Actual Harm Means it is too Late: How Rosenbach v. Six Flags Demonstrates Effective Biometric Information Privacy Law

Technology is rapidly advancing, and the law is trying to keep up. While this challenge is not new, technological advancements are impacting privacy rights in unprecedented ways. Using a fingerprint to clock in at work or face identification to unlock a smartphone provides ease and convenience, but at what cost? Currently, there is no federal law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric information in the private sector. On a local level, three states have enacted laws that specifically address biometrics. Of those, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Illinois provides the strongest protections for consumers, who are entitled to a private right of action under the statute. Since the enactment of BIPA about a decade ago, hundreds of plaintiffs have brought legal action against companies operating in Illinois. This Comment explains how the Illinois Supreme Court properly applied the state’s biometric information privacy statute and why the ruling in Rosenbach v. Six Flags should be a model for analyzing biometric information privacy rights. Part II will provide a brief history of privacy law in the United States and how the ubiquitous collection and use of biometric information threatens privacy rights. Next, Part III will describe the facts, issue, and holding of Rosenbach v. Six Flags. Part IV will analyze the court’s examination of statutory language and legislative intent and explain how those findings lay the foundation for future regulation of biometric information. Finally, this Comment will conclude with a recommendation for legislators to rely on Rosenbach as an example of how biometric privacy regulation should apply in states and, one day, nationwide

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures for gender-affirming care worldwide

Importance Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy. Objective To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation. Evidence Review In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080). Findings In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs

Actual Harm Means it is too Late: How Rosenbach v. Six Flags Demonstrates Effective Biometric Information Privacy Law

Technology is rapidly advancing, and the law is trying to keep up. While this challenge is not new, technological advancements are impacting privacy rights in unprecedented ways. Using a fingerprint to clock in at work or face identification to unlock a smartphone provides ease and convenience, but at what cost? Currently, there is no federal law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric information in the private sector. On a local level, three states have enacted laws that specifically address biometrics. Of those, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in Illinois provides the strongest protections for consumers, who are entitled to a private right of action under the statute. Since the enactment of BIPA about a decade ago, hundreds of plaintiffs have brought legal action against companies operating in Illinois. This Comment explains how the Illinois Supreme Court properly applied the state’s biometric information privacy statute and why the ruling in Rosenbach v. Six Flags should be a model for analyzing biometric information privacy rights. Part II will provide a brief history of privacy law in the United States and how the ubiquitous collection and use of biometric information threatens privacy rights. Next, Part III will describe the facts, issue, and holding of Rosenbach v. Six Flags. Part IV will analyze the court’s examination of statutory language and legislative intent and explain how those findings lay the foundation for future regulation of biometric information. Finally, this Comment will conclude with a recommendation for legislators to rely on Rosenbach as an example of how biometric privacy regulation should apply in states and, one day, nationwide