LinkedIn’s User Agreement prohibits companies from scraping personal data, using scraped data, and creating fake accounts. Scraping data refers to the process of collecting information from websites, most often using automated methods, bots, and scripts. For years, hiQ ignored those terms and collected LinkedIn user data, leading to the lawsuit.

Sarah Wight, VP, Legal – Litigation, Competition, and Enforcement at LinkedIn, shared news of the win in a post on the site:

Today in the hiQ legal proceeding, the Court announced a significant win for LinkedIn and our members against personal data scraping, among other platform abuses. The Court ruled that LinkedIn’s User Agreement unambiguously prohibits scraping and the unauthorized use of scraped data as well as fake accounts, affirming LinkedIn’s legal positions against hiQ for the past six years. The Court also found that hiQ knew for years that its actions violated our User Agreement, and that LinkedIn is entitled to move forward with its claim that hiQ violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

According to AdWeek, Judge Edward Chen said hiQ “experimented and attempted to reverse engineer LinkedIn’s systems and to avoid detection by simulating human site-access behaviors. hiQ also hired independent contractors known as ‘turkers’ to conduct quality assurance while ‘logged-in’ to LinkedIn by viewing and confirming hiQ customers’ employees’ identities manually.”

The ruling is good news for LinkedIn, as well as its users, and goes a long way toward protecting platforms and their users from unauthorized use. The ruling continues a precedent set when LinkedIn won a similar case against Mantheos, also over data scraping.

The type of behavior hiQ was found guilty of is not uncommon in the tech world. Another infamous example is Clearview AI, a company that built a facial recognition database by scraping some of the most popular websites in the world, including top social media platforms. The victim companies and websites have consistently maintained that Clearview’s actions go against their terms and user agreements. With LinkedIn winning both of its cases, companies like Clearview may — thankfully — have a short lifespan.

Clearview AI is the company that took privacy-invading facial recognition to depths previously unheard of, proudly promising to deliver a more comprehensive surveillance system than China. The company scraped images from social media and countless other sites, building a massive database it claimed was only for government and law enforcement use. Those claims proved untrue, with the company being about as irresponsible with its product as one would expect, based on its shady practices.

After a string of legal setbacks, the UK has dealt the company another one, fining it millions and ordering it to stop collecting and using the images and data of UK residents, according to ZDNet. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) engaged in a two-year investigation of Clearview, in cooperation with the Office of Australian Information Commissioner.

The investigation concluded that the company illegally obtained residents’ photos without proper disclosure, had no legal basis for collecting the photos, didn’t take the proper precautions with the data it collected, and was ultimately in violation of the GDPR.

“Clearview AI Inc has collected multiple images of people all over the world, including in the UK, from a variety of websites and social media platforms, creating a database with more than 20 billion images,” said John Edwards, UK Information Commissioner.

“The company not only enables identification of those people, but effectively monitors their behaviour and offers it as a commercial service. That is unacceptable. That is why we have acted to protect people in the UK by both fining the company and issuing an enforcement notice.

“People expect that their personal information will be respected, regardless of where in the world their data is being used. That is why global companies need international enforcement.”

Hopefully the company continues to face these kind of legal setbacks.

Clearview achieved notoriety when it was discovered the firm was scraping popular websites and social media platforms for photos that it used to build a massive facial recognition database. Not only was the company’s actions against the policies of the websites it scraped, but its entire business model raised major privacy concerns among consumers and lawmakers alike. According to The Seattle Times, the company has now settled a lawsuit in Illinois, agreeing to stop selling its services to private parties within the US.

Despite initially claiming it would only sell its service to law enforcement and other government agencies, Clearview was found to be playing fast and loose with who could access its database. The company also struck deals with authoritarian regimes, and has the stated goal having more surveillance than China.

As part of its settlement, Clearview agrees to permanently stop selling to private parties within the US, and will suspend sales to any Illinois-based state government agencies or police departments for five years. The company’s contracts with federal agencies are unaffected.

The settlement is good news for privacy advocates, and helps restrain one of the sleaziest businesses on the market. There’s still another case pending before a federal judge in Illinois that will hopefully bring further restrictions.

Clearview AI gained fame and notoriety for scraping images from popular websites and social media platforms in an effort to build a massive database of photos for facial recognition — and in violation of those platforms’ terms. The company claimed to only provide its software to law enforcement and government agencies, but reports indicate it was far more loose than it admitted, in terms of who had access to its platform. In addition, the company was found to be working with various authoritarian regimes.

As if the company couldn’t become anymore controversial, The Washington Post reports the company is proudly calling its surveillance platform more comprehensive than similar systems in China, thanks to the “public source metadata” and “social linkage” information the company bases its product on.

Clearview is also working to establish itself as the leader in the field, at a time when the industry leaders are taking a more responsible, measured approach to facial recognition. Clearview, in contrast, sees Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM’s cautious approach as a market opportunity, as it seeks to gain investment for a massive expansion effort.

What’s more, accord to The Post, the company is sending out conflicting messages about its plans. Until now, Clearview has promised it will only sell to law enforcement and government agencies. In the presentation material view by The Post, however, government contracts are shown as only making up a small portion of the company’s potential market. The presentation material discusses building out the company’s personnel, specifically to target the financial and commercial market. Even more alarming, Clearview wants to build a “developer ecosystem” to help other companies use its database in their own products.

Jack Poulson, a former Google research scientist and current head of research advocacy group Tech Inquiry, asked if there was anything “they wouldn’t sell this mass surveillance for? If they’re selling it for just regular commercial uses, that’s just mass surveillance writ large. It’s not targeted toward the most extreme cases, as they’ve pledged in the past.”

Clearview’s unethical behavior and irresponsible approach to privacy and data security, not to mention the legal implications of its data collection, have already led to multiple lawsuits, investigations, and bans in some countries and jurisdictions.

Here’s to hoping more countries crack down on this bottom-feeder.

Europe is once again establishing itself as a leader in privacy protection, preparing to ban the use of facial recognition by law enforcement.

Facial recognition is widely used by law enforcement around the world, but the practice is highly controversial. Studies have shown that many facial recognition algorithms unfairly target people of color. There are also concerns about how data is collected, with companies like Clearview AI drawing criticism for scraping social media platforms to collect photos without consent.

According to Gizmodo, the EU Parliament wants lawmakers to permanently ban facial recognition for law enforcement use. Parliament also wants a moratorium on tech companies collecting biometric data. The one exception is when facial recognition is used solely to identify the victim of a crime.

Calls, however, for a moratorium on the deployment of facial recognition systems for law enforcement purposes that have the function of identification, unless strictly used for the purpose of identification of victims of crime, until the technical standards can be considered fully fundamental rights compliant, results derived are non-biased and non-discriminatory, the legal framework provides strict safeguards against misuse and strict democratic control and oversight, and there is empirical evidence of the necessity and proportionality for the deployment of such technologies; notes that where the above criteria are not fulfilled, the systems should not be used or deployed.

The EU has always been far ahead of the US, in terms of protecting consumer privacy. If the EU passes its facial recognition legislation, it could have far-reaching effects beyond the borders of Europe.

A proposed piece of legislation would tackle surveillance and the warrantless purchase of individual location data.

The “Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act” is a bill that has wide bipartisan support and would address some of the biggest challenges in the realm of surveillance. Clearview AI made headlines in early 2020 as it built a business model on scraping images from social media networks and using them to build an AI-powered facial recognition database.

Clearview AI sold access to its database to law enforcement agencies all over the country, transactions that were performed without a warrant. Other companies have been accused of doing the same thing, selling location data to law enforcement agencies without due process or authorized warrants.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would address that loophole, ensuring courts have a say in the process.

“Doing business online doesn’t amount to giving the government permission to track your every movement or rifle through the most personal details of your life,” Senator Ron Wyden said. “There’s no reason information scavenged by data brokers should be treated differently than the same data held by your phone company or email provider. This bill closes that legal loophole and ensures that the government can’t use its credit card to end-run the Fourth Amendment.”

“The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure ensures that the liberty of every American cannot be violated on the whims, or financial transactions, of every government officer,” Senator Rand Paul said. “This critical legislation will put an end to the government’s practice of buying its way around the Bill of Rights by purchasing the personal and location data of everyday Americans. Enacting the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act will not only stop this gross abuse of privacy, but also stands for the fundamental principle that government exists to protect, not trade away, individual rights.”

Clearview AI has been dealt its biggest blow yet, with Canada calling the app illegal and demanding it delete photos of Canadian citizens.

Clearview AI made headlines last year when the depth of its activities were uncovered. The company scraped photos from countless websites, including the top social media platforms, and amassed a database of billions of photos. Clearview then sold access to that database to law enforcement officials all over the country.

Despite its claims, however, Clearview wasn’t the responsible purveyor of information it claimed to be. Instead, it gave investors, clients and friends access to the company’s database for their own personal uses, including entertainment. The company also began expanding internationally, working on deals with authoritarian regimes.

Despite multiple investigations in the US, it appears Canada has taken the strongest stance yet, declaring the software illegal.

“Clearview sells a facial recognition tool that allows law enforcement and commercial organizations to match photographs of unknown people against a massive databank of 3 billion images, scraped from the Internet,” said Daniel Therrien, Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “The vast majority of these people have never been, and will never be, implicated in any crime.

“What Clearview does is mass surveillance and it is illegal. It is an affront to individuals’ privacy rights and inflicts broad-based harm on all members of society, who find themselves continually in a police lineup. This is completely unacceptable.”

Clearview tried to make the claim that it did not need permission to collect the photos it uses, since they’re already posted on social media. The Canadian government disagreed, since Clearview’s purpose for collecting the photos differed from the reason people uploaded them.

As a result, the investigation came to the following conclusion:

We recommended that Clearview: (i) cease offering its facial recognition tool to clients in Canada; (ii) cease the collection, use and disclosure of images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada; and (iii) delete images and biometric facial arrays collected from individuals in Canada in its possession.

While the government doesn’t yet have the authority to enforce the investigation’s recommendations, Therrien is hopeful Parliament will take them under advisement when it considers upcoming privacy legislation.

“The company essentially claims that individuals who placed or permitted their images to be placed on the Internet lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in such images, that the information was publicly available, and that the company’s appropriate business interests and freedom of expression should prevail,” Therrien added.

“My colleagues and I think these arguments must be rejected. As federal Commissioner, I hope that Parliament considers this case as it reviews Bill C-11, the proposed new private-sector privacy legislation. I hope Parliamentarians will send a clear message that where, as here, there is a conflict between commercial objectives and privacy protection, Canadians’ privacy rights should prevail.”

In the wake of privacy concerns, negative publicity, reports of bias and facial recognition being used in legally and ethically questionable ways by companies like Clearview AI, many cities have started rolling out bans. Portland’s ban is the most aggressive however, banning the technology’s use by both the government and businesses.

The ban does make a distinction between broad facial recognition used for mass surveillance and facial authentication technology. For example, many phones use facial recognition as a security measure. These type of systems are not covered by the ban, as they are not used for broad surveillance.

The wording of the ban seems to indicate that it is not intended as a permanent solution, but as a stop-gap measure until the technology matures and is better regulated.

”Existing methodologies assessing bias in Face Recognition Technologies show progress on their performance,” reads the ordinance. “However, there is still not a formal certification process available to cities that includes the full lifecycle of sensitive information collected from individuals.”

Similarly, Portland City Council Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty said:

“I want to ban this technology until it works as intended. That is my goal.”

Clearview quickly made a name for itself as a facial recognition firm that had scraped billions of images from millions of websites. Ignoring platform policies and user agreements, Clearview even scraped images from the top social media companies, including Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

Things only got worse from there, as the company was found to be monitoring police searches to discourage them from talking to journalists. Despite repeatedly insisting it only sold its software to law enforcement and security personnel, information came to light showing the company had allowed investors and friends to access and use the platform as their own plaything. To top it off, Clearview began selling its software to authoritarian regimes.

It seems the UK and Australia have had enough, as “the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) have opened a joint investigation into the personal information handling practices of Clearview AI Inc., focusing on the company’s use of ‘scraped’ data and biometrics of individuals.”

This is further bad news for the company, but great news for the average consumer and privacy advocate alike.

In the wake of several high-profile incidents that have helped spark protests and a renewed focus on racial equality, facial recognition has come under heavy fire. While having some usefulness, facial recognition struggles with bias issues, especially related to race, ethnicity and sex. This doesn’t even begin to address the privacy issues the technology raises. Clearview AI is one company that has increasingly been in the news for blatant abuses of privacy through the use of facial recognition.

The Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act, would address these concerns by prohibiting federal law enforcement agencies from using facial recognition tech. In addition, any local or state agencies seeking federal funding would be required to take similar measures.

“Facial recognition technology doesn’t just pose a grave threat to our privacy, it physically endangers Black Americans and other minority populations in our country,” said Senator Markey. “As we work to dismantle the systematic racism that permeates every part of our society, we can’t ignore the harms that these technologies present. I’ve spent years pushing back against the proliferation of facial recognition surveillance systems because the implications for our civil liberties are chilling and the disproportionate burden on communities of color is unacceptable. In this moment, the only responsible thing to do is to prohibit government and law enforcement from using these surveillance mechanisms. I thank Representatives Jayapal and Pressley and Senator Merkley for working with me on this critical legislation.”

It’s unknown whether the bill will be able to gain enough support to pass. Should it succeed, however, it could fundamentally alter the privacy debate and have a profound impact on equality.

Clearview AI made headlines when it was discovered the firm was scraping millions of websites, including the major social media platforms, to amass a database of billions of photos to pair with its facial recognition software. The company claimed it only made its service available to law enforcement and security personnel, but it was later discovered that was a lie. The company had also let friends and investors use its software for personal interests.

In addition, Clearview has expanded internationally, including making deals with authoritarian regimes. To make matters even worse, there has been at least one instance where the company appeared to be monitoring law enforcement searches and using that information to dissuade police from talking with the press about Clearview.

The ACLU has had enough and filed a lawsuit in the state of Illinois. Illinois is the perfect state to file the suit in, as it has strict Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) legislation that has already been successfully used in court.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU and companies joining it, “are asking the court to order Clearview to delete faceprints gathered from Illinois residents without their consent and cease capturing new faceprints unless they comply with BIPA consent procedures. Until such remedies are implemented, Clearview’s egregious violations of privacy pose a disastrous threat and affront to our rights.”

Here’s to hoping the ACLU is successful in suing Clearview AI into oblivion.

Clearview made news as a facial recognition firm that had scraped billions of images from the web and social media, and then made them available for facial recognition searches. The company has repeatedly tried to portray itself as a responsible steward of the technology it has developed and is making available, initially claiming its service was only for law enforcement and government agencies.

In short order, however, it has become apparent Clearview cannot be trusted. Reports surfaced that the company was selling its services internationally, including to oppressive regimes. One of the more disturbing revelations was that the company was monitoring the searches performed by law enforcement and using that information to try to discourage police from talking with journalists.

Throughout it all, however, the company has continued to maintain that it only made its software available to law enforcement and select security personnel — only that wasn’t true. Reports showed the company had made its software available to a many private companies and individuals, including some who used it for their own personal benefit.

According to BuzzFeed, in an effort to deal with the lawsuit it is facing in Illinois, the company is now promising it will cancel its contracts with private organizations.

“Clearview is cancelling the accounts of every customer who was not either associated with law enforcement or some other federal, state, or local government department, office, or agency,” the company said in a filing BuzzFeed has seen. “Clearview is also cancelling all accounts belonging to any entity based in Illinois.”

There’s only one problem with this promise: It comes from a company that has already proven itself to be dishonest, unscrupulous and completely untrustworthy. Here’s to hoping the judge sees right through this latest ploy.

Clearview AI has scraped millions of websites to amass a database of some 3 billion photos, on which it uses artificial intelligence to analyze. The company then makes its software available to law enforcement agencies. Despite its claims of being responsible with the data it collects, recent revelations have shown that nothing could be further from the truth.

Clearview was caught using its software to monitor when police officers spoke with journalists and discourage them from doing so. The company’s plans to expand and form partnerships with authoritarian regimes was leaked, only to have its client list stolen, showing such expansion plans were already underway. Clearview also has claimed it only makes its software available to law enforcement and security personnel when, in fact, a wide array of investors and other individuals have had access and used the app for their own purposes.

Now Vermont’s AG is taking measures to call the company to account. The complain, “alleges violations of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act and the new Data Broker Law. Along with the complaint, the State filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the Court to order Clearview AI to immediately stop collecting or storing Vermonters’ photos and facial recognition data.”

AG Donovan did not mince any words in denouncing the company’s practices.

“I am disturbed by this practice, particularly the practice of collecting and selling children’s facial recognition data,” Attorney General Donovan said. “This practice is unscrupulous, unethical, and contrary to public policy. I will continue to fight for the privacy of Vermonters, particularly our most vulnerable.”

It’s safe to say individuals around the country will be rooting for AG Donovan.

Clearview has amassed a database of billions of photos, scraped from millions of websites, including the biggest social media platforms. The company then makes that database available through its facial recognition software. Since The New York Times broke the story in January, Clearview has faced ongoing criticism from lawmakers and privacy advocates alike who say the company represents a fundamental threat to privacy.

To make matters worse, Buzzfeed discovered documents proving the company plans to expand internationally, including with authoritarian regimes. Following that, Clearview’s entire client list was stolen, showing its international expansion has already begun.

Amid the scrutiny and controversy, Clearview has tried to reassure critics that it is responsible in its use of its database. In fact, in a blog post on the company’s site, Clearview says its “search engine is available only for law enforcement agencies and select security professionals to use as an investigative tool.”

Similarly, the company’s Code of Conduct emphasizes their software is for law enforcement and security professionals, and that they hold themselves to a high standard of ethics, integrity and professionalism.

There’s just one problem: it’s not true, if the NYT’s report is accurate. According to the report, the NYT “has identified multiple individuals with active access to Clearview’s technology who are not law enforcement officials. And for more than a year before the company became the subject of public scrutiny, the app had been freely used in the wild by the company’s investors, clients and friends.

“Those with Clearview logins used facial recognition at parties, on dates and at business gatherings, giving demonstrations of its power for fun or using it to identify people whose names they didn’t know or couldn’t recall.”

This is just the latest example of the irresponsible and unethical way Clearview has conducted business.

Buzzfeed News first noticed that Clearview was doing an end-run around Apple’s distribution rules, “encouraging those who want to use the software to download its app through a program reserved exclusively for developers.” Buzzfeed contacted Apple to inquire about the situation, prompting Apple to investigate. As a result of their investigation, Apple suspended Clearview’s developer account, preventing the app from functioning. Apple told Buzzfeed the developer program Clearview was using is only for distributing apps within a company, not the kind of widescale distribution Clearview was using it for.

In statement obtained by Buzzfeed, Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That said: “We are in contact with Apple and working on complying with their terms and conditions. The app can not be used without a valid Clearview account. A user can download the app, but not perform any searches without proper authorization and credentials.”

Clearview has been on an impressive streak of earning the disfavor of politicians, corporations, privacy advocates, journalists and citizens alike. The company has scraped millions of websites to amass a facial recognition database of some three billion photos, in the process violating the terms of service for industry giants like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. The company has been accused of monitoring how police are using the app to discourage them from interacting with journalists. Clearview was suspected of planning worldwide expansion, including to oppressive regimes, only to have its client list stolen, which showed it has already moved forward with those plans.

Now the company has managed to violate Apple’s rules about how developers can or cannot distribute apps. Given the company’s shady practices, it’s a safe bet no one will be shedding a tear over this one.

Clearview has repeatedly been in the news for its controversial practices over the last couple of months. The company has amassed a database of some three billion photos, which it has scraped from millions of websites, including the most popular social media sites on the web. Clearview then sells access to that searchable database, along with its facial recognition software, to law enforcement agencies around the country.

The company is reportedly looking to expand its operation overseas, and has included oppressive regimes on its list of potential countries it may do business with. The potential harm the company’s software could do was illustrated when New York Times reporter Kashmir Hill asked police officers to run her face against the company’s database, which turned up no matches. After running her face, however, the police officers received phone calls from Clearview telling them they shouldn’t be talking to the media.

Now, in a report The Daily Beast reviewed, Clearview says an intruder stole a copy of the company’s entire client list, including the number of user accounts each customer had created and the number of searches they had conducted. The company claims that its servers were not breached and that there was “no compromise of Clearview’s systems or network.”

This breach perfectly illustrates the danger of a company rushing headlong into a potentially dangerous area where many other companies have feared to tread. Google, Facebook and others have certainly had the ability to do what Clearview has done and would no doubt greatly profit from it. Every other company, however, has acted with restraint out of recognition of the harm that could potentially be done.

Senator Gillibrand makes the case that people have untold amounts of data about them scattered across the internet. Even worse, much of that data was collected without consent or, at the very least, without users knowingly agreeing to it being collected. In the digital age, that data represents a gold mine for countless companies who profit from it.

“I believe that this needs to be fixed, and that you deserve to be in control of your own data,” writes Gillibrand. “You have the right to know if companies are using your information for profit. You need a way to protect yourself, and you deserve a place that will look out for you.”

Specifically, the legislation Gillibrand is introducing, The Data Protection Act, would “establish an independent federal agency, the Data Protection Agency, that would serve as a ‘referee’ to define, arbitrate, and enforce rules to defend the protection of our personal data.”

The agency would focus on returning control of their data to Americans, support innovation while ensuring fair competition and help advise Congress of digital threats as they emerge, making sure the government is educated and prepared to meet those threats.

Gillibrand’s announcement comes amid a growing focus on privacy. Salesforce co-CEO Keith Block recently said the U.S. needed a national privacy law; the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) became law January 1; and Clearview AI has gained infamy as the company “that can end privacy.”

It remains to be seen if Gillibrand will have the necessary support to pass The Data Protection Act, but it definitely will be welcomed in many circles as a step in the right direction.

The proposed bill (PDF) comes in the wake of revelations that law enforcement agencies across the country have been using Clearview AI’s software. The company claims to have a database of billions of photos it has scraped from millions of websites, including the most popular social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Those companies, along with Google, have sent cease-and-desist letters to the facial recognition firm, demanding it stop scraping their sites and delete any photos it has already acquired. The New Jersey Attorney General even got in on the action, ordering police in the state to stop using the software when he was made aware of it.

Now Senators Jeff Merkley (Oregon) and Cory Booker (New Jersey) are calling for a “moratorium on the government use of facial recognition technology until a Commission recommends the appropriate guidelines and limitation for use of facial recognition technology.”

The bill goes on to acknowledge the technology is being marketed to law enforcement agencies, but often disproportionately impacts “communities of color, activists, immigrants, and other groups that are often already unjustly targeted.”

The bill also makes the point that the congressional Commission would need to create guidelines and limitations that would ensure there is not a constant state of surveillance of individuals that destroys a reasonable level of anonymity.

Given the backlash and outcry against the Clearview AI revelations, it’s a safe bet the bill will likely pass.

Clearview claims to have scraped over 3 billion photos from millions of websites, including the major social media platforms. The company then makes those photos available, in a searchable database, to hundreds of law enforcement agencies across the country.

According to BuzzFeed, “a document obtained via a public records request reveals that Clearview has been touting a ‘rapid international expansion’ to prospective clients using a map that highlights how it either has expanded, or plans to expand, to at least 22 more countries, some of which have committed human rights abuses.”

Three of the countries are the United Arab Emirates, which is known for cracking down on dissidents, as well as Qatar and Singapore, both of which have far more restrictive human rights laws than Western countries.

In an interview with BuzzFeed, Albert Fox Cahn, a fellow at New York University and the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, expressed concern about the implications of the software being used by oppressive regimes.

“It’s deeply alarming that they would sell this technology in countries with such a terrible human rights track record, enabling potentially authoritarian behavior by other nations,” he said.

Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That has been defending his company amid growing scrutiny and concern over the legality and ethics of its behavior. The New Jersey Attorney General recently enacted a moratorium on police departments using the company’s service. Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube have sent cease-and-desist letters to Clearview. Now, as lawmakers increasingly turn their attention toward the company, it’s a safe bet this latest news will not help Clearview’s case.

The NYT is reporting that Clearview has found itself in hot water with the New Jersey attorney general over its main promotional video it was running on its website. The video showed Attorney General and two state troopers at a press conference detailing an operation to apprehend 19 men accused of trying to lure children for sex, an operation that Clearview took at least partial responsibility for.

Mr. Grewal was not impressed with Clearview using his likeness in its promotional material, or in the potential legal and ethical issues the service poses.

“Until this week, I had not heard of Clearview AI,” Mr. Grewal said in an interview. “I was troubled. The reporting raised questions about data privacy, about cybersecurity, about law enforcement security, about the integrity of our investigations.”

Mr. Grewal was also concerned about the company sharing details of ongoing investigations.

“I was surprised they used my image and the office to promote the product online,” Mr. Grewal continued, while also acknowledging that Clearview had been used to identify one of the suspects. “I was troubled they were sharing information about ongoing criminal prosecutions.”

As a result of his concerns, Mr. Grewal has told state prosecutors in NJ’s 21 counties that police should not use the app.

At the same time, CNET is reporting an individual has filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois East Division and is seeking class-action status.

“Without obtaining any consent and without notice, Defendant Clearview used the internet to covertly gather information on millions of American citizens, collecting approximately three billion pictures of them, without any reason to suspect any of them of having done anything wrong, ever,” alleges the complaint. “Clearview used artificial intelligence algorithms to scan the facial geometry of each individual depicted in the images, a technique that violates multiple privacy laws.”

It was only a matter of time before Clearview faced the fallout from its actions. It appears that fallout is happening sooner rather than later.