China News Service, Hangzhou, April 9th ​​(Guo Qiyu) On April 9, the Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued a public judgment on the service contract dispute between Guo Bing and Hangzhou Wildlife World Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Wildlife World"). .

On the basis of the original judgment, the second instance added a sentence to Wildlife World to delete the fingerprint identification information submitted by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card.

  On April 27, 2019, Guo Bing and his wife purchased a two-person annual card from Wildlife World, and kept relevant personal identification information, took photos and entered fingerprints.

Post-Wildlife World sent text messages to a group of annual card consumers, including Guo Bing, stating that the way of entering the park was changed from fingerprint recognition to face recognition and requiring customers to activate their faces, which triggered a dispute in this case.

  On November 20, 2020, the People’s Court of Fuyang District, Hangzhou City issued a judgment of first instance, ordering Wildlife World to compensate Guo Bing for the loss of contract interests and transportation expenses totaling 1,038 yuan; delete the photos including the photos submitted by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card Facial feature information; other litigation requests by Guo Bing to confirm the invalidity of relevant content in store notices and SMS notifications were rejected.

  Guo Bing and Wildlife World both expressed dissatisfaction and appealed to the Hangzhou Intermediate Court respectively.

  The Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court concluded that as sensitive personal information, biometric information deeply reflects the physiological and behavioral characteristics of natural persons, and possesses strong personality attributes. Once it is leaked or used illegally, it may lead to personal discrimination or personal and property safety. If the hazard is detected, it should be handled with care and strictly protected.

  Based on the main controversy of the case and the facts ascertained, the second instance held that Guo Bing, after knowing the contents of the fingerprint identification store notice, made the decision to apply for the annual card and provided relevant personal information after weighing it. The fingerprint identification store notice was against Guo Bing and Wildlife World is binding, and the facial recognition shop notice is not a contract clause between Guo Bing and Wildlife World, and it has no effect on Guo Bing.

  Guo Bing’s right to choose when he applied for the fingerprint recognition annual card was not restricted or infringed, and Safari World’s actions did not constitute fraud, but Safari World’s unilateral change in the way of entering the park constituted a breach of contract.

Wildlife World intends to use the collected photos to expand the scope of information processing, beyond the purpose of prior collection, indicating the possibility and danger of infringing on Guo Bing’s personal interests in facial feature information, and the face including the photos submitted by Guo Bing when applying for the card should be deleted Characteristic information.

  In view of the fact that Wildlife World stopped using fingerprint recognition gates, which made it impossible to realize the originally agreed service method of entering the park, the second instance added a judgment to Wildlife World to delete the fingerprint identification information submitted by Guo Bing when he applied for the annual fingerprint card. (Finish)

Keywords: