What was the verdict of the first case of face recognition in China?

China? The first case of face recognition? The judgment was that Hangzhou Wildlife Park Co., Ltd. compensated Guo Bing for the loss of contract benefits and transportation expenses of 1038 yuan, deleted the facial feature information submitted by Guo Bing when he applied for the fingerprint annual card, and rejected Guo Bing's other claims, such as confirming that the relevant contents in the notice and SMS notice of Hangzhou Wildlife Park Co., Ltd. were invalid.

I. The whole story of the incident On April 20th19th, Guo Bing bought a two-person annual card at Wildlife World Flower 1360 yuan, and determined the entry method through fingerprints. According to the requirements of the garden, Mr. and Mrs. Guo Bing left their names, ID numbers and telephone numbers. Enter their fingerprints and take photos. After that, the way customers entered the park was changed from fingerprint recognition to face recognition, and the store notices were also changed.

In July of 20 19 and October of 10 10, Wildlife World sent Guo Bing short messages twice, telling him that he needed to change the identification system of the annual card and asked him to activate the face recognition system, otherwise he would not be able to enter the park normally with the annual card.

After that, the two sides failed to negotiate on the way back to the park, so Guo Bing filed a lawsuit with the court, demanding that the relevant contents in the notice and SMS notice of Wildlife World Store be invalidated, and demanding compensation for the annual card fee, transportation fee, personal information deletion and other expenses caused by the zoo's breach of contract fraud.

Second, the court's point of view The court believes that the two parties in this case have formed a service contract relationship after purchasing the Garden Year Card. The focus of the dispute is actually the evaluation and regulation of the operator's behavior in handling consumer personal information, especially personal biometric information such as fingerprints and faces.

During the performance of the contract, Hangzhou Wildlife Park Co., Ltd. changed the original fingerprint recognition method to face recognition method, which is a breach of contract by unilaterally changing the contract. Guo Bing made it clear that he disagreed, so the store notice and SMS notice did not constitute the contents of the contract between the two parties. In addition, there is no evidence that Hangzhou Wildlife Park Co., Ltd. cheated Guo Bing in the trial.