Prohibits the use of a facial recognition system by a landlord on any residential premises.
S08223 would add a new section to New York’s Real Property Law making it unlawful for a landlord to obtain, retain, access, or use a facial recognition system, or information derived from such a system, on any residential premises. The bill defines “facial recognition” broadly to include both identifying a person from facial characteristics and analyzing facial characteristics to infer sentiment, state of mind, or propensities such as dangerousness.
The bill creates enforcement mechanisms for both the Attorney General and private individuals. The Attorney General could seek injunctions, restitution, subpoenas, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 for violations. A person subjected to prohibited facial recognition practices, or whose information was improperly obtained or used, could sue for injunctive relief and recover actual damages or $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater, along with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. The law would take effect 120 days after enactment.
The bill would expand New York landlord-tenant law by expressly banning the use of facial recognition technology in residential rental settings and by prohibiting the collection or use of data generated by such systems. It would create a new statutory cause of action under the Real Property Law, authorize enforcement by the Attorney General, and expose landlords to civil penalties, damages, and fee-shifting remedies. The measure would affect residential landlords, property managers, and tenants, and would likely require landlords to remove or avoid deploying facial recognition tools in buildings and related access-control systems.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the measure appears to be framed as a privacy and tenant-protection bill rather than a controversial regulatory expansion. Its structure suggests a strong consumer-rights orientation, with broad enforcement tools and private rights of action. No formal opposition or support is documented in the provided context, so the available record does not show divided sentiment, only the sponsor’s apparent intent to restrict surveillance in housing.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the prohibition and the compliance burden on landlords. The bill reaches not only direct facial recognition use but also any information obtained from such systems, which could raise questions about building security, access-control technology, and data retention practices. Landlords and property managers may object to the private right of action, attorneys’ fees, and civil penalties, while privacy advocates and tenant-rights supporters would likely favor the ban as a safeguard against surveillance, profiling, and misuse of biometric data in homes.