Administrative law and biometric regulation
📘 What is Administrative Law?
Administrative Law governs the actions and decisions of administrative agencies of the government. These agencies are responsible for:
Implementing legislation,
Regulating industries (like healthcare, data protection, etc.),
Issuing rules and regulations,
Adjudicating disputes under their authority.
In the context of biometric regulation, administrative law plays a key role in:
Enforcing privacy and data protection laws,
Creating guidelines for the use and storage of biometric data,
Overseeing compliance by government and private entities.
📌 What is Biometric Regulation?
Biometric Regulation refers to the legal framework governing the collection, use, storage, sharing, and deletion of biometric identifiers such as:
Fingerprints,
Facial recognition,
Iris scans,
Voiceprints,
DNA.
This type of data is highly sensitive and considered personally identifiable information (PII).
⚖️ Intersection of Administrative Law and Biometric Regulation
Administrative bodies such as Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), Information Commissions, or specialized agencies (like FTC in the U.S., or ICO in the UK) enforce biometric laws and ensure that companies and public authorities:
Obtain valid consent,
Ensure data minimization and security,
Provide transparency,
Allow user rights (like access, deletion, correction).
🧑⚖️ Key Cases on Biometric Regulation in Administrative Law
1. Illinois Supreme Court – Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (2019)
Jurisdiction: United States (Illinois)
Law Applied: Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)
Facts:
Six Flags collected a fingerprint from a 14-year-old for a season pass without informed written consent.
The mother sued under BIPA, even though no data breach occurred.
Issue:
Does a violation of BIPA’s procedures without actual harm (like identity theft) give rise to a claim?
Decision:
The court held that mere violation of BIPA (failure to obtain consent) is sufficient to be considered an “injury” under the law.
Actual harm is not needed; procedural violations themselves create standing.
Significance:
This case reinforced the strict liability nature of BIPA.
Encouraged other lawsuits under BIPA for procedural non-compliance.
Emphasized the importance of administrative oversight in data handling.
2. European Court of Justice – Schrems II (Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems, 2020)
Jurisdiction: European Union
Law Applied: GDPR + Privacy Shield Framework
Facts:
Facebook transferred user data from the EU to the US.
Schrems argued that US surveillance laws violated EU privacy rights, especially in context of biometric and personal data.
Issue:
Are US data protection safeguards adequate under EU law?
Decision:
The Court struck down the EU–US Privacy Shield, stating that the US surveillance regime lacked adequate protections, especially for sensitive data like biometrics.
Significance:
Reinforced GDPR’s extraterritorial reach.
Highlighted how administrative mechanisms must ensure biometric data isn’t misused across borders.
3. UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) – Clearview AI Investigation (2022)
Jurisdiction: United Kingdom
Law Applied: UK GDPR + Data Protection Act 2018
Facts:
Clearview AI scraped billions of facial images from the internet and sold facial recognition services.
The ICO ruled that this violated UK citizens’ data protection rights.
Decision:
Clearview was ordered to stop processing UK data and pay a £7.5 million fine.
ICO said facial recognition data is special category data and can’t be collected without consent.
Significance:
Reinforced the ICO’s administrative power under GDPR to enforce compliance.
Facial recognition data was treated with the highest level of protection.
Established standards for international companies processing biometric data.
4. Indian Supreme Court – Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017)
Jurisdiction: India
Law Applied: Constitution of India – Fundamental Right to Privacy
Facts:
The case challenged the constitutionality of the Aadhaar biometric ID system.
Aadhaar collected fingerprints, iris scans, and facial data for government services.
Decision:
The Court held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Said biometric data collection must be limited, necessary, and proportional.
Later, in 2018, Aadhaar was upheld with restrictions (e.g., not mandatory for private services).
Significance:
Led to the creation of India’s Personal Data Protection Bill.
Emphasized the role of proportionality and due process in biometric regulation.
5. Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Privacy Commissioner v. Telstra Corporation Ltd (2015)
Jurisdiction: Australia
Law Applied: Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)
Facts:
Telstra stored data related to an individual's mobile phone, including location and usage patterns (some argued it constituted biometric or identity data).
The individual requested access to all data, which Telstra partially denied.
Decision:
The AAT held that only information that can reasonably identify an individual qualifies as “personal information”.
The decision limited the scope of biometric/identity data regulation under the Privacy Act.
Significance:
Sparked debate over how broadly biometric or identity data should be interpreted.
Demonstrated the limits of administrative enforcement without clearer legislative guidance.
🔍 Analysis
| Case | Key Principle | Administrative Law Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Rosenbach v. Six Flags | Procedural violation = injury | Strong enforcement power to regulators like the Illinois Attorney General |
| Schrems II | Cross-border biometric transfer requires safeguards | DPAs must ensure foreign entities meet EU standards |
| Clearview AI (ICO) | Facial recognition = special data | ICO can fine and prohibit data processing |
| Puttaswamy Case | Privacy is fundamental | Biometric use must pass proportionality test |
| Privacy Comm. v. Telstra | Limits on what is personal data | Highlights need for legislative clarity |
🧭 Conclusion
Administrative law plays a central role in biometric regulation, as enforcement depends on:
Clear legislative mandates,
Proactive and independent regulatory agencies,
Judicial interpretations that uphold constitutional and human rights.
Biometric data is increasingly regulated worldwide due to its irreversible and sensitive nature, and courts are ensuring that administrative frameworks are robust, accountable, and rights-based.
RELATED Blog
0 comments