Surveillance at the Property Line: The Legal Risks of Ring’s New “Familiar Faces” Technology

[1]

From an unsuccessful pitch on Shark Tank in 2013 to its acquisition by Amazon in 2018, Ring has grown into a billion-dollar company used by millions of homeowners worldwide. [2] Over the years, Ring has continued to advance its technology by introducing features such as high-resolution video, enhanced motion detection, color night vision, and integrated alarm and security systems. [3] Recently, Ring announced a new artificial intelligence-powered facial recognition feature called “Familiar Faces,” which has generated significant public controversy. [4] The feature allows users to label individuals appearing in recorded footage, and those labels then appear in notifications, the app timeline, and Event History. [5]

Although “Familiar Faces” was announced in September 2025, much of the public backlash emerged after Ring aired a promotional commercial advertising its new AI-powered features during Super Bowl LX in February 2026. [6] In the commercial, Ring promotes its AI-powered feature, called “Search Party,” as a tool capable of helping locate lost dogs, while implying that use of the feature could make a user a “hero” in their community. [7] The advertisement was widely described as “dystopian” and sparked public concern about Ring’s expanding use of facial recognition technology and the potential privacy implications for non-users and bystanders. [8]

Ring’s Recent Legal Troubles            

Ring’s success over the years has also brought legal challenges. In 2020, Ring was the defendant in the class action lawsuit Ashley LeMay et al v. Ring LLC, in which the plaintiffs alleged that Ring’s cameras used defective security protocols that allowed hackers to access users’ audio and video, exposing them to stalking, harassment, and invasions of privacy. [9] This case was ultimately settled out of court. [10] Additionally, in 2022, Ring was the defendant in the class action lawsuit Wise v. Ring LLC, regarding alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) [11] — which ensures that individuals are in control of their own biometric data by requiring notice and consent before collection, as well as prohibiting private companies from selling or otherwise profiting from consumers’ biometric information. [12] There, the plaintiffs claimed that, after appearing in third parties’ Ring camera footage, Ring created and stored facial templates through biometric identifiers of unwitting individuals without obtaining their consent. [13] After the court denied Ring’s motion to dismiss, the case — like LeMay — ultimately settled out of court. [14]

These types of class action lawsuits against Ring are not confined to the United States. In 2021, a dispute between neighbors in England was brought before the County Court at Oxford to determine whether a homeowner’s Ring camera had unjustifiably infringed a neighbor’s privacy. [15] The court held that the defendant’s Ring camera, which captured both images and audio of the plaintiff’s property, violated the United Kingdom’s data protection laws and contributed to harassment, even though it was not possible to turn off the audio recording feature. [16] Collectively, these cases demonstrate that Ring faces growing legal and regulatory risk surrounding its surveillance practices and related privacy and data-protection issues.

Potential Legal Risks of Ring’s “Familiar Faces” Feature

Many state biometric privacy laws require companies to obtain affirmative consent before using facial recognition technology on an individual. [17] Ring’s “Familiar Faces” feature scans the faces of everyone who approaches a camera to identify matches against a saved list — effectively enabling broad, continuous face scanning of neighbors, visitors, delivery drivers, and passerbys who have not consented. [18]

Absent robust and verifiable consent mechanisms, such widespread face-scanning creates substantial risk of biometric-privacy violations and related class-action litigation. [19] While marketed as a convenience for recognizing familiar visitors, the same technology can be readily repurposed for mass surveillance. [20] Taken together, these risks make the “Familiar Faces” feature a growing source of potential liability for homeowners, landlords, and real estate investors as smart-home technologies become a standard feature of residential properties. [21]

ELEANOR MULVENON (guest writer) is a first-year law student at Villanova University’s Charles Widger School of Law. Originally from the suburbs of Washington, D.C., she spent four years in Charlottesville, Virginia, earning her undergraduate degree from the University of Virginia. Following law school, Eleanor plans to pursue a career in litigation.

Footnotes

[1] See Ring, Search Party from Ring | Be A Hero In Your Neighborhood, at 0:10 (YouTube, Feb. 2, 2026), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OheUzrXsKrY

[2] See Susan Adams, The Exclusive Inside Story of Ring: From ‘Shark Tank’ Reject to Amazon’s Latest Acquisition, Forbes (Feb. 27, 2018), https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2018/02/27/amazon-is-buying-ring-the-pioneer-of-the-video-doorbell-for-1-billion/

[3] See Jay Moye, A Brief History of the Ring Video Doorbell and its Evolution Over the Last 10 Years, Amazon News (May 2, 2023), https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/a-brief-history-of-the-ring-video-doorbell-and-its-evolution-over-the-last-10-years

[4] See Sarah Perez, Amazon’s Ring Rolls Out Controversial, AI-Powered Facial-Recognition Feature to Video Doorbells, TechCrunch (Dec. 9, 2025), https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/09/amazons-ring-rolls-out-controversial-ai-powered-facial-recognition-feature-to-video-doorbells/

[5] See id.

[6] See id.

[7] See Ring, supra note 1

[8] See Beryl Lipton, No One, Including Our Furry Friends, Will be Safer in Ring’s Surveillance Nightmare, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Feb. 10, 2026), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/no-one-including-our-furry-friends-will-be-safer-rings-surveillance-nightmare-0

[9] See Ashley LeMay et al v. Ring LLC, 2:20CV00074 (C.D. Cal. 2020)

[10] See id.

[11] See Wise v. Ring LLC, No. C20-1298-JCC, 2022 WL 3083068, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 3, 2022)

[12] See Nicholas Sollitto, What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)?, UpGuard (Nov. 30, 2025), https://www.upguard.com/blog/bipa

[13] See Wise, supra note 11

[14] See id.

[15] See Fairhurst v. Woodard [2021] 10 WLUK 151 (12 October 2021)

[16] See Jane Wakefield, Neighbour Wins Privacy Row Over Smart Doorbell and Cameras, BBC (Oct. 14, 2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58911296

[17] See Mario Trujillo, The Legal Case Against Ring’s Face Recognition Feature, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Nov. 3, 2025), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/legal-case-against-rings-face-recognition-feature#:~:text=Amazon%20Ring's%20upcoming%20face%20recognition,company%20a%20list%20of%20questions.

[18] See id.

[19] See Gregory Zuckerman, Ring Familiar Faces Reportedly Violates State Privacy Laws, FindArticles (Nov. 7, 2025), https://www.findarticles.com/ring-familiar-faces-reportedly-violates-state-privacy-laws/

[20] See Trujillo, supra note 15

[21] See Jonathan Meer & Angela Sekerka, Do Tenants Have a Right to Ring Cameras? Courts are Weighing In, Wilson Elser (Jan. 14, 2025), https://www.wilsonelser.com/publications/do-tenants-have-a-right-to-ring-cameras-courts-are-weighing-in