Smart Surveillance: Privacy in Claims Investigations

Public attitudes toward surveillance and AI are shifting quickly. If you’ve been paying attention to recent headlines, you’ve probably noticed that the backlash isn’t really about whether technology works. It’s about how it’s used.

Take Ring’s recent Super Bowl ad promoting its AI-powered “Search Party” feature. The idea was simple: use neighborhood cameras to help locate lost pets. On the surface, it sounds harmless. Who wouldn’t want to help find a missing dog?

The backlash wasn’t about pets. It was about constant AI scanning of neighborhoods and whether users fully understood what was happening behind the scenes. The concern wasn’t the outcome. It was the normalization of always-on monitoring.

That reaction is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, major tech companies have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to resolve biometric privacy litigation. Facebook agreed to a $650 million settlement over facial-recognition tagging. TikTok paid $92 million over alleged face and voice data collection. Google settled for $100 million related to facial grouping in Google Photos. Each case shows a perpetual problem: lack of consent and transparency.

5 Questions to Ask Before Deploying Surveillance

In claims investigations, the issue of privacy is highly relevant. Surveillance is one of the most effective tools in a claims professional’s toolkit. It validates facts, clarifies inconsistencies, and protects honest policyholders from paying for someone else’s misrepresentation.

1. Is There a Clear Reason for Surveillance?

Surveillance should always answer a defined question.

Claims professionals should be able to clearly answer:

• What documented inconsistencies justify escalation?
• Is there objective medical, occupational, or factual conflict?
• If asked under oath, could you clearly articulate why surveillance was necessary in this case?

When surveillance is tied to a documented red flag, it’s defensible.

2. What Technology Is Being Used and How Does it Work?

Investigative technology is evolving. Many vendors now incorporate AI-assisted review or pattern detection into their platforms.

That does not automatically make a tool improper. But it does require clarity about what the technology is actually doing.

Before deployment, consider:

• Is the tool simply organizing footage for human review?
• Or is it independently analyzing and flagging patterns or matches?
• What data is stored, and how long is it retained?

There is a meaningful difference between technology that assists an investigator and technology that evaluates data on its own.

Technical expertise is not required. However, investigators should be able to explain the function, scope, and purpose of the tool in plain language.

3. Is Authorization Clearly Documented?

In many high-profile biometric settlements, the issue wasn’t hidden technology. It was unclear consent and unclear purpose.

In claims management, clarity starts by answering a few straightforward questions:

• Who approved the surveillance?
• What issue is being evaluated?
• Is the objective documented before deployment?

Clear documentation of purpose and authorization strengthens the defensibility of the claim if the file is later examined.

4. Would Surveillance Feel Reasonable to an Outside Audience?

Imagine explaining the tactic to a juror who has recently seen headlines about AI surveillance controversies.

Would this approach feel focused and limited, or broad and invasive?

The question isn’t whether you believe it’s justified. The question is whether it can be articulated as necessary and proportionate.

In today’s environment, perception isn’t secondary. It’s part of the risk analysis.

5. Is the Investigative Process Defensible?

Strong surveillance footage can support a claim decision. But courts don’t just look at results, they examine methods, such as:

• How was the decision made?
• What safeguards were in place?
• Was the scope limited to the issue at hand?

Be prepared to walk through the process step by step in deposition and demonstrate how it reflects deliberation and discipline.

The Difference That Matters

Much of the public backlash around consumer technology centers on passive, continuous data collection. These systems operate in the background, often with limited transparency into how information is gathered or used.

Claims investigations are different. They begin with a defined concern and are tied to a specific claim question. They are authorized, documented, and limited in scope

Technology will continue to advance. Public expectations around privacy will continue to evolve. The answer is not to abandon investigative tools. It is to apply them with precision, restraint, and clear purpose.

When surveillance is disciplined and proportionate, it strengthens claims investigations. When it is unfocused or poorly documented, it introduces unnecessary risk.

Surveillance should resolve uncertainty, not create it.

Looking for surveillance that’s defensible and respects claimant privacy? Talk to our team today.

Check out our sources:

“An Appeals Court Upholds a $650 Million Facebook Settlement.” The National Trial Lawyers, https://www.thenationaltriallawyers.org/article/an-appeals-court-upholds-a-650-million-facebook-settlement/.

Aten, Jason. “Ring Is Facing Intense Backlash After Using Lost Puppies as an Excuse for AI Surveillance.” Inc.com, Inc. Magazine, 10 Feb. 2026, https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/ring-is-facing-intense-backlash-after-using-lost-puppies-as-an-excuse-for-ai-surveillance/91300397.

Edwards, Jessy. “TikTok to Pay $92M in Nationwide Settlement of Private User Data Collection.” Top Class Actions, 3 Mar. 2021, https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/consumer-products/mobile-apps/tiktok-settlement-92-million-user-privacy-data-class-action-lawsuit/.

LegalClarity Team. “Rivera et al. v. Payouts: How to Claim Your Money.” LegalClarity, 21 July 2025, https://legalclarity.org/rivera-et-al-v-payouts-how-to-claim-your-money/.