The general position
Looking at information that is already published is not, in itself, unlawful anywhere we operate. A face search is a faster way of doing something a person could do manually: looking at public photos and noticing that two of them show the same person.
Speed and scale do change the character of a thing legally, which is why several jurisdictions have written rules specifically about biometrics. But the baseline is that searching public material is lawful, and the restrictions attach to purpose and to processing rather than to looking.
The Fair Credit Reporting Act (United States)
This is the rule most likely to catch an ordinary user out.
If information is used to make decisions about employment, housing, credit, insurance or similar eligibility, it becomes a consumer report and the provider becomes a consumer reporting agency — with a long list of obligations attached, including accuracy duties and the subject's right to dispute.
ARGUS is not a consumer reporting agency and this service is not a consumer report. Using it to screen a job applicant or a tenant is prohibited by our terms and exposes you personally. This is not a formality: FCRA carries statutory damages and it is enforced.
Biometric privacy laws
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act is the strictest and the most litigated. It regulates the collection and storage of biometric identifiers — face geometry explicitly included — and it grants a private right of action with statutory damages per violation. That combination has produced very large settlements against face-recognition companies.
Texas and Washington have their own biometric statutes, enforced by their attorneys general rather than private suits. Several other states have proposals in progress.
The practical upshot for a user: what you do with a face signature, and whether you store it, matters legally in a way that looking at a photo does not.
GDPR and the UK equivalent
In the EU and UK, biometric data processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying someone is special-category data under Article 9. Processing it needs a lawful basis and, usually, an Article 9 condition on top — consent, legal claims, or substantial public interest.
A person who has been searched has rights regardless of whether they know it happened: access, erasure, and objection among them. Regulators have fined face-search operators substantially, and 'the photos were public' has repeatedly not worked as a defence for building a searchable biometric database from them.
If you are searching in a professional capacity in Europe, you need your own lawful basis for it. Ours does not transfer to you.
The things that are clearly not legal anywhere
Nothing about a search being technically available makes the use of it lawful.
- Stalking or harassment — searching to locate, follow or intimidate someone
- Doxxing — publishing someone's identity or whereabouts to expose them to harm
- Extortion, including threatening to reveal what you found
- Identifying people at protests, places of worship, clinics or shelters
- Building and reselling a database of people from search results
Where you stand as a user here
Our terms permit searching your own face, searching with the subject's consent, and searching where you have another lawful basis — verifying someone you are personally dealing with, investigating suspected fraud against you, or exercising a legal right.
Everything in the list above is prohibited and gets access terminated without refund. That is not us being cautious on your behalf; it is the boundary between a verification tool and a surveillance one.
A necessary disclaimer
This page is general information about a legal landscape, written to be genuinely useful rather than to cover us. It is not legal advice, it is not specific to your situation, and law in this area is moving quickly.
If you are making a decision with real consequences — professional use, a dispute, anything involving another person's rights — get advice from someone qualified in your jurisdiction.
Last updated 3 August 2026