Places of public accommodation to obtain express consent before collecting biometric data requirement
SF3270 would require places of public accommodation in Minnesota to obtain an individual’s express consent before collecting, processing, transmitting, storing, or using that person’s biometric data, or allowing a third party to do so. The bill defines biometric data broadly to include facial features, iris or retina scans, fingerprints, voice, genetics, movement, gestures, and data derived from those traits that could reasonably identify a person. Express consent would have to be an affirmative written response to a clear, meaningful, and prominent written notice explaining the collection and its purpose.
The bill creates a private right of action and authorizes county attorneys to sue for violations. A business that violates the proposed law could face civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, damages, costs, disbursements, reasonable attorney fees, and injunctive relief. It also makes a violation a misdemeanor. The measure would take effect August 1, 2025, and apply only to violations and causes of action arising on or after that date.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Minnesota Statutes chapter 604 and impose new consent requirements on businesses and other places of public accommodation covered by the state’s civil rights law. It would significantly expand legal exposure for entities that collect or use biometric identifiers, including retailers, venues, and service providers that use facial recognition, fingerprint systems, voice identification, or similar technologies. The bill would also create enforcement authority for both public prosecutors and private individuals, while layering civil and criminal penalties on top of existing privacy and civil rights obligations.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented debate or formal vote history here to indicate support or opposition. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at strengthening privacy protections and limiting biometric surveillance in public-facing settings.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the definition of biometric data, the requirement for express written consent, and the severity of the enforcement scheme. Businesses and public accommodation operators may view the civil penalty of up to $25,000 per violation, attorney-fee exposure, and misdemeanor penalty as especially burdensome, particularly for technologies that are increasingly used for security, fraud prevention, or customer identification. Privacy advocates, by contrast, would likely support the bill’s strong consent standard and private enforcement mechanism as necessary safeguards against unauthorized biometric collection and use.