{"id":281769,"date":"2026-06-25T15:32:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T19:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/25\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/"},"modified":"2026-06-25T15:35:32","modified_gmt":"2026-06-25T19:35:32","slug":"judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/25\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge denies Meta summary judgment in privacy class action over unauthorized voiceprint collection"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/\">Judge denies Meta summary judgment in privacy class action over unauthorized voiceprint collection<\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/\">https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Publish Date: <a href=\"publish_date]\">2026-06-25 15:32:00<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Source Domain: <a href=\"www.courthousenews.com\">www.courthousenews.com<\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"1191194\">SAN FRANCISCO (CN) \u2014 A federal judge unsealed an order Thursday advancing privacy claims against Meta brought by a class of Illinois consumers who say Meta took their voiceprints without permission in violation of an Illinois biometric privacy law.<\/p>\n<p>In the order, originally filed on May 20, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied Meta\u2019s motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiff provided enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Meta collected her voiceprint.<\/p>\n<p>The judge, a Bill Clinton appointee, concluded the plaintiff had shown there were disputed facts regarding whether Meta had collected the plaintiff\u2019s voice recording in a way the tech company could identify the plaintiff. She also found that there was enough evidence that Meta possesses the technology to process a voice recording and link it to a user\u2019s account and personally identifiable data, such as name, birthday and address, that Meta associates with their account.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cToday\u2019s decision need not and does not attempt to precisely delineate at what point voice data transforms from a \u2018mere voice recording,\u2019 as Meta puts it, into a \u2018voiceprint\u2019 under BIPA,\u201d she wrote in the 12-page order. \u201cFor today, it is enough that there is a dispute of material fact regarding whether Meta has collected biometric data that is capable of identifying an individual using technology Meta possesses.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The named plaintiff, Natalie Delgado, is an Illinois citizen who says Meta took her voiceprint \u2014 a digital representation of a person\u2019s unique voice characteristics \u2014 without complying with the requirements of Illinois\u2019 Biometric Information Privacy Act.<\/p>\n<p>Delgado claims Meta uses the audio input into Facebook or Messenger to create encoded data of the speaker\u2019s voice, and that data is then processed with an acoustical model that is then trained and further refined using the voice of a particular speaker, such that the acoustical model can be used to recognize that&#8230;<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/\">Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judge denies Meta summary judgment in privacy class action over unauthorized voiceprint collection https:\/\/www.courthousenews.com\/judge-denies-meta-summary-judgment-in-privacy-class-action-over-unauthorized-voiceprint-collection\/ Publish&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":281771,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/imagedelivery.net\/wKQ19LTSBT0ARz08tkssqQ\/www.courthousenews.com\/2025\/02\/meta-facebook-instagram-threads-logos.jpg\/w=1300,h=731,fit=crop","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-281769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-privacy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281769"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=281769"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281769\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":281772,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/281769\/revisions\/281772"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/281771"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=281769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=281769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news-you-need.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=281769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}