On Tuesday, a lawsuit against Madison Square Garden Entertainment was dismissed after it was found to be unlawfully using biometric data to” systematically detect and remove any lawyer” who might be involved in a lawsuit against the company to enter MSG locations.
The plaintiffs ‘ legal concept is “unpersuasive,” according to Judge Lewis Kaplan of the Southern District of New York, because it fails to clarify how MSG swore against the law’s speech.
At issue is New York City’s Biometric Identifier Information Code, which makes it unlawful to” sell, lease, business, share in exchange for anything of value or then profit from the transaction of biometric identification information”. In Gross v. MSG, the defendants purchased cards to MSG music. They assert that the place used their genetic data as part of a “litigation barrier plan” that includes “banning doctors and their overall companies” after using it.

More than 90 New York City-area law firms fighting the corporation have been informed that their lawyers are not welcome, according to the issue. MSG has described the legislation as” clear” and applicable to companies pursuing “active dispute” until those litigations are resolved.
As a personal center, MSG has the right to dictate the entry conditions as necessary as long as they are legal. Like some other activities and leisure facilities, MSG uses facial recognition technology. This technology may improve ticket holder authentication and increase area security measures. The appropriate balance between security and privacy at sporting activities has been upended by the use of that systems.
MSG, in the plaintiffs ‘ view, has gone too far. They contend that the biological policy unfairly benefits the economy because it lowers MSG’s litigation costs by presumably deterring litigation. Additionally, MSG claims to make money when it collaborates with a third-party supplier to implement the ban.
Kaplan, whose name may be well known because of his position as the judge in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump, argued that this claim is inconsistent with both the speech of NYC’s script and common sense.
The script, Kaplan explained, “does never prevent businesses from receiving any gain, no matter how attenuated, from the posting of biological data”. Otherwise, the password forbids making money off of the transaction itself, which the plaintiffs, according to him, do not suspect in their most recent problem. According to Kaplan, the biological posting in dispute is” no distinct from any other device” a venue can obtain when paying a vendor. He wrote,” It defies common sense to claim that a business makes money when it purchases a good or service.”
Given that the script “explicitly permits the set and sharing of genetic data for business purposes as long as the government is warned,” Kaplan also questioned how the plaintiffs interpreted the word “profit.” The judge emphasized that the definition of “profit” does not equate to “benefit” because it is believed that businesses would n’t spend money on biometric data if any resultant benefit was presented as illegal profit.

Although not as well-known as the New York Knicks ‘ Game 1 victory over the Indiana Pacers on Monday, Tuesday’s ruling is still a victory for MSG and its CEO, James Dolan. The use of facial recognition technology is firmly supported by Dolan as both reasonable and legal.