Get the weekly research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean. No account.
Ancestry discloses that it may create temporary abstract numerical representations of images within users' private galleries to group similar faces, and characterizes this as potentially constituting biometric processing in certain jurisdictions. The document states that these representations are not retained or stored.
This analysis describes what Ancestry's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision places the responsibility on the user to inform living individuals depicted in uploaded content about the facial grouping processing before uploading. The document's acknowledgment that this process may constitute biometric processing in certain jurisdictions creates a notification obligation for users that has compliance implications under applicable biometric privacy statutes.
Interpretive note: Whether the no-retention assertion fully satisfies applicable biometric privacy statute requirements, particularly under Illinois BIPA which may be triggered at the collection stage, depends on judicial interpretation and is not definitively resolved by the document's disclosure alone.
The updated Terms footer no longer includes a direct link to 'Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information,' a disclosure mechanism required under California's CCPA. California residents retain the legal right to direct Ancestry not to sell or share their personal information, but the footer no longer provides a prominently placed navigation point to exercise that right. Ancestry's privacy notice continues to reference CCPA compliance and provides other disclosure language, but the specific footer link has been removed.
View change record →The updated terms reduce the out-of-pocket costs consumers must pay to arbitrate disputes against Ancestry. Previously, consumers and Ancestry shared filing fees, arbitrator fees, and hearing expenses equally unless an arbitrator found the arbitration frivolous; now, if an arbitrator determines the arbitration is non-frivolous, Ancestry covers all JAMS-invoiced fees. Separately, the revised terms establish that Ancestry will pay all mediation fees, whereas both parties previously shared this cost. The removal of language describing alternative AAA procedures narrows the stated dispute resolution pathway.
View change record →California residents who rely on the Terms and Conditions footer to find the option to request that Ancestry not sell or share their personal information will no longer see that link in that location. While the underlying CCPA right to opt out likely remains available, the removal of this navigation path from the terms page makes the right less discoverable. California residents should verify that they can still access opt-out functionality through Ancestry's website or contact the company directly if they cannot locate the feature.
View change record →Under this clause, users who upload images of living individuals are responsible for informing those individuals that Ancestry may create temporary numerical representations of their faces for grouping purposes. Ancestry states it does not retain or store these representations, though the document acknowledges the process may be considered biometric processing under applicable law.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle Biometric Processing Disclosure and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →Monitoring
Ancestry has changed this document before.
Receive same-day alerts, structured change summaries, and monitoring for up to 25 platforms.
"You have informed any living individuals in Your Content that Ancestry may create a temporary abstract numerical representation of images to group similar faces within your private gallery, which may be considered biometric processing in certain jurisdictions. Ancestry does not retain or store these representations.Excerpt from Ancestry's Terms and Conditions
1. REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: Illinois BIPA imposes strict consent, retention, and disclosure requirements on entities that collect biometric identifiers or biometric information, including facial geometry. Texas and Washington have enacted biometric privacy statutes with similar requirements. The document's assertion that representations are not retained or stored is operationally significant to BIPA compliance, as BIPA's requirements are triggered by collection and retention. The adequacy of disclosure through Terms of Service, rather than direct individual notice, for third parties depicted in uploaded photos may require evaluation under applicable biometric statutes. 2. GOVERNANCE EXPOSURE: High for jurisdictions with active biometric privacy enforcement. Illinois BIPA provides a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, and courts have found that facial recognition processing of photographs can trigger BIPA requirements. The document's no-retention assertion, if accurate, may limit BIPA exposure, but the collection step itself may be sufficient to trigger notice and consent requirements depending on judicial interpretation. 3. JURISDICTION FLAGS: Illinois BIPA, Texas Chapter 503, and Washington RCW 19.375 create heightened exposure for biometric processing of facial images. California's CCPA addresses biometric data as sensitive personal information. The document's acknowledgment of jurisdictional variance in whether this constitutes biometric processing signals awareness of this regulatory landscape. 4. CONTRACT AND VENDOR IMPLICATIONS: The user-facing notice obligation placed on users who upload third-party images shifts the disclosure responsibility contractually, but this contractual shift may not fully satisfy statutory notice requirements under BIPA or similar statutes that impose obligations directly on the entity performing the processing. 5. COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS: Legal teams should assess whether the no-retention assertion is implemented in practice and documented in Ancestry's technical architecture. Compliance teams should evaluate whether the user-facing contractual notification obligation satisfies applicable biometric privacy statute requirements for notice to depicted individuals, or whether additional disclosure mechanisms are required.
This provision places the responsibility on the user to inform living individuals depicted in uploaded content about the facial grouping processing before uploading. The document's acknowledgment that this process may constitute biometric processing in certain jurisdictions creates a notification obligation for users that has compliance implications under applicable biometric privacy statutes.
Under this clause, users who upload images of living individuals are responsible for informing those individuals that Ancestry may create temporary numerical representations of their faces for grouping purposes. Ancestry states it does not retain or store these representations, though the document acknowledges the process may be considered biometric processing under applicable law.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Ancestry.