As modern-day technology continues to rapidly progress, recent developments are steadily seeping into a number of established markets—and the legal cannabis industry is no exception. Specifically in Washington state, lawmakers are considering high-tech alternatives to age verification for liquor and cannabis consumers.
The Evergreen State Legislature is reportedly considering giving the State Liquor and Cannabis Board increased authority surrounding the use of biometric age verification for private entities selling alcohol or cannabis, according to The Center Square.
Biometric age verification technology identifies people by evaluating one or more distinguishing biological traits, like face recognition software or fingerprint scans. This technology can confirm a person’s identity online or in-person.
In Washington state, the technology is currently allowed and used by companies like Amazon One and CLEAR, the latter of which allows airport passengers to use eye scans or fingerprints to skip government security lines after signing up with a government ID or passport.’
Denver’s Coors Field installed biometrics for alcohol purchases earlier this year, using Amazon One devices to scan customers’ hands. The device advertises itself as a convenient way for customers to pay using their palm, so long as they add their credit card information to their account.
Director of Policy and External Affairs Justin Nordhorn nodded to the reality of evolving technology speaking before the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee at its Monday meeting, suggesting that the adoption of technology like biometric age verification is inevitable.
“I think with the biometrics, it’s just a matter of time before it’s coming in,” Nordhorn said. “How we do that is important.”
For Washington, the use of biometric technology is nothing new. The state Legislature passed House Bill 1493 in 2017, which regulates commercial use of biometric data. In 2020, the Legislature then enacted Senate Bill 6280, requiring state and local agencies using biometric technologies to adhere to certain requirements, like an accountability report and notifying the Legislature of the instances it plans to use such tech.
Though biometric technology alone cannot be used as the sole form of identification. It’s simply a supplement, and state-issued IDs and driver’s licenses are still required.
While Nordhorn told the committee that the Legislature is “pretty neutral” on the concept of biometric age verification, he said that there are still challenges and risks to assess. One of which is that facial recognition is not always equitable. One company reported a 10% failure for the tech to successfully identify a person. Should biometric age verification become more mainstream, prompting consumers to leave credit cards and IDs at home, they may run into issues if biometric age verification is required but ultimately fails.
Another issue is security ramifications and ensuring audit and reporting options are also considered as part of the conversation.
“If you’re having these types of scans or all of your personal ID provided to somebody, what [is] the security? Does the state have access to it or not?” he posed.
Speaking with Washington State Standard earlier this year on the topic, Jen Lee, technology policy program director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said that the ACLU is generally concerned about biometric data collection, specifically the unknowns around third-party data collection and how that connects with the data governments are able to access and use.
Lee also cited the lack of regulation surrounding data use among third-party companies, namely that consumers may use this technology but have little information on how exactly their data is being used.
“The more biometrics are collected in this often non-contractual, but also non transparent manner … the more privacy risks increase,” Lee said.
The lack of rulemaking authority does not put the Legislature in a “good position to develop those rules,” Nordhorn said, adding that the State Department of Licensing would also need a say in such discussions.
Nordhorn indicated that the Legislature “[doesn’t] have all the answers” when Sen. Drew MaxEwen, R-Shelton, asked whether the Legislature or state board would be in charge of ironing out practical, logistical and security considerations. Sen. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, also expressed concern around “getting so many different ways of age verification that we lose control over it.”
The issue was first brought to the attention of the State Liquor and Cannabis Board in June, as a response to a request from Claire Mitchell, a partner at the Stoel Rives law firm, representing food and beverage businesses that serve alcohol, looking to amend five different sections of Washington state law.
