Grok cases highlight risks for AI companies under Illinois privacy law

By Reuters News

By Mike Scarcella

WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Elon Musk's SpaceXAI has been hit with two proposed class actions alleging its Grok platform violates a stringent Illinois privacy law through its manipulation of facial images, marking the latest lawsuits against AI companies over their collection and use of biometric data.

The cases against SpaceXAI were filed in the federal court in Chicago, one of which was filed on Monday. They both allege that the company, formerly known as xAI, illegally collected and used an individual’s biometric information from an uploaded "selfie" photo without written notice.

SpaceXAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

The lawsuits are part of a growing wave of litigation targeting how AI companies are using personal information such as facial scans and voiceprints to build and operate their platforms. Alphabet's Google and notetaking and organizing app Otter.ai are among defendants also facing class action claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The Illinois law restricts the collection and use of personal information such as retinal scans and fingerprints, and for many years has posed compliance hurdles and litigation headaches for companies. In 2020, Facebook said it would pay $650 million to resolve class action allegations that it violated the Illinois law. Freight rail giant BNSF in 2024 agreed to pay $75 million to resolve a class action under BIPA.

Plaintiffs' law firms are increasingly bringing lawsuits alleging BIPA violations related to AI. Defense firm Paul Hastings had warned in an advisory in April that “a new wave of biometrics litigation has arrived” targeting AI companies.

In one of the cases, a group of journalists sued Alphabet’s Google in May in a proposed class action alleging it illegally used recordings of their voices to train AI models. Google has denied the claims and asked a court to dismiss them, saying the plaintiffs failed to allege that Google obtained any biometric voice identifier linked to a specific individual.

Otter.ai is facing other cases as well. Those lawsuits, consolidated in federal court in California, contend the company is violating BIPA by collecting and creating voiceprints associated with recorded speakers. Otter has denied the allegations and asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuits.

The lawsuits against SpaceXAI allege Grok violates the Illinois law when it performs without prior consent "face-specific analysis or identity-preserving image manipulation" after a user uploads a photograph. BIPA applies even when a user uploads their own photo, the lawsuits say.

“As businesses worldwide compete to develop ever more advanced artificial intelligence and facial-analysis technology, the race for data imperils the privacy of individuals everywhere,” the complaint filed last week said.

Read more:

Lawyers square off in fight over voice data used to train AI

Journalists sue Google for allegedly using their voices in AI training

BNSF Railway to pay $75 mln to resolve biometric privacy class-action

Capital.com is an execution-only brokerage platform and the content provided on the Capital.com website is intended for informational purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy the products or securities to which it applies. No representation or warranty is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information provided.

The information provided does not constitute investment advice nor take into account the individual financial circumstances or objectives of any investor. Any information that may be provided relating to past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results or performance.

To the extent permitted by law, in no event shall Capital.com (or any affiliate or employee) have any liability for any loss arising from the use of the information provided. Any person acting on the information does so entirely at their own risk.

Any information which could be construed as “investment research” has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such is considered to be a marketing communication.