Ring cameras.
Amazon did not immediately comment; when the feature launched, Ring said face data is encrypted, never shared, and unidentified faces are deleted after 30 days.
The lawsuit adds to Ring’s privacy scrutiny after Amazon paid a $5.8 million FTC settlement in 2023 over improper employee and contractor access to customer videos.
As rivals offer privacy-focused local storage, is Ring’s cloud-based facial recognition model becoming a liability?
Your face was scanned by a Ring doorbell. Who is legally at fault: the homeowner or Amazon?
Ring's own policy bans identifying strangers. Is its 'Familiar Faces' feature illegal by its own standards?
Amazon Ring Faces $5 Million Class Action Over Unconsented Facial Recognition: A Defining Moment for U.S. Biometric Privacy Laws
Overview
Amazon's Ring is facing a major legal challenge over its 'Familiar Faces' facial recognition feature, after a class-action lawsuit was filed by a Virginia resident in Seattle federal court. The lawsuit claims that Ring's system identifies and remembers frequent visitors, but also illegally collects and stores biometric data from anyone passing by, including neighbors and delivery workers, without their consent. This practice raises serious privacy concerns, as millions of people may have their facial data captured unknowingly. The case highlights the growing debate over unconsented biometric data collection and the urgent need for stronger privacy protections.