# Delivery Robot Manufacturers Face Lawsuits Over Biometric Data Collection Chicago residents allege unauthorized biometric scanning by autonomous delivery robots during food service operations. - **Source:** [Gizmodo](https://brifing.si/source/63382431-cef0-4c41-883e-2f88dc21351e) - **Published:** 2026-10-20 - **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business) - **Original article:** - **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/0c04fcc6-180a-4b43-b23c-5f34f45406b5 ## Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection Two prominent delivery robot manufacturers, Coco Robotics and Serve Robotics, face class-action lawsuits in Chicago. Plaintiffs allege these companies utilized onboard cameras and LiDAR sensors to capture biometric details, including faces and hands, without obtaining explicit consumer consent. This practice reportedly occurred during routine food deliveries facilitated through platforms like DoorDash and Uber Eats. ## Specific Allegations Against Coco Robotics A plaintiff in the Coco Robotics case claims the delivery bot recorded his head, face, and hands while he retrieved an order. The lawsuit further alleges that remote operators monitored live video feeds of the interaction. The claimant asserts that no prior notice or consent was provided for this invasive data collection process. ## Serve Robotics and AI Training The lawsuit against Serve Robotics suggests that the company may be retaining collected biometric information to train artificial intelligence systems. Furthermore, the complaint raises concerns that this sensitive data could potentially be licensed to third-party entities. These allegations highlight significant privacy risks associated with the deployment of autonomous machines in public urban spaces. ## Illinois Biometric Privacy Act Violations Both lawsuits center on alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. This legislation mandates that firms must provide written notice, obtain informed consent, and establish clear policies for the retention and destruction of biometric data. The plaintiffs argue that the companies failed to meet these strict legal requirements during their local operations. ## Corporate Response and Legal Stakes Both Coco Robotics and Serve Robotics have officially denied any wrongdoing regarding the accusations presented in the lawsuits. The legal filings seek statutory damages of 1,000 dollars per violation, which increases to 5,000 dollars for instances deemed intentional or reckless. These financial penalties reflect the severity of the alleged privacy breaches under state law. ## Chicago as a Regulatory Battleground Chicago has emerged as a central location for debates surrounding the integration of delivery robots into public infrastructure. Residents have expressed growing frustration, citing concerns over sidewalk congestion and potential safety hazards for pedestrians. This environment of local tension likely contributed to the scrutiny and subsequent legal action taken against the robot manufacturers. ## Operational Risks of Autonomous Tech The integration of advanced sensors like LiDAR and high-definition cameras into consumer-facing robotics creates significant data governance challenges. Companies must balance operational efficiency with strict adherence to privacy regulations. As autonomous fleets expand, the potential for unauthorized data harvesting remains a critical concern for regulators and privacy advocates monitoring the evolving tech landscape. ## Broader Implications for Robotics Industry These lawsuits underscore the legal risks inherent in deploying data-intensive autonomous systems in densely populated urban areas. As cities grapple with sidewalk usage and privacy rights, manufacturers face increasing pressure to ensure transparency. Future industry growth will likely depend on establishing robust data protection frameworks that align with stringent state-level privacy statutes and public expectations. ## Sources covering this story - https://gizmodo.com/delivery-robots-are-watching-you-according-to-lawsuit-2000828417 — --- _Summary written by Brifing from the original reporting. Copyright in the original article belongs to its publisher; read the full piece at the link above._