Abstract
This article examines the fast-paced convergence of AI and biometric technology in the
international fashion retail industry with emphasis on these revolutionary effects on consumer personalization and data gathering. It highlights important legal challenges emerging from sensitive biometric data use, such as privacy threats, consent issues, and algorithmic discrimination. The research performs a comparative examination of regulatory regimes in key jurisdictions, including India, the United States, and the European Union, identifying progress and major enforcement gaps. Major case studies reflect ongoing litigation, regulatory attention, and sectoral enforcement action exposing practical challenges and potential risks for retailers. The paper responds to regulatory oversight issues arising from fragmented regulation and changing standards by underlining the imperative for harmonised adaptive legal responses. Lastly, it provides concrete policy recommendations for legislative reform, industry best practices, and collaborative governance models for securing ethical, transparent, and consumer-focused applications of AI and biometric data in fashion retail. The research seeks to advise policymakers, legal experts, and fashion industry stakeholders on the imperative to marry innovation with strong privacy protections and fair consumer rights.
Keywords:- AI in Fashion, Biometric Data, Data Privacy, Regulatory compliance, Fashion
Retail
Introduction
The fashion sector is experiencing a fundamental shift fueled by accelerated technological
improvements, specifically the adoption of AI and biometric technologies into design and
Retail processes. Biometric data harvesting and AI-driven personalization software are allowing
Brands craft remarkably customized shopping experiences, enhancing customer interactions and satisfaction such as never before. This digital revolution, though, poses intricate legal and
Ethical issues, particularly regarding how sensitive biometric data are gathered, processed, and
protected in the context of fashion retail. With consumers placing greater demands on privacy and control of their information, regulatory environments across the globe are scrambling to keep up with innovation that defies conventional definitions of consent, transparency, and security. The use of AI and biometric technologies in fashion retail brings with it both exciting prospects for business development as well as major threats regarding data privacy, discrimination, and compliance with regulations. This paper discusses the new legal issues, regulatory deficiencies, and trends in enforcement regarding AI-powered personalization and biometric data applications in the fashion sector, providing recommendations for balanced policy ensuring protection of consumers while promoting innovation.
Research Methodology
This research uses a qualitative,doctrinal method analyzing the current legal and regulatory environment relating to AI and biometric data in fashion retailing. This research is based on primary sources such as statutes and publicly available information, articles and case laws as well as secondary sources like legal analyses and academic commentary. The approach prioritises interpretation and critical analysis over empirical measurement to try to determine gaps in regulation and to propose areas for legal reform.
Review of literature
Recent literature identifies the speeding-up effect of AI and machine learning on consumer personalisation in fashion and the increasing impact of biometric technologies on customer engagement and product suggestions. There exists a legal grey area with the current technological advancements, sometimes making consumer rights ambiguous when sophisticated biometric information is used for virtual try-ons targeted advertising. Various scholarly articles give accounts of milestone cases under the implementation of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and European General Data Protection Regulation, referring to them as seminal in influencing compliance tenorship strategies for international fashion brands. Industry reports highlight an increasing volume of regulatory pressure on fashion retailers to increase transparency, data minimization, and customer consent practices, especially as cross-border e-commerce thrives. There is still a discernible gap in the literature on the intersection of fashion law and biometric data protection in markets such as India, evidencing a pressing imperative for region-specific examinations. The review concludes that as much as the legal discussion is developing at a pace, there is insufficient guidance to designers and retailers struggling with ethical responsibilities and compliance regarding AI and biometric technologies.
AI and Biometric Tech in Fashion Retail
AI and biometric technologies integration has guided a disruptive period for the worldwide fashion retail industry, reconfiguring brand’s interaction with consumers and making the purchasing experience unlike anything seen before. Fashion retail is redefining personalization and styling with AI as top brands apply algorithmic models to examine single-customer data, including such as purchase history, browsing patterns and state preferences, presenting personalized product recommendations online and offline. Autonomous AI is also being utilized as an adaptive logistics software in real time decision making where it is increasingly assisting brands with trend forecasting, inventory optimization, even creative ideation in design, making these Agentic AI systems more sophisticated than previous models. But despite the interference of AI the Human-AI collaboration is still a core concept. For instance Stitch Fix’s blended model blends AI recommendations with human stylist expertise to edit picks, balancing efficiency with human personalization. This enables personalization approaches to mix and match numerous data streams. With fashion stores collecting customer demographics, social network information and real-time app/site interactions via AI, then aggregating these insights in order to enhance recommendations and customer journeys. In an effort to provide a more accurate fit recommendation, biometric information such as body size and face recognition is being used more often, this brings together online/offline paths, and even helps with virtual try-ons. Merging physical-digital interaction with retailers such as MatchesFashion in London through mobile- linked AI systems, allows employees to retrieve visitor sizing, order history, and preference for highly personalized customer service. One of the primary drivers of growth in the use of AI is that it aids in reducing waste and enhancing sustainability. Fast fashion retailers such as Zara employs real-time autonomous supply chain management to provide for maximum stock levels and rapid adjustment to trends, reducing overproduction and environmental footprint[1].
Legal Frameworks and Comparative Analysis
The legal framework regulating the implementation of AI and biometric data in fashion retail
is rapidly transforming, mirroring varied approaches across jurisdictions such as India, the United States, and the European Union.
● India’s DPDP Act, 2023 and IT Rules 2011:
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) has put in place a systematic
data protection framework for any biometric data processing which focuses on express consent, transparency, and data minimization. Under the Information Technology Rules, 2011
Biometric data is considered “Sensitive Personal Data”, to require explicit notification and express prior approval from users when fashion retailers take facial scans or body data for virtual try-ons, targeted marketing or workforce management. Enforcement is nascent and sector- specific fashion guidance is limited[2].
• US State Laws (Illinois BIPA, California CCPA/CPRA):
The US has no federal biometric law but Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is one of the strictest in the world, requiring written consent, notice of collection purposes, and specific retention protocols required. Besides the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which consider biometric information as personal
information, conferring rights for consumers to access, delete, and limit use, these state
laws allow consumers to directly sue for violations, a robust enforcement system lacking in India[3].
● European Union (EU AI Act & GDPR):
The EU AI Act includes a risk management approach with strict privacy measures, transparency, and accountability in AI and biometric data processing within sectors such as fashion retail. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) offers a baseline framework with requirements for legal processing, consumer rights of access/deletion/correction of data, strengthened consent and security requirements. Legislation is proactively examining biometric profiling and targeted advertising for regulatory compliance[4].
• Comparative Insights and real-world effect on Fashion Retail:
India’s system emphasizes general data protection, but sectoral guidance and enforcement remain in development, the US relies on stringent, state-based legislation in primary retail regions, and the EU establishes homogenous, end-to-end standards headed by GDPR and AI act. Fashion retailers with cross-border operations jurisdictions need to adapt compliance approaches to address local expectations, striking a balance between innovation and privacy entitlements as well as transparent record-keeping[5]. There has been a practical effect too such as technologies such as smart mirrors, virtual try-ons, and biometric-targeted marketing which need to adapt to emerging legal frameworks in order to escape reputational and monetary risks. In India, there remain regulatory gaps for fashion-specific situations, while in the US, owing to the strong consumer rights and enforcement power, has placed a high standard of compliance. In Europe, rebalancing and transparency is called for because of the risk-based regulation.
Data Privacy and Protection Issues
Growing use of biometric technologies and AI personalization in fashion retailing has raised significant data privacy and protection issues, calling for strict legal and ethical scrutiny to protect consumer’s sensitive data. Biometric data in fashion retail is extremely sensitive and irreparable as unlike credit card numbers or passwords, once compromised biometric data cannot be changed or updated rendering its protection even more vital. Major privacy issues involve a lack of consent and transparency since consumers are unaware of when, how, and
why their biometric information is being gathered in commercial environments, particularly when using AI-based systems running in the background. Function creep is also a serious risk because information gathered for one reason like virtual try-ons or tailored recommendations can subsequently be reused or transferred to other purposes like unrelated marketing, profiling, or surveillance, often without direct user consent. There are difficulties in terms of how long stores retain biometric information and whether it can be securely erased following its intended objective, facilitating the potential for unauthorised use or abuse. This promotes a strict control on retaining and disposing of biometric information. Since fashion retail is typically transnational, transporting biometric information across borders subjects it to differing levels of legal protection and regulatory stringency, making it difficult to ensure user privacy. With these new dynamic times the contemporary to date laws insist on express, informed consent prior to collection, secure methods during storage/processing , transparent notice to users, and a right to deletion and correction. Legal structures that require consent, minimization and security are needed. Nonetheless, enforcement by regulations and real-world application are difficult[6].
Biometric Data Risks and Discriminatory Impacts in Fashion Retail
Biometric technologies do have a propensity for being inaccurate when handling multidiverse populations. Technologies tend to work less consistently for darker skin tones,women and individuals with disabilities, resulting in greater misidentification and exclusion in retail encounters. Research conducted by the U.S.National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) found that facial recognition technology had 10 to 100 times greater false positive rates for African-American and Asian faces than for other faces. Likewise, women and younger faces have greater false negative rates and are less likely to gain access to services or be accurately identified at point-of-sale or point-of-entry. These technological imbalances not only result in individual frustration and loss of service, but can also disenfranchise the whole customer base, damaging brand reputation and triggering loss of confidence. Poor experiences can very rapidly spread online and at grassroots level, having a major influence on a Retailer’s customer base.These biometric systems could be inaccessible to users with facial differences, absent fingerprints, or distinctive speech or motion patterns, essentially blocking those with physical disabilities from engaging with some retail activities or reward schemes. This inappropriate or biased use of biometric data exposes fashion to substantial liability under laws such as GDPR and Illinois’ BIPA. Inaccurate systems that discriminate, fail to seek adequate consent, or lack transparency can lead to litigation and substantial financial fines To avoid this risk. Fashion retailers need to invest in neutral algorithmic solutions, make transparency about data usage, and strictly test for demographic equity. Inclusive biometric systems not only are lawful, but also safeguard reputation and create a more balanced customer experience[7].
Case Studies and Enforcement Measures
● Louis Vuitton Virtual Try-On Litigation (Illinois BIPA, 2022–2023):
Louis Vuitton North America was sued in 2022 in a class action complaint that the virtual try-
on feature of its website obtained user’s complete facial scans without permission against the rights of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The plaintiff alleged that there was no clear notice or written release for the gathering or use of biometrics under law. The lawsuit shed light on growing judicial oversight of how high-end brands use "try-on" AI in e-commerce[8].
● Amazon Go Stores NYC Lawsuit (2023):
Amazon was the subject of a class action lawsuit in New York City for supposedly not
Informing customers that its “Just Walk Out” technology captures biometric information such as palm scans, computer vision, facial/ body measurements in its cashierless stores. Although the case was dismissed, it attracted public scrutiny of transparency mandates under NYC’s local biometric legislation and highlighted the dangers top retailers face even when employing surveillance technology for convenience[9].
● Target Makeup App Lawsuit (2021):
Target’s virtual try-on makeup app was brought to federal court on claims of unauthorized capture and storage of user’s facial scans. Plaintiffs argued the app was not properly disclosures and user consent to biometric data gathering, reflecting legal reasoning in luxury and mass-market fashion court cases[10]
● India: Warning Regulation and Judicial Comment (2025):
Indian officials cited ambiguous consumer consent procedures in facial/body scans being utilized on fashion sites such as Nykaa and Lenskart. While there are not yet celebrity-level judgements, privacy activists point to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Supreme Court ruling in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India, cautioning such platforms that snooping and fuzzy consent could soon attract regulatory or judicial attention[11].
Challenges for Regulatory Oversight of AI and Biometric Fashion Retail
The swift spread of AI and biometric technology across the fashion world has outpaced the growth of comprehensive regulation, and it poses serious challenges to effective enforcement and compliance across jurisdictions. Fashion retailers with international operations must wend their ways through the GDPR, the new EU AI Act, and theDigital Services Act all at once. These frameworks, as harmonized in theory, exhibit great differences in definitions, jurisdictional scope, and compliance obligations, making cohesive oversight tricky. Coordination of authorities is poor since unlike the "one-stop shop" provided by GDPR, no single supervisory authority exists for all of these regulations. This can result in either over-compliance, with businesses incurring greater costs and duplication, under-compliance,increasing risk of enforcement proceedings,legal ambiguity, and regulatory arbitrage. Platforms using AI-based personalization or biometric technology need to have strong detailed technical documentation covering all legal obligations per item of legislation. They also need to perform many risk assessments, e.g., Data Protection Impact Assessments (GDPR), Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (AI Act),and systemic risk assessments (DSA), significantly enhancing compliance overhead and complexity. Additionally, the rapid pace of regulation necessitates firms to keep track closely of amendments, interpretative guidance, and shifting enforcement patterns jurisdiction by jurisdiction, producing chronic uncertainty for long-term strategic planning, effective supervision often necessitates specialised legal technical and compliance knowledge. Small to mid-size fashion enterprises can find it challenging to mobilise resources required to introduce cross-regulatory compliance infrastructure. Clearly, risk of double penalties and confusion persists without proper coordination, organisations are at risk of being imposed duplicate punishments for solitary transgression, contrary to the legal doctrine of ne bis in idem “not twice for the same”, corroding trust in regulatory frameworks and rising compliance anxiety[12].
Recommendations
This study will serve as a foundation to create clear, sector-oriented regulations that solve the specific problems brought by AI and biometric information in the fashion retailing industry, promoting innovation along with consumer protection. To require transparent and easy-to-understand consent processes using laymen terminology, enabling consumers to make informed choices regarding their biometric data. This paper will inspire fashion businesses to practice rigorous data minimisation and security measures to diminish the likelihood of breaches and unauthorised usage. By zealously encouraging the use of fairness auditing tools to identify and counter algorithmic bias and provide inclusive and non-discriminatory AI interventions. Effective cooperation among the regulators, tech creators and fashion brands to develop mutual standards and best practices for ethical use of AI. This paper calls for continued training and sensitisation programmes for educating stakeholders in the fashion industry on legal responsibility and ethical implications of biometric information. This article also justifies research activities aimed at striking a balance between privacy, innovation and commercial interest in the context of changing fashion technology.
Conclusion
The combination of AI and biometric information in fashion retail is a substantial technological breakthrough that provides customised consumer experiences as well as efficiency benefits. Their regulatory loopholes and challenges in enforcement need to be addressed to construct consumer trust and build a sustainable digital fashion community. A holistic multi-stakeholder approach with industry participants, technology specialists is essential to developing balanced regulations that secure rights without inhibiting innovation. Ultimately, the fashion law culture relies on balancing leading-edge technology with strong legal protections to secure fairness and respect for consumer rights.
Name :- Janvi Aeri
College:- Christ (deemed to be) University, Pune, Lavasa
[1] Cem Dilmegani & Sıla Ermut, Top 10 AI in Fashion Use Cases & Examples in 2025, AIMultiple (updated June 12, 2025), https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-in-fashion/ .
[2] Khushboo Gehlot, Biometric Data Technology in Fashion Retail: Opportunities, Risks, and the Legal Landscape, Fashion Law, Fashion Law Journal (July 16, 2025), https://fashionlawjournal.com/biometric-data-technology-in-fashion-retail/ .
[3] Khushboo Gehlot, Biometric Data Technology in Fashion Retail: Opportunities, Risks, and the Legal Landscape, Fashion Law, Fashion Law Journal (July 16, 2025), https://fashionlawjournal.com/biometric-data-technology-in-fashion-retail/ .
[4] Marc Schuler & Data Protection Comm., How the EU AI Act Supplements GDPR in the Protection of Personal Data, Perspectives, INTa (June 18, 2025), https://www.inta.org/perspectives/features/how-the-eu-ai-act-supplements-gdpr-in-the-protection-of-personal-data/ .
[5] Khushboo Gehlot, Biometric Data Technology in Fashion Retail: Opportunities, Risks, and the Legal Landscape, Fashion Law, Fashion Law Journal (July 16, 2025), https://fashionlawjournal.com/biometric-data-technology-in-fashion-retail/ .
[6] Biometric data protection: Trends and best practices 2025, (July 15, 2025), https://community.trustcloud.ai/docs/grc-launchpad/grc-101/governance/biometric-data-protection-emerging-technologies-and-privacy-concerns-in-2024/ .
[7] Aware, Inc., Risks of Bias in Biometrics: Business Impact and How to Prevent It, Aware, Inc. (Mar. 2025), https://www.aware.com/bias-in-biometrics-understanding-risks-blog/ .
[8] TFL, Louis Vuitton Named in Data Privacy Lawsuit Over Virtual Try-On Feature, The Fashion Law (Apr. 13, 2022), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/louis-vuitton-named-in-data-privacy-lawsuit-over-virtual-try-on-feature/ .
[9] Reshmaa Vivekanandan, Scanning Style: Biometric Surveillance and Data Protection in Fashion Retail, Fashion Law, Fashion Law Journal (July 1, 2025), https://fashionlawjournal.com/scanning-style-biometric-surveillance/ .
[10] TFL, Louis Vuitton Named in Data Privacy Lawsuit Over Virtual Try-On Feature, The Fashion Law (Apr. 13, 2022), https://www.thefashionlaw.com/louis-vuitton-named-in-data-privacy-lawsuit-over-virtual-try-on-feature/ .
[11] Khushboo Gehlot, Biometric Data Technology in Fashion Retail: Opportunities, Risks, and the Legal Landscape, Fashion Law, Fashion Law Journal (July 16, 2025), https://fashionlawjournal.com/biometric-data-technology-in-fashion-retail/ .
[12] Goodwin Law, “Three Laws, One Challenge; Complying With the DSA, AI Act, and GDPR,” (July 23, 2025) https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/insights-practices-antc-three-laws-one-challenge .