Amazon Ring sued over facial recognition data collection without consent
Amazon Ring faces a class-action lawsuit alleging its facial recognition feature, called 'Familiar Faces,' collected and stored biometric data from millions of people without consent, including visitors and passersby who did not authorize the data collection.
What happened
Amazon's Ring doorbell cameras used a feature called 'Familiar Faces' that collected and stored facial images of people without their consent. The feature uses artificial intelligence to identify and remember individuals appearing on camera, including visitors, delivery workers, and passersby who did not authorize the data collection.
Charles Sigwalt, a Virginia resident, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court in Seattle on June 2, 2026, alleging that Ring captured and retained facial recognition information of millions of Americans without their knowledge or permission.
Reported impact
The lawsuit alleges that millions of Americans had their facial recognition information collected and stored unknowingly when they passed by Ring security cameras at homes and businesses. According to the complaint, those affected did not consent to have their privacy rights violated at the entranceway.
The feature effectively created a database of facial images allowing individuals to be identified when they reappeared near a Ring device, raising concerns about surveillance and consent particularly in public-facing environments.
Index analysis
The 'Familiar Faces' feature was optional and required users to enable it, but privacy advocates argued this did not address concerns for individuals captured incidentally by cameras installed in homes and businesses.
The lawsuit represents the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Ring, which Amazon acquired in 2018. In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission reached a $5.8 million settlement with Ring over privacy allegations related to employee access to customer video data.
Governance controls
Ring's 'Familiar Faces' feature was optional and subject to user enablement, though critics contended this approach did not adequately protect individuals who were captured incidentally by cameras at third-party locations.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.