9to5Mac74%

Judge greenlights multi-billion-dollar class action over Apple Photos’ face recognition 13%

By Marcus Mendes46%

8/3/2026, 3:24:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Unattributed Quote, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 70 hits. Analysis detected 344 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.9% and a BS Rank of 13% (23,532 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

Apple will face a class-action lawsuit alleging it violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), in a case that could cost the company more than $30 billion. 
Here are the details. 
Apple on the hook for up to $32.5 billion 
In March 2020, a group of roughly 10 Apple users filed a putative class action accusing Apple Photos’ “People” feature of violating Illinois’ BIPA, which gives citizens “the right to control their biometric information by requiring notice before collection and giving them the power to say no by withholding consent.” 
BIPA allows for damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. 
This is the same law that led to a lawsuit against Meta ending in a $650 million settlement over Facebook’s facial-recognition system, which scanned photos to suggest people for users to tag, as well as a separate $68.5 million settlement over allegations that Instagram collected and stored users’ biometric data without consent. 
Back to the case against Apple, since it was filed in 2020, the lawsuit has undergone four amended complaints, years of discovery, and multiple attempts by Apple to have the claims dismissed, before the court ultimately granted class certification in June. 
Based on the certification document spotted by The Times (via AppleInsider), the plaintiffs are seeking to represent roughly 6.5 million from three proposed classes: 
* **Local Device Class: **Every Illinois citizen whose Apple Device put a photograph of that citizen into a People album at any time between September 13, 2016, and the present. 
* **iCloud Subclass: **Every Illinois citizen who had an Apple Device with a People album tagged with that citizen’s name or other identifier, and had an iCloud account enabled for photo storage, at any time between September 13, 2016, and the present. 
* **iCloud Faceprint Subclass: **Every Illinois citizen who had an Apple Device running iOS 17.6, MacOS Sonoma 14.6 or iPadOS 17.6 or later and: (1) had iCloud photo library enabled with at least 10 gigabytes of storage, and (2) their Apple Device put a photograph of that citizen into a People album, and (3) who had 5,000 or more assets (i.e., photos and videos) in their iCloud photo library, at any time between March 25, 2025 and the present (inclusive). 
If found liable, Apple could be looking at a $32.5 billion damages bill. 
With the class action now certified, the case can move forward. 
Apple had requested an immediate appeal of the certification order, but that request has been denied. 
This means the lawsuit will return to the district court for further proceedings, where the plaintiffs will still need to prove that Apple violated Illinois’ BIPA before any damages can be awarded. 
To read The Times‘ full report, follow this link. 
Worth checking out on Amazon 
* Geoffrey Cain  ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’ 
* David Pogue  ’Apple: The First 50 Years’ 
* MacBook Neo 
* Logitech MX Master 4 
* <strong>AirPods Pro 3</strong> 
* AirTag (2nd Generation)  4 Pack 
* Apple Watch Series 11 
* Wireless CarPlay adapter 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Marcus Mendes: 1.0%9to5Mac: 2.0%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 13.5%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic13.5%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Marcus Mendes: 0.6%9to5Mac: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 1.9%Marcus Mendes: 4.4%9to5Mac: 4.4%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.3%9to5Mac: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Marcus Mendes: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.0%Pessimism Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.0%9to5Mac: 3.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.8%9to5Mac: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.2%9to5Mac: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.5%9to5Mac: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.8%9to5Mac: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.6%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.0%9to5Mac: 4.5%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.2%9to5Mac: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.6%9to5Mac: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.3%9to5Mac: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 3.2%9to5Mac: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Marcus Mendes: 10.7%9to5Mac: 13.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.7%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.