Parents and children in Illinois and California have filed a proposed class action alleging that Meta used Facebook and Instagram photographs without consent to create biometric data and train AI systems. The federal lawsuit in Chicago targets an unreleased face-recognition feature called NameTag as well as the Emu and Muse Image generators.
The complaint alleges violations of Illinois and California privacy law. Meta says the case has no merit, denies building a universal face database and emphasizes that NameTag has not been released to consumers. Those positions remain allegations and defenses at an early stage of litigation.
NameTag Code Created Questions About Faceprints
WIRED reported in June that NameTag code had been embedded in the companion app for Meta’s smart glasses, an app downloaded more than 50 million times. The feature was not enabled for users, but the code described a process that could turn a face captured by the glasses into a biometric signature and compare it with faceprints stored on the user’s phone.
The local database was configured to receive updates from Meta. WIRED could not determine the source of the underlying faceprints. The new complaint alleges they may have been derived from Facebook and Instagram images, pointing to reports that employees said NameTag could recognize people through Meta connections or public Instagram profiles and to a patent covering matches against profile photos and other company-held images.
The lawsuit acknowledges that Meta has not disclosed which images, if any, supplied biometric data. That uncertainty is central: the plaintiffs ask the court to examine information they say is controlled by the company, while Meta says the complaint misrepresents exploratory work that never became a consumer product.
Generative AI Training Is Also Challenged
Meta has said Emu was trained on large volumes of Facebook and Instagram images and text, with chief product officer Chris Cox describing those platforms as a data advantage. The plaintiffs allege that training extracted biometric information from people depicted in the images without notice or permission.
Muse Image is included because it previously allowed users to generate images based on another person’s public Instagram account. Meta removed that feature within days and said it had missed the mark. The complaint treats the incident as part of a broader theory that social photographs were repurposed for AI systems beyond what the people shown expected.
Meta responds that it has been transparent about using information to build and improve AI products. It says no final decision has been made about NameTag and promises a transparent process if anything is eventually released. The statement does not answer the complaint’s factual question about which photographs, if any, became faceprints.
The Proposed Class Could Reach Millions
Named plaintiffs include an Illinois father and son and a California father and his 10-year-old daughter. The proposed class would cover people nationwide whose images were uploaded to Facebook or Instagram, or submitted through prompts to Meta’s generative systems, from September 4, 2021 onward. The complaint estimates membership could reach millions.
Under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, the plaintiffs seek $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, or actual damages if higher, and $1,000 for each negligent violation, alongside injunctive relief. California claims seek additional damages and remedies. These are requested amounts, not a judgment.
Meta has resolved earlier biometric cases, paying $650 million in a 2020 Illinois settlement and $1.4 billion to Texas in 2024. It announced in 2021 that an earlier face-recognition system would close and more than a billion faceprints would be deleted. Those settlements provide context but do not determine the new claims.
The day after WIRED’s June report, Meta removed NameTag code from the app. Meta argued the feature did not exist because consumers could not access it, while outside testing found a technically functional system inside the distributed app. The lawsuit now asks whether unreleased code and AI training practices nonetheless processed protected biometric information.
