TL;DR: The New York City Council held hearings on March 2 for two bills that would ban facial recognition in public accommodations and apartment buildings. Int 0213-2026 targets stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues. Int 0428-2026 targets landlords. Both are part of the “Ban The Scan” campaign that’s been pushing for restrictions since MSG started ejecting lawyers who sued them. Privacy groups rallied at City Hall demanding passage. The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce wants regulation instead, arguing small businesses need the security tools. The bills would still allow biometric access systems (like key fobs and intercoms) with consent.
The Two Bills
The City Council’s Committee on Technology heard testimony on two separate facial recognition restrictions [1][2]:
Int 0213-2026: Business Ban
Sponsored by Council Member Shahana Hanif. Would make it illegal for “places of public accommodation” to use biometric recognition technology to identify or verify customers. That includes [1]:
- Retail stores
- Restaurants and bars
- Entertainment venues
- Gyms and fitness centers
- Hotels
Any biometric data collection (like stores scanning faces at checkout) would require explicit consent. Selling that data to third parties would be prohibited. Businesses would face requirements to secure whatever biometric data they do collect.
Int 0428-2026: Landlord Ban
Sponsored by Council Member Pierina Ana Sanchez. Would prohibit landlords from installing, activating, or using biometric recognition technology to identify tenants or their guests [2].
The bill defines “biometric identifier information” broadly: retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, face geometry scans, gait or movement patterns. If a landlord wants to use smart-access systems that scan your face to let you in, tenants would have to explicitly consent.
The Rally
Before the hearing, Council Members Shahana Hanif and Alexa Avilés led a rally on the City Hall steps with privacy advocates [1]. The message was clear: ban it, don’t regulate it.
“Facial recognition should never be part of New Yorkers’ lives, least of all when they’re buying groceries or unlocking their front door.”
Corinne Worthington, S.T.O.P. Advocacy Manager [1]
The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.) organized the event alongside the NYCLU, Legal Aid Society, Amnesty International, and the NYU Law Center.
“Nobody wants to live in a world where pervasive surveillance identifies them, tracks their every move.”
Medha Raman, NYCLU Legal Fellow [1]
The advocates aren’t just asking for these two bills. They want a full ban on police and government facial recognition too. These bills are the opening salvo.
The Accuracy Problem
Nina Loshkajian from the NYU Law Center raised what’s become the standard civil rights objection to facial recognition [1]:
“Facial recognition systems have repeatedly misidentified Black and brown people at significantly higher rates.”
This isn’t theoretical. NIST studies have documented higher error rates for darker-skinned individuals across most commercial facial recognition systems. In Detroit, Robert Williams was wrongfully arrested after facial recognition misidentified him as a shoplifter. In New Jersey, Nijeer Parks spent 10 days in jail over a misidentification.
When MSG started scanning faces at Madison Square Garden, it wasn’t misidentifying people. It was correctly identifying lawyers whose firms had sued MSG’s parent company, then ejecting them from events they’d paid to attend. Both scenarios (wrong matches and right matches used for retaliation) demonstrate why critics want the tech banned outright.
Business Opposition
The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce testified against Int 0213-2026 as currently drafted. Their argument: small businesses need these tools to fight retail theft [3].
“Banning biometric technology removes a scalable, cost-effective security tool and replaces it with nothing.”
Manhattan Chamber of Commerce written testimony [3]
The Chamber claims a ban would “disproportionately harm small businesses owned by minorities, women, and immigrants who lack resources for alternative security measures.” They want regulation instead [3]:
- Mandatory informed consent before biometric use
- Distinction between security and commercial applications (following Washington state’s model)
- Strict data retention limits with regular audits
- Prohibition on selling biometric data
- Ban on discriminatory profiling
On the landlord bill, the Chamber took no official position but asked for “clear distinctions between identification and basic access systems.” They want video intercoms and key fobs to remain legal.
The MSG Shadow
The “Ban The Scan” campaign started in 2023 after Madison Square Garden Entertainment used facial recognition to identify and eject attorneys whose law firms had active litigation against the company [4]. MSG scanned faces at arena entrances and matched them against a database of lawyers at firms suing them.
When attorney Kelly Conlon tried to attend a Rockettes show with her daughter’s Girl Scout troop in November 2022, MSG security stopped her. She’d never sued MSG personally, but her firm had active cases against them. Out she went.
The story made national news. The City Council held hearings. The state legislature considered intervention. And the “Ban The Scan” coalition formed to push for comprehensive restrictions.
Three years later, the bills are finally getting hearings.
What Happens Next
The Committee on Technology heard testimony. Now the bills move through the Council’s legislative process. There’s no timeline for a floor vote.
Similar bills have been introduced before. In 2023 and 2024, facial recognition restrictions made it through hearings but never reached votes. The political calculus has shifted somewhat. Retail theft remains a hot-button issue, and business groups have amplified their opposition to anything that might limit security options.
But the advocates have more ammunition now too. The wrongful arrest cases keep accumulating. The UK’s FaceWatch rollout showed what mass retail facial recognition looks like at scale. And the MSG debacle remains a vivid example of facial recognition used for retaliation rather than security.
NYC in Context
New York City already has some biometric restrictions. The 2021 Biometric Identifier Information Law requires businesses to disclose facial recognition use with signage. But disclosure isn’t prohibition, and critics say the signs are easy to miss or ignore.
Other cities have gone further:
- San Francisco: Banned government facial recognition in 2019
- Portland, Oregon: Banned both government and business facial recognition in 2020
- Baltimore: Banned facial recognition by anyone, including private citizens
If NYC passes both bills, it would join Portland as one of the only major US cities restricting private sector facial recognition. The difference: NYC is an order of magnitude larger. Eight million residents. The financial capital. If facial recognition bans work here, they can work anywhere.
What This Means for You
If you live in NYC or visit regularly (and want practical defenses in the meantime, see how to beat facial recognition):
- Right now: Businesses can scan your face. Landlords can install facial recognition. They just have to post a sign.
- If Int 0213-2026 passes: Stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues couldn’t use facial recognition to identify you without explicit consent.
- If Int 0428-2026 passes: Your landlord couldn’t install facial recognition to track when you come and go, unless you agree to it.
Neither bill would affect NYPD. Police facial recognition is a separate fight, one the advocates say is coming next.