Washington

This blog post summarizes recent telemarketing developments emerging from Arizona, Washington, and Maryland.  Arizona recently amended its state telemarketing law to include a new text message restriction.  Washington and Maryland may soon enact more significant updates of their telemarketing laws, including with respect to automated transmissions.  The proposed new law in Maryland is particularly notable, as it seeks to impose the same sort of consent requirements on automated marketing calls and texts that exist now in Florida and Oklahoma.Continue Reading State Telemarketing Updates: Arizona, Washington, and Maryland

Several states have proposed new privacy bills since their sessions began.  Some of the proposed bills carry over or re-introduce bills drafted in previous legislative sessions, while others are introducing first–in-time omnibus privacy bills.  In the high-level chart below, we compare five of the key state privacy frameworks: the CPRA, VCDPA (which we blogged about here), the NYPA, the general privacy provisions of the Washington Privacy Act, and the newly introduced Washington People’s Privacy Act (HB 1433). 
Continue Reading 2021 State Privacy Legislation Roundup: California, Virginia, New York, and Washington

On March 12, 2020, Washington’s state legislature passed SB 6280, a bill that will regulate state and local government agencies’ use of facial recognition services (“FRS’s”).  The bill aims to create a legal framework by which agencies may use FRS’s to the benefit of society (for example, by assisting agencies in locating missing or deceased persons), but prohibits uses that “threaten our democratic freedoms and put our civil liberties at risk.”
Continue Reading Washington State Passes Bill Limiting Government Use of Facial Recognition

The Washington Privacy Act stalled this April in the state’s House of Representatives, and will likely not reappear again for discussion until the 2020 legislative session.

The bill overwhelmingly passed the Senate, but failed to come to a floor vote in the House of Representatives before the April 17th deadline…
Continue Reading Washington State Lawmakers Reach Deadline Without Passing Privacy Act, But Reach Agreement on Amendments to Breach Notification Law

On May 16, 2017, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law H.B. 1493—Washington’s first statute governing how individuals and non-government entities collect, use, and retain “biometric identifiers,” as defined in the statute.  The law prohibits any “person” from “enroll[ing] a biometric identifier in a database for a commercial purpose, without first providing notice, obtaining consent, or providing a mechanism to prevent the subsequent use of a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose.”  It also places restrictions on the sale, lease, and other disclosure of enrolled biometric identifiers.  With the new law, Washington has become only the third state after Illinois and Texas to enact legislation that regulates business activities related to biometric information.  Although the three laws seek to provide similar consumer protections around the collection, use, and retention of biometric data, the Washington law defines the content and activity it regulates in different terms, and, similar to Texas, but unlike Illinois, the Washington law does not provide a private right of action.

The Washington statute, as compared to existing biometrics laws, is notable for its definition of “biometric identifier.”   In the law, a “biometric identifier” is “data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics,” including “fingerprints, voiceprints, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.”  Washington’s definition of “biometric identifier” may be broader than that in the Texas statute, but Washington’s definition does not specifically provide for a “scan of hand or face geometry,” as is the case in the Illinois statute.  Washington’s definition of “biometric identifiers” specifically excludes “physical or digital photograph, video or audio recording or data generated therefrom” (in addition to certain health-related data), suggesting the statute will have limited application in the context of facial recognition technology.
Continue Reading Washington Becomes the Third State with a Biometric Law