Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Facebook is much
Speaker 1: closer to a courtroom and a trial where it will
Speaker 1: be exposed to billions of dollars in damages. It could
Speaker 1: not undo a ruling that allows millions of its users
Speaker 1: to band together in a lawsuit accusing the social network
Speaker 1: of gathering and storing biometric data without consent. Joining me
Speaker 1: is Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School
Speaker 1: of Law. Eric, this is a privacy suit by Illinois
Speaker 1: Facebook users. What are they claiming here? They're claiming that
Speaker 1: Facebook created staff shots of their faith geometry and violation
Speaker 1: of the statute which requires Facebook to obtain their consent
Speaker 1: before making those geometry calculations. This is a class action lawsuit.
Speaker 1: What was the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit for allowing
Speaker 1: it to go forward as a class well? The ruling
Speaker 1: didn't deal with all of the different issues that need
Speaker 1: to be adjudicated in this dispute. Facebook is trying some
Speaker 1: procedural moves to either eliminate the food or to make
Speaker 1: it less dangerous. So, for example, it tried to claim
Speaker 1: that the members of the class didn't have common interest,
Speaker 1: especially about the fact that they were based in Illinois
Speaker 1: but bringing in laws in California. But the court said
Speaker 1: that the lower court could properly determine whether or not
Speaker 1: the Illinois residents had a right to bring a laws
Speaker 1: in California, and therefore they could all be adjudicated together.
Speaker 1: Facebook is exposed to these huge penalties in this suit
Speaker 1: because of the Illinois Privacy Act, and I suppose that's
Speaker 1: why Illinois residents brought it. Yeah, right, The laws shouldn't
Speaker 1: apply to any other residents, so it's a Illinois specific law.
Speaker 1: And of course that some interesting questions about how Facebook
Speaker 1: could deal with one specific state statutes when it's appealing
Speaker 1: to people across the globe. I will add that since
Speaker 1: Illinois enacted law, a few other states have enacted similar laws,
Speaker 1: although they're not identical, so there could be other claims
Speaker 1: in the future by residents of other states. Explain what
Speaker 1: this law specifically requires, Well, the law is basically trying
Speaker 1: to prevent anyone, including Facebook, but not exclusively Facebook, from
Speaker 1: using biometric information. So there's a bunch of different ways
Speaker 1: in which we are uniquely identifiable as people based on
Speaker 1: our body. That includes things like our face. But there's
Speaker 1: another traits that we have that can be through machine
Speaker 1: learning and computer algorithms, uniquely identifying individual people. So the
Speaker 1: law tries to prevent all of that, and say, anyone
Speaker 1: who wants to gather and use biometric information needs to
Speaker 1: obtain consent from the person who's going to be acorded
Speaker 1: in the database. And then there's some other procedural requirements
Speaker 1: like that information has to be tossed in a certain
Speaker 1: period of time. Other than procedural defenses, what is Facebook's
Speaker 1: defense to the merits of the case. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of great defenses. I think that Facebook actually did the
Speaker 1: behavior that the statute tried to regulate, but that's not
Speaker 1: the end of the inquiry. So, as I mentioned, one
Speaker 1: of the things that I'm struggling with is how Facebook
Speaker 1: could uniquely determine that someone's an Illinois resident governed by
Speaker 1: this law versus a California resident not governed by this law.
Speaker 1: The only way they might know that is by actually
Speaker 1: figuring that who that person is, and the biometrics would
Speaker 1: have been necessary to do that. So there's a kind
Speaker 1: of feedback loop here. How does Facebook noll is dealing
Speaker 1: with Illinois residents if it doesn't actually uniquely identify them
Speaker 1: using biometrics? But if it does uniquely identify them using biometrics,
Speaker 1: then they've broken the law. So there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a tautology here for Facebook. That's one of the
Speaker 1: substance questions I have about this case. Did Google win
Speaker 1: dismissal of a similar suit in December? So how did
Speaker 1: they win dismissal on the other grounds? Sorry, I have
Speaker 1: to remember that. Now. Facebook said it plans to seek
Speaker 1: further review of the ruling. Is it talking about a
Speaker 1: request for an on bank ruling at the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: or the Supreme Court? Yeah. The standard protocoll would be
Speaker 1: for to ask the Ninth Circuit to hear the case again.
Speaker 1: It would first ask the panel to reconsider what they did,
Speaker 1: and they're probably not going to do that. It would
Speaker 1: ascend a larger group of nine Circuit judges to consider
Speaker 1: the case again. That's called an on bo kiering, and
Speaker 1: those are possible. But they're they're not granted very frequently,
Speaker 1: and then if it's denied on both of those and
Speaker 1: theological step would be fair to appeal the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: where the odds of it getting the Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: take it are very low. This has already been delayed
Speaker 1: for more than a year with Facebook's appeals. Trial was
Speaker 1: originally set for July of last year. Tell us about
Speaker 1: the judge if you know in that case who seems
Speaker 1: unsympathetic to Facebook's arguments for limiting its exposure. Well, in
Speaker 1: the end, I think that all judges trying to apply
Speaker 1: the law, So you know, in the end, like every
Speaker 1: other judge, this judge is trying to get it right.
Speaker 1: My own impression of this particular judge has said he's
Speaker 1: been quite skeptical of the Internet company claims about why
Speaker 1: they use technology the way that they do. I've seen
Speaker 1: some other rulings from him that against suggest that skepticism.
Speaker 1: In the end, I expect him to apply the law
Speaker 1: so that skepticism shouldn't matter to the end. But definitely,
Speaker 1: if they're is a great area, I would expect him
Speaker 1: to be less accommodating of the Internet Company's arguments and
Speaker 1: maybe other judges. Would you know people talk about Facebook
Speaker 1: being exposed to billions of dollars in damages, it's already
Speaker 1: agreed to. I think it was a five billion dollar
Speaker 1: fine with the FTC. Do billions really matter to Facebook? Well,
Speaker 1: at some point the money runs out, So um, Facebook
Speaker 1: has a lot of money. They're they're one of the
Speaker 1: wealthiest companies in the world. Um. But but the fact
Speaker 1: that a single state could create damages obligation that could
Speaker 1: dwarf any other government's imposition of penalty on Facebook. It's
Speaker 1: something that we just want to note. We can't we
Speaker 1: can't be so cavalier about Facebook's wealth when you realize
Speaker 1: we're just talking about Illinois users of Facebook. We're not
Speaker 1: talking about the billions of other users of Facebook. Interesting. So, now,
Speaker 1: of all the different investigations and regulators that are looking
Speaker 1: at Facebook, which would you say, about a minute, here
Speaker 1: is the one that has to worry about most. I
Speaker 1: think I have to worry about all of them. I
Speaker 1: know that's a lot flip, but basically, regulators are gunning
Speaker 1: for Facebook across the board, across the globe, and so
Speaker 1: any one of them they can find the right tool,
Speaker 1: is determined to destroy Facebook. This lawsuit, you expected to
Speaker 1: go to trial. Actually, at this point, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what moved. Facebook still has to prevent that. So if
Speaker 1: they can't find another mood to prevent trial, then that's
Speaker 1: that is the logical next step. All right, Thanks so much, Eric,
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure having you on. That's Eric Goldman. He's
Speaker 1: a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg