…[C]ustomers submit fingerprint and facial biometric data as well as their name, address, date and country of birth and gender. Tascet uses this data to generate a 16-digit ‘financial security number’ which is linked to the customer account. To identify themselves in a branch and carry out transactions, customers then provide their name and fingerprint.
This is exactly the kind of thing we predicted in the wake of Patco Construction v People’s United Bank.
[B]anks [now] have more responsibility to shield their business customers from fraud. That responsibility, however, will entail a cost that will ultimately be borne by customers in higher fees — applied directly to this this case, wiring fees. But if not appealed and/or upheld, it means banks will be offering customers more security and charging higher prices, part of which will flow to security providers including biometric ID management providers.