---
title: "Voice Recordings as Biometric Identifiers Under BIPA: A 4-State Guide"
description: "Are voice recordings biometric identifiers under Illinois BIPA? A four-state guide to BIPA, Washington, Texas and California rules for cloning your reps."
date: "2026-10-26T18:35:04.021Z"
updated: "2026-10-26T18:35:04.029Z"
author: "Carlos Agüero"
canonical: "https://sendpotion.com/feeds/blog/voice-recordings-biometric-identifiers-bipa"
tags: ["voice recordings biometric identifiers bipa", "california biometric privacy law", "washington biometric privacy law", "texas biometric privacy law"]
---

# Voice Recordings as Biometric Identifiers Under BIPA: A 4-State Guide

A voice recording becomes a biometric identifier under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) when a voiceprint is extracted from it, and collecting that voiceprint requires written informed consent first.

BIPA is the benchmark for a reason: plaintiffs filed 427 lawsuits in 2024 and 150 in 2025 ([Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog](https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/01/13/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift/), 2026). Voiceprint suits now target generative audio. Teams [sending personalized videos at scale](https://sendpotion.com/feeds/blog/personalized-videos-at-scale) from cloned reps face a patchwork, because Illinois, Washington, Texas and California treat biometric data differently. This guide answers the Illinois question first. It then tests the other three states against one use case: a company cloning its own staff. General information only, not legal advice.

> **Key Takeaways**
> - Illinois BIPA lists voiceprints and face geometry scans as biometric identifiers, and its Section 15 requires written consent and a public retention schedule.
> - Washington's RCW 19.375 is enforced only by the state Attorney General, and whether it reaches a clone built from a rep's recordings is unsettled.
> - Texas's CUBI law is the safer one to treat as applicable to employee avatars, and the Attorney General alone enforces it.
> - California has no BIPA-style statute, but the CCPA and CPRA are the general framework for employee biometric data because the employee exemption expired on January 1, 2023.
> - A written release, a retention schedule, offboarding deletion and vendor terms cover all four states at once.

*By Carlos Agüero, who builds AI video and outreach automation tools for B2B sales teams (TargetGrid.ai, Skale.email, Potion). Not a lawyer. Published October 22, 2026.*

## Are voice recordings biometric identifiers under Illinois BIPA, and what consent do we need?

Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a voiceprint is a listed biometric identifier, while a plain voice recording is not. Risk arises when software extracts a voiceprint from recordings, as avatar training can. Before collecting one, BIPA requires written informed consent, and statutory damages run $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless one ([Recording Law](https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/bipa-amendment-retroactive-clay-union-pacific-7th-circuit/), 2026).

![Studio microphone capsule beside a signed paper consent form on a desk](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_img1_20261022183032.webp)

### What counts as a biometric identifier under BIPA?

A **biometric identifier** under BIPA is a listed category of data: a retina or iris scan, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, or a scan of hand or face geometry. A **voiceprint** is a mathematical template of a person's vocal characteristics that can identify them. A raw audio file is not on the list. The legal fight is over when software turns audio into a template.

Face and voice cloning touches both categories. Training a face model may involve face geometry. Cloning a voice may extract a voiceprint. Whether a finished clone model counts is unsettled. A threshold question is also still pending: does a voiceprint require an identification template?

### What does recent litigation show?

Plaintiffs are pushing voiceprint theories toward generative audio. Seven Illinois plaintiffs sued Google over voiceprints used to train AI, with related suits against eight other companies including ElevenLabs and Adobe ([Biometric Update](https://www.biometricupdate.com/202605/tech-giants-sued-under-bipa-over-voiceprints-used-to-train-ai), 2026). These allegations are unproven.

Other suits followed. A federal judge in California declined in August 2026 to end a BIPA voiceprint suit against Meta over voice recordings collected through Facebook and Messenger ([Biometric Update](https://www.biometricupdate.com/202608/meta-loses-bid-to-end-bipa-voiceprint-suit-as-case-moves-forward), 2026). A proposed class action, Krupke v. Walmart, alleges voiceprints were built from customer-service calls without written consent ([CX Today](https://cxtoday.com/voice-ai-lawsuits-put-contact-centers-on-bipa-watch), 2026).

There is a counter-view. John Walter, President of the Contact Center AI Association, says "I personally believe most of these cases lack merit." ([CX Today](https://cxtoday.com/voice-ai-lawsuits-put-contact-centers-on-bipa-watch), 2026). A fair risk assessment weighs both views.

### What consent does BIPA require?

BIPA's consent rules sit in Section 15 of the statute (740 ILCS 14/15). The list below is a general summary of that section, not a quotation. Check the exact wording against the statute text before you draft a release. For any avatar or voice clone, treat these as the minimum:

1. Written notice that biometric data is being collected and stored.
2. Notice of the specific purpose and how long the data will be kept.
3. A written release signed before collection.
4. A publicly available retention and destruction schedule.

Consent to record a call or a video is not consent to create a voiceprint. Name the "AI avatar" or "voice clone" use on the release.

### Do remote reps in Illinois change the answer?

Yes. BIPA reaches employees wherever the collection happens. A Texas or Washington headquarters does not remove exposure for a rep who lives in Illinois. A suit over voiceprints from Microsoft Teams live transcription was reportedly filed in a Washington federal court under Illinois law, which shows the point (single secondary source, so verify the docket).

## Why does BIPA remain the benchmark for biometric privacy law?

BIPA is the benchmark because it lets individuals sue directly, and they have: more than 1,500 lawsuits have been filed under it since 2018 ([National Law Review](https://natlawreview.com/article/first-bipa-litigation-class-members-receive-equity-clearview-ai), 2025). Annual filings peaked at 427 in 2024 and fell to 150 in 2025 after the per-person damages amendment ([Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog](https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/01/13/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift/), 2026).

![Line chart: BIPA lawsuits filed per year, 2022–2025. Highest: 2024 at 427.](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_chart_c1.png)

*Source: [Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog](https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/01/13/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift/), 2026*

The chart shows BIPA filings of 362 in 2022, 417 in 2023, 427 in 2024 and 150 in 2025. That is three years above 360 filings, then a sharp drop. Counts differ by source. Privacy World, a Squire Patton Boggs blog, reports at least 100 putative class actions in 2025 ([Privacy World](https://www.privacyworld.blog/2025/12/2025-year-in-review-biometric-privacy-litigation/), 2025). The safe reading is a range of 100 to 150.

### What changed in 2024 and 2026?

The **per-person amendment** is the 2024 change to BIPA that limits recovery to one per person for the same method of collection. Before it, damages accrued per scan. In one case the defendant estimated class-wide damages exceeding $17 billion ([Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP](https://www.sgrlaw.com/newsroom/publications/seventh-circuit-holds-bipa-damages-amendment-applies-retroactively), 2026). That is a defendant's estimate, not a judgment.

On April 1, 2026, the Seventh Circuit ruled in Clay v. Union Pacific. The court wrote that "this amendment applies retroactively because it impacts only the statutory damages available to plaintiffs." ([Recording Law](https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/bipa-amendment-retroactive-clay-union-pacific-7th-circuit/), 2026).

| Period | How damages accrue | What it means for exposure |
|---|---|---|
| Before the 2024 amendment | Per scan, under the Cothron ruling | Very high theoretical class-wide exposure |
| After the 2024 amendment | One recovery per person for the same method of collection | Exposure limited per person to $1,000 or $5,000 |
| Since April 1, 2026 | Amendment applies retroactively to pending cases | Older per-scan damage examples no longer reflect current risk |

Avoid pre-2024 damage examples when you brief executives. They overstate current exposure. The risk has not gone away, though. Damages remain tiered, and voiceprint suits keep arriving.

## Does Washington's biometric privacy law cover a rep's own voice and face clone?

Washington's biometric identifier law, RCW 19.375, may not reach a rep's own voice and face clone, but the question is unsettled. The statute covers voiceprint data used to identify a specific individual, excludes photographs, video and audio recordings, and is enforced only by the Attorney General, with penalties up to $7,500 per violation ([Recording Law](https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/washington-data-privacy-laws/biometric-privacy/), 2026).

![Laptop with a paused webcam preview and a rainy Pacific Northwest city view behind it](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_img2_20261022183032.webp)

### Which facts decide whether the law applies?

**RCW 19.375** is Washington's biometric identifier statute. Its core trigger is enrolling a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose. That purpose is narrow: sale or disclosure to a third party for marketing unrelated goods or services. No source tests whether a clone model built from a rep's recordings counts as an enrolled identifier. Three facts shape the answer:

1. Whether a voiceprint template is created or stored.
2. Whether the avatar vendor receives that template.
3. Whether the template is used to identify the person.

If you only feed recordings into a model that generates video, the exclusion for recordings and data generated from them helps you. If a template exists and is used to identify someone, you are closer to the covered core.

### Are employees covered?

Sources disagree. Foster Garvey, a law firm, says Washington's laws "generally exempt biometric data collected for employment or security purposes" ([Foster Garvey](https://www.foster.com/newsroom/legal-alerts/biometric-privacy-in-washington-workplaces-key-considerations-for-employers/), 2026). Other practitioner commentary reads RCW 19.375 as covering employee data. Confirm with Washington counsel before relying on either view.

### What about the My Health My Data Act?

The **My Health My Data Act** (MHMDA) is Washington's consumer health data law. Its biometric definition covers imagery and voice recordings from which an identifier template can be extracted. It has a private right of action through the Consumer Protection Act, and courts may award treble damages up to $25,000 ([Recording Law](https://www.recordinglaw.com/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/washington-data-privacy-laws/), 2026). Its definition of consumer excludes people acting in an employment context. A rep's own clone is a weak fit.

## We have reps in Texas. Does the Texas biometric privacy law apply to AI video avatars of our own staff?

Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI) likely applies to AI video avatars of your own staff, because capturing a voiceprint or face geometry for a commercial purpose requires informing the person and getting consent. The Attorney General alone enforces it, with civil penalties up to $25,000 per violation ([Efros AI Law Tracker](https://efros.com/research/state-ai-law-tracker/texas/), 2026).

![Laptop with webcam light on beside worn leather boots on a wooden table](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_img3_20261022183032.webp)

### What does CUBI require?

**CUBI** is the Texas statute that requires notice and consent before a person's voiceprint or face geometry is captured for a commercial purpose. It also expects destruction within a reasonable time. One secondary source puts the outer limit at one year after the purpose ends. There is no private right of action. The penalty figure comes from a secondary tracker, so check Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 503.001 before you cite it internally.

The Attorney General has used biometric theories against large companies. Ken Paxton's announcement of a Google settlement said the company collected "even their voiceprints and facial geometry through their products and services" ([The Leveraged Years](https://www.theleveragedyears.com/ai-regulation-news/us-texas-google-privacy-biometric-settlement-2025), 2025). That write-up is secondary, so check the Attorney General's own release.

### Did TRAIGA change the answer for avatars?

**TRAIGA** is the Texas Responsible AI Governance Act (HB 149), in effect since January 1, 2026. It amended CUBI to exempt the training, processing and storage of biometric identifiers for AI models, unless the system is used to uniquely identify a person. It also says publicly available media alone does not give consent unless the individual made it public.

No source tests whether building a named employee's avatar counts as AI development or as capture for a commercial purpose. The exemption's reach is untested. Treat consent as required.

TRAIGA also carries its own penalties, separate from CUBI. They run $80,000 to $200,000 per non-curable violation ([Alston & Bird](https://www.alstonprivacy.com/texas-enacts-responsible-ai-governance-act/), 2025). Do not mix up the two penalty schedules.

## How does California treat an employee's face and voice data?

California has no standalone BIPA-style statute, so the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), is the main framework for an employee's face and voice data. In general terms it treats biometric information as sensitive personal information, and its employee exemption ended on January 1, 2023. California courts are also active: a federal judge let a BIPA voiceprint suit against Meta proceed in August 2026 ([Biometric Update](https://www.biometricupdate.com/202608/meta-loses-bid-to-end-bipa-voiceprint-suit-as-case-moves-forward), 2026).

### What would an employer owe under the CCPA?

**Sensitive personal information** is a CCPA category that includes biometric information. Its biometric definition covers voice recordings and imagery from which an identifier template can be extracted. The points in this section are a general summary of the statute, not tied to a linked source here. Check them against the California Privacy Protection Agency's materials and with counsel. For an employee avatar program, expect these duties:

- A notice at collection that names the biometric use.
- Rights to know, delete, correct and limit use.
- Disclosure of how long the data is kept.
- Reasonable security for the face and voice data.

Sources conflict on how the employment relationship affects some of these duties. Ask counsel which apply to your reps.

### What is still unverified?

We found no verified enforcement figures for CCPA employee data. We also could not confirm how California's AB 2602 digital-replica contract rules for performers apply to sales staff. Raise AB 2602 with counsel. Do not treat it as a settled requirement.

The Meta case above ran under Illinois law, not California law. It shows that California courts hear voiceprint claims, not that California has its own biometric statute.

## How do Illinois, Washington, Texas and California compare for AI video avatars?

Illinois is the strictest of the four states for a company cloning its own reps, because BIPA lets individuals sue, with damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation ([Recording Law](https://www.recordinglaw.com/news/bipa-amendment-retroactive-clay-union-pacific-7th-circuit/), 2026). Washington and Texas leave enforcement to their Attorneys General, with penalties up to $7,500 and $25,000 per violation. California relies on CCPA and CPRA duties.

![Four manila folders with different colored tabs lined up on a conference table](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_img4_20261022183032.webp)

### Four-state decision matrix

| State | Law | Trigger | Clone of a rep's face and voice | Employees | Enforcement | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illinois | BIPA | Voiceprint or face geometry scan, with written release | Likely covered if a template is extracted; unsettled | Covered, wherever collection happens | Private lawsuits | $1,000 negligent, $5,000 intentional or reckless |
| Washington | RCW 19.375 | Enrolled voiceprint used to identify; recordings and generated data excluded | Unsettled; depends on whether a template is created and used | Sources conflict; confirm with counsel | Attorney General only | Up to $7,500 per violation |
| Texas | CUBI, as amended by TRAIGA | Capture of voiceprint or face geometry for a commercial purpose | Treat consent as required; exemption untested | Not settled in the sources | Attorney General only | Up to $25,000 per violation |
| California | CCPA and CPRA | Biometric information as sensitive personal information | Covered where an identifier template can be extracted (general summary, verify) | Covered since the exemption expired (general summary, verify) | Not verified | Not verified |

### How should you read the matrix?

Build to Illinois and you meet the other three on consent. The Seventh Circuit's April 1, 2026 ruling that the 2024 amendment applies retroactively keeps Illinois exposure at the per-person level for pending cases ([Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP](https://www.sgrlaw.com/newsroom/publications/seventh-circuit-holds-bipa-damages-amendment-applies-retroactively), 2026). The matrix is a planning tool, not a legal opinion. Washington and Texas penalties come from secondary sources. Verify them against the statutes.

## What controls should a company put in place before cloning a rep's face and voice?

Before cloning a rep's face and voice into an AI video avatar, a company should put four controls in place: a separate written notice and release naming the avatar use, a public retention and destruction schedule, offboarding triggers, and vendor contract terms. Foster Garvey also suggests vendor indemnification and compliance warranties ([Foster Garvey](https://www.foster.com/newsroom/legal-alerts/biometric-privacy-in-washington-workplaces-key-considerations-for-employers/), 2026).

![Checklist on a clipboard with ticked boxes beside a laptop and a security badge](https://ai-website-manager-media.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/blog_images/item_289_img5_20261022183032.webp)

### What should the controls look like in practice?

Filings fell from 427 in 2024 to 150 in 2025, but voiceprint suits are moving toward AI vendors ([Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog](https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/01/13/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift/), 2026). Vendor terms matter for that reason.

| Control | What it does | Laws it answers |
|---|---|---|
| Separate written notice and release | Names the "AI avatar" or "voice clone" use, its purpose and its duration | BIPA written release; CUBI consent; CCPA notice at collection |
| Retention and destruction schedule | States when face and voice data and models are deleted | BIPA public schedule; CUBI destruction; CCPA retention disclosure |
| Offboarding trigger | Stops generating content and deletes the model when a rep leaves | All four states |
| Vendor contract terms | No model training on your reps' data, deletion certification, indemnity, Data Processing Agreement (DPA) | BIPA vendor exposure; CCPA security |

### What should an employee consent form include?

1. The exact use: an AI video avatar or voice clone of the employee.
2. What data is collected: video, audio and any extracted template.
3. The purpose and the channels where the avatar will be used.
4. How long the data and model are kept, and when they are deleted.
5. What happens at departure.
6. Who the vendor is and what the vendor may do with the data.

> **Our data:** SendPotion holds SOC 2 Type I, an independent third-party audit of product and infrastructure security. That certification supports a vendor review. It does not replace a signed release or legal review.

When you compare vendors, ask for the same terms in writing. See how the [best video messaging software](https://sendpotion.com/feeds/blog/best-video-messaging-software) options handle consent and data deletion.

## Who is this guide not for, and what does it leave out?

The four-state BIPA guide is not legal advice and does not suit companies that need a ruling on whether a clone is a biometric identifier, because no court has settled that. It also relies on secondary summaries for the Texas and Washington penalty figures, which readers should check against the statutes.

### What are the main limits?

- **Unsettled law.** No source tests whether an avatar built from a named employee's recordings is an enrolled identifier in Washington or a commercial-purpose capture in Texas.
- **Conflicting sources.** Washington's treatment of employees differs between commentators. BIPA filing counts for 2025 range from at least 100 ([Privacy World](https://www.privacyworld.blog/2025/12/2025-year-in-review-biometric-privacy-litigation/), 2025) to 150 ([Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog](https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/01/13/video-dmcar-trend-4-the-landscape-of-privacy-class-actions-continued-to-shift/), 2026).
- **Gaps.** The California summary has no linked source, and we did not verify California enforcement figures for employee data, AB 2602 or other states.
- **Allegations are not findings.** The voiceprint suits against large technology companies are unproven.

If your question is about outreach results rather than compliance, see these [video prospecting examples](https://sendpotion.com/feeds/blog/video-prospecting-examples).

## Frequently Asked Questions

### What does California privacy law say about storing an employee's face and voice data?

California has no standalone biometric statute like BIPA, so the California Consumer Privacy Act, as amended by the CPRA, is the main framework. In general terms, biometric information is sensitive personal information, and the employee exemption expired on January 1, 2023. Employers owe notice at collection, access and deletion rights, retention disclosures and reasonable security. Confirm details with California counsel.

### Is a voice clone or AI avatar of an employee a biometric identifier under BIPA?

Whether a voice clone or AI avatar is a biometric identifier under BIPA is unsettled. BIPA lists voiceprints and scans of face geometry, not raw audio or video. Risk rises when software extracts a voiceprint or face template from a rep's recordings. Courts have not ruled on avatar training, so treat written consent as required.

### What are BIPA damages after the 2024 per-person amendment?

BIPA damages are $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, and the 2024 amendment limits recovery to one per person for the same method of collection. The Seventh Circuit held on April 1, 2026 that the amendment applies retroactively to pending cases.

### Can an employee sue under Washington's or Texas's biometric law?

An employee generally cannot sue under Washington's RCW 19.375 or Texas's CUBI, because both are enforced only by the state Attorney General. Washington's My Health My Data Act has a private right of action, but its definition of consumer excludes people acting in an employment context. Illinois BIPA is the one that allows individual suits.

## Conclusion

Cloning your own reps is manageable if you plan for the strictest state first.

- Illinois BIPA lists voiceprints and face geometry scans, and calls for written consent.
- Washington's RCW 19.375 is AG-only and unsettled for clones.
- Texas's CUBI is safest to treat as requiring consent, and TRAIGA's exemption is untested.
- California's CCPA and CPRA are the general framework for employee biometric data, pending counsel review.
- A written release, retention schedule, offboarding deletion and vendor terms cover all four.

Start by drafting one release that names the avatar use. Then check it with counsel in each state where your reps live. When you are ready to generate AI videos in your own face, voice, and gestures at scale, Start Free Trial. You can also compare [video prospecting tools](https://sendpotion.com/feeds/blog/video-prospecting-tools) by use case.