On September 16, 2020

Attorney general aims to stop facial recognition company from collecting, selling images of Vermonters

Attorney General T.J. Donovan has prevailed against a motion to dismiss filed by Clearview AI in the lawsuit to stop the facial recognition company from collecting and selling images of Vermonters. The Court’s ruling means the case, which was filed in April, may now move forward.

In its motion, Clearview failed to persuade the Court that it has a First Amendment right to engage in its facial recognition surveillance practices and “near absolute immunity” from suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Clearview also argued that the state’s claims were void for vagueness under the Constitution and that the state lacked standing to bring the suit. The Court rejected all of these arguments.

“We are pleased with the Court’s ruling and will continue litigating this case to protect Vermonters’ privacy rights,” said Attorney General Donovan. “Clearview’s practices are disturbing and offend public policy.”

The Court noted that the First Amendment does not protect deceptive statements including those allegedly made by Clearview about Vermonters being able to remove themselves from the database. The Court also denied Clearview’s argument that the First Amendment protected other allegedly unfair conduct, such having bad data security, because it was “non-expressive speech” and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

The Court also held that Clearview is not protected by Section 230 of the CDA, a law which shields platforms like Twitter and Facebook from liability for what others post there. This case involves allegations about how photographs are collected through screen scraping and applied facial recognition, not their redistribution.

Lastly, the Court found that the state had adequately alleged that Clearview’s actions offend public policy, and are immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous – factors that support an unfairness claim under the Consumer Protection Act.  It also held that exposing Vermonters to unwanted surveillance and marketing its product to law enforcement would be likely to cause substantial injury to Vermonters.

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

Two members, including chair, resign from the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont

June 25, 2025
By Corey McDonald/VTDigger Two members of the Commission on the Future of Public Education in Vermont, including the commission’s chair, announced last week they would be resigning, saying they no longer believed their efforts would make any impact. Meagan Roy, the chair of the commission, and Nicole Mace, the former representative of the Vermont School Boards…

Vt plastic bag use dropped 91% following ban, researchers find

June 25, 2025
In the midst of 2020 Covid measures, another change took place in Vermont: A law went into effect banning businesses from offering plastic bags to customers, with paper bags only available for a fee. A 2023 analysis of a survey of hundreds of Vermonters found the law appeared to have worked. Plastic bag use in…

A Roadmap

June 25, 2025
The Vermont Legislature adjourned Monday evening, June 16, following the passage of H.454, the education reform plan. I call it a roadmap as the legislation lays out a list of changes that will take place over the next few years. And as various studies and reports come back in, there will also likely be adjustments,…

Vermont to get over $21 million in nationwide settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers

June 25, 2025
Attorney General Charity Clark announced June 16 that all 55 attorneys general, representing all eligible states and U.S. territories, have agreed to sign on to a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family. This settlement was reached after the previous settlement was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. It resolves…