1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,120
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Facebook is much

6
00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:22,560
Speaker 1: closer to a courtroom and a trial where it will

7
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,760
Speaker 1: be exposed to billions of dollars in damages. It could

8
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 1: not undo a ruling that allows millions of its users

9
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:31,640
Speaker 1: to band together in a lawsuit accusing the social network

10
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:36,400
Speaker 1: of gathering and storing biometric data without consent. Joining me

11
00:00:36,440 --> 00:00:39,640
Speaker 1: is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School

12
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 1: of Law. Eric, this is a privacy suit by Illinois

13
00:00:43,800 --> 00:00:47,879
Speaker 1: Facebook users. What are they claiming here? They're claiming that

14
00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:52,680
Speaker 1: Facebook created staff shots of their faith geometry and violation

15
00:00:52,760 --> 00:00:56,360
Speaker 1: of the statute which requires Facebook to obtain their consent

16
00:00:56,480 --> 00:01:02,760
Speaker 1: before making those geometry calculations. This is a class action lawsuit.

17
00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:05,800
Speaker 1: What was the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit for allowing

18
00:01:05,840 --> 00:01:08,959
Speaker 1: it to go forward as a class well? The ruling

19
00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:12,119
Speaker 1: didn't deal with all of the different issues that need

20
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,319
Speaker 1: to be adjudicated in this dispute. Facebook is trying some

21
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:18,959
Speaker 1: procedural moves to either eliminate the food or to make

22
00:01:19,000 --> 00:01:22,919
Speaker 1: it less dangerous. So, for example, it tried to claim

23
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: that the members of the class didn't have common interest,

24
00:01:27,360 --> 00:01:29,640
Speaker 1: especially about the fact that they were based in Illinois

25
00:01:29,720 --> 00:01:32,319
Speaker 1: but bringing in laws in California. But the court said

26
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 1: that the lower court could properly determine whether or not

27
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:38,119
Speaker 1: the Illinois residents had a right to bring a laws

28
00:01:38,240 --> 00:01:42,240
Speaker 1: in California, and therefore they could all be adjudicated together.

29
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:46,320
Speaker 1: Facebook is exposed to these huge penalties in this suit

30
00:01:46,920 --> 00:01:50,320
Speaker 1: because of the Illinois Privacy Act, and I suppose that's

31
00:01:50,360 --> 00:01:54,480
Speaker 1: why Illinois residents brought it. Yeah, right, The laws shouldn't

32
00:01:54,480 --> 00:01:58,960
Speaker 1: apply to any other residents, so it's a Illinois specific law.

33
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:02,640
Speaker 1: And of course that some interesting questions about how Facebook

34
00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:06,920
Speaker 1: could deal with one specific state statutes when it's appealing

35
00:02:06,960 --> 00:02:10,240
Speaker 1: to people across the globe. I will add that since

36
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:14,040
Speaker 1: Illinois enacted law, a few other states have enacted similar laws,

37
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:17,280
Speaker 1: although they're not identical, so there could be other claims

38
00:02:17,280 --> 00:02:20,280
Speaker 1: in the future by residents of other states. Explain what

39
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:25,400
Speaker 1: this law specifically requires, Well, the law is basically trying

40
00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:30,800
Speaker 1: to prevent anyone, including Facebook, but not exclusively Facebook, from

41
00:02:30,919 --> 00:02:34,560
Speaker 1: using biometric information. So there's a bunch of different ways

42
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:38,120
Speaker 1: in which we are uniquely identifiable as people based on

43
00:02:38,240 --> 00:02:41,640
Speaker 1: our body. That includes things like our face. But there's

44
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:45,120
Speaker 1: another traits that we have that can be through machine

45
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:49,880
Speaker 1: learning and computer algorithms, uniquely identifying individual people. So the

46
00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 1: law tries to prevent all of that, and say, anyone

47
00:02:52,840 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: who wants to gather and use biometric information needs to

48
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,520
Speaker 1: obtain consent from the person who's going to be acorded

49
00:03:00,560 --> 00:03:03,280
Speaker 1: in the database. And then there's some other procedural requirements

50
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: like that information has to be tossed in a certain

51
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:10,480
Speaker 1: period of time. Other than procedural defenses, what is Facebook's

52
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:14,079
Speaker 1: defense to the merits of the case. There's a lot

53
00:03:14,080 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 1: of great defenses. I think that Facebook actually did the

54
00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:22,520
Speaker 1: behavior that the statute tried to regulate, but that's not

55
00:03:22,600 --> 00:03:25,000
Speaker 1: the end of the inquiry. So, as I mentioned, one

56
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:28,440
Speaker 1: of the things that I'm struggling with is how Facebook

57
00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 1: could uniquely determine that someone's an Illinois resident governed by

58
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 1: this law versus a California resident not governed by this law.

59
00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:38,000
Speaker 1: The only way they might know that is by actually

60
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: figuring that who that person is, and the biometrics would

61
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:42,520
Speaker 1: have been necessary to do that. So there's a kind

62
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:44,880
Speaker 1: of feedback loop here. How does Facebook noll is dealing

63
00:03:44,920 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: with Illinois residents if it doesn't actually uniquely identify them

64
00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:51,880
Speaker 1: using biometrics? But if it does uniquely identify them using biometrics,

65
00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,560
Speaker 1: then they've broken the law. So there's a little bit

66
00:03:54,600 --> 00:03:56,920
Speaker 1: of a tautology here for Facebook. That's one of the

67
00:03:56,960 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 1: substance questions I have about this case. Did Google win

68
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,920
Speaker 1: dismissal of a similar suit in December? So how did

69
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:07,360
Speaker 1: they win dismissal on the other grounds? Sorry, I have

70
00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: to remember that. Now. Facebook said it plans to seek

71
00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 1: further review of the ruling. Is it talking about a

72
00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:17,040
Speaker 1: request for an on bank ruling at the Ninth Circuit

73
00:04:17,320 --> 00:04:21,599
Speaker 1: or the Supreme Court? Yeah. The standard protocoll would be

74
00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:24,560
Speaker 1: for to ask the Ninth Circuit to hear the case again.

75
00:04:25,080 --> 00:04:28,240
Speaker 1: It would first ask the panel to reconsider what they did,

76
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:30,440
Speaker 1: and they're probably not going to do that. It would

77
00:04:30,440 --> 00:04:34,560
Speaker 1: ascend a larger group of nine Circuit judges to consider

78
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,880
Speaker 1: the case again. That's called an on bo kiering, and

79
00:04:37,920 --> 00:04:41,320
Speaker 1: those are possible. But they're they're not granted very frequently,

80
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:43,760
Speaker 1: and then if it's denied on both of those and

81
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: theological step would be fair to appeal the Supreme Court,

82
00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:48,760
Speaker 1: where the odds of it getting the Supreme Court to

83
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:51,360
Speaker 1: take it are very low. This has already been delayed

84
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,800
Speaker 1: for more than a year with Facebook's appeals. Trial was

85
00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:58,279
Speaker 1: originally set for July of last year. Tell us about

86
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:00,360
Speaker 1: the judge if you know in that case who seems

87
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:05,800
Speaker 1: unsympathetic to Facebook's arguments for limiting its exposure. Well, in

88
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:08,200
Speaker 1: the end, I think that all judges trying to apply

89
00:05:08,279 --> 00:05:10,720
Speaker 1: the law, So you know, in the end, like every

90
00:05:10,720 --> 00:05:12,800
Speaker 1: other judge, this judge is trying to get it right.

91
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:15,600
Speaker 1: My own impression of this particular judge has said he's

92
00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:19,440
Speaker 1: been quite skeptical of the Internet company claims about why

93
00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:21,719
Speaker 1: they use technology the way that they do. I've seen

94
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:25,480
Speaker 1: some other rulings from him that against suggest that skepticism.

95
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:27,279
Speaker 1: In the end, I expect him to apply the law

96
00:05:27,440 --> 00:05:31,000
Speaker 1: so that skepticism shouldn't matter to the end. But definitely,

97
00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:33,920
Speaker 1: if they're is a great area, I would expect him

98
00:05:33,920 --> 00:05:36,880
Speaker 1: to be less accommodating of the Internet Company's arguments and

99
00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:39,760
Speaker 1: maybe other judges. Would you know people talk about Facebook

100
00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:43,160
Speaker 1: being exposed to billions of dollars in damages, it's already

101
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 1: agreed to. I think it was a five billion dollar

102
00:05:45,520 --> 00:05:50,559
Speaker 1: fine with the FTC. Do billions really matter to Facebook? Well,

103
00:05:50,600 --> 00:05:55,480
Speaker 1: at some point the money runs out, So um, Facebook

104
00:05:55,760 --> 00:05:57,920
Speaker 1: has a lot of money. They're they're one of the

105
00:05:57,960 --> 00:06:01,880
Speaker 1: wealthiest companies in the world. Um. But but the fact

106
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: that a single state could create damages obligation that could

107
00:06:08,080 --> 00:06:12,560
Speaker 1: dwarf any other government's imposition of penalty on Facebook. It's

108
00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:14,560
Speaker 1: something that we just want to note. We can't we

109
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:17,800
Speaker 1: can't be so cavalier about Facebook's wealth when you realize

110
00:06:17,920 --> 00:06:22,039
Speaker 1: we're just talking about Illinois users of Facebook. We're not

111
00:06:22,080 --> 00:06:26,640
Speaker 1: talking about the billions of other users of Facebook. Interesting. So, now,

112
00:06:26,920 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 1: of all the different investigations and regulators that are looking

113
00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:33,719
Speaker 1: at Facebook, which would you say, about a minute, here

114
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:36,440
Speaker 1: is the one that has to worry about most. I

115
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 1: think I have to worry about all of them. I

116
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:41,640
Speaker 1: know that's a lot flip, but basically, regulators are gunning

117
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:45,359
Speaker 1: for Facebook across the board, across the globe, and so

118
00:06:45,839 --> 00:06:48,000
Speaker 1: any one of them they can find the right tool,

119
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:52,840
Speaker 1: is determined to destroy Facebook. This lawsuit, you expected to

120
00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 1: go to trial. Actually, at this point, I'm not sure

121
00:06:55,680 --> 00:06:58,480
Speaker 1: what moved. Facebook still has to prevent that. So if

122
00:06:58,480 --> 00:07:01,360
Speaker 1: they can't find another mood to prevent trial, then that's

123
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:04,320
Speaker 1: that is the logical next step. All right, Thanks so much, Eric,

124
00:07:04,360 --> 00:07:06,560
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure having you on. That's Eric Goldman. He's

125
00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:12,840
Speaker 1: a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Thanks

126
00:07:12,880 --> 00:07:16,160
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

127
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:19,440
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and

128
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This

129
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:25,000
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg