Regulatory scoping for biometric systems
Fingerprint, voiceprint, and face-geometry features sit under a cluster of state biometric statutes that share a common skeleton — notice, consent, retention limits — but differ sharply on enforcement. Illinois BIPA has a private right of action; Texas CUBI and Washington’s law are attorney-general-enforced, and the Texas AG has used CUBI to reach billion-dollar settlements.
Regulations Magist tracks for this vertical
Coverage of these newer regimes is published as draft and reviewed on a rolling basis.
Questions that determine your footprint
Do you capture fingerprints, voiceprints, or face geometry?
Capturing a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose can trigger notice, consent, and retention-schedule duties under BIPA, CUBI, and Washington’s law — and voiceprints and face geometry reach voice assistants and photo-tagging, not just fingerprint scanners.
Which states are your users in?
The enforcement risk differs by state: Illinois exposure is private class-action-driven, while Texas and Washington exposure is attorney-general-driven, so the same feature can carry a different risk profile by jurisdiction.
Do you have a destruction schedule?
A written retention-and-destruction schedule keyed to when the collection purpose expires is a recurring requirement, and an indefinite-retention default is typically the easiest obligation to fall short on.
See exactly which of 155+ regulations apply to your biometric systems product.
Magist is an instrument, not a consultancy. It does not sell compliance services or take payment from vendors for placement; the analysis is the same for everyone.
Magist provides legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney.