# Delivery Robot Manufacturers Face Lawsuits Over Biometric Data Collection

Chicago residents allege unauthorized scanning of faces and hands by delivery robots.

- **Source:** [Gizmodo](https://gizmodo.com/)
- **Published:** 2026-10-20
- **Topic:** [Business](https://brifing.si/c/business)
- **Original article:** <https://gizmodo.com/delivery-robots-are-watching-you-according-to-lawsuit-2000828417>
- **On Brifing:** https://brifing.si/s/ad0f76b0-f774-4dbc-9b60-22b5d7d35a20

## Unauthorized Biometric Data Collection

Two major 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 record biometric details, including faces and hands, without obtaining explicit consumer consent. These actions reportedly occurred during routine food deliveries facilitated through platforms like DoorDash and Uber Eats.

## Specific Allegations Against Coco Robotics

A plaintiff suing Coco Robotics claims the company’s robot recorded his head, face, and hands during a delivery interaction. The lawsuit asserts that the machine’s LiDAR sensors measured his physical geometry and distance while a remote operator monitored the video feed in real-time. The plaintiff maintains he never provided consent for this data capture.

## Serve Robotics and AI Training

The lawsuit against Serve Robotics involves an Uber Eats delivery where the robot allegedly collected and retained biometric information without permission. Plaintiffs suggest the company may be utilizing this captured data to train artificial intelligence systems or potentially licensing the sensitive information to undisclosed third parties, raising significant concerns regarding long-term data security.

## Illinois Biometric Privacy Act Violations

Both lawsuits center on alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. This legislation mandates that firms collecting biometric data from state residents must provide written notice, obtain formal written consent, and maintain transparent policies regarding data retention and destruction. The plaintiffs argue that neither company adhered to these strict legal requirements during 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 of the state privacy act, or 5,000 dollars for each intentional or reckless violation, alongside additional relief measures for the affected Chicago residents involved.

## Chicago as a Regulatory Battleground

Chicago has emerged as a central hub for debates regarding the integration of delivery robots in public spaces. The city has seen a significant increase in the number of these machines over recent years, leading to growing tensions among residents who cite concerns regarding sidewalk congestion and potential safety hazards for pedestrians navigating the urban environment.

## Broader Implications for Robotics

This litigation highlights the friction between rapid technological deployment and existing privacy frameworks. As autonomous delivery systems become more prevalent, the industry faces increased scrutiny over how sensor-laden hardware interacts with the public. Companies must now balance operational efficiency with the legal necessity of protecting individual privacy rights in highly regulated urban jurisdictions.

## Future of Autonomous Surveillance

The outcome of these cases could establish a critical legal precedent for how robotics companies handle data collection in public spaces. If courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, manufacturers may be forced to redesign sensor arrays or implement stricter data governance protocols to ensure compliance with evolving biometric privacy standards across the United States.

## 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._
