Madison Square Garden CEO Defends Use of Facial Recognition Tech

The CEO of Madison Square Garden Entertainment has defended and doubled down on his company’s continued use of facial recognition tech to refuse entry to attorneys working for firms it is in litigation with.

In an interview(Opens in a new window) on Fox 5’s Good Day New York on Thursday, James Dolan said: “At Madison Square Garden, if you’re suing us, we’re just asking of you—please don’t come until you’re done with your argument with us. And yes, we’re using facial recognition to enforce that.”

Dolan defended his policy of using facial recognition tech to refuse entry to attorneys who were part of law firms suing MSG, stating it was “not discriminatory” and that MSG “will not back down—The Garden has to defend itself—our values are important to us.”

MSG’s policy was put under the spotlight last month when an attorney was barred from attending a Radio City Music Hall Christmas show and separated from her daughter after facial recognition software identified her as working for a firm that is in litigation with the company.

In a strong-worded press release, MSG described the attorney’s it is refusing entry to as “ambulance chasers and money grabbers whose business is motivated by self-promotion and who capitalize on the misfortune of others.” The release adds that the lawyers are defending “ticket scalpers who make getting tickets for the average game and concert-goer next to impossible and exorbitantly expensive.”

Last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter(Opens in a new window) to the entertainment venue company requesting that it provide information regarding its use of facial recognition tech. The letter additionally asked what safeguards are in place to avoid bias and discrimination. 

MSG Entertainment responded to Letitia James’ letter by saying she had “every right to ask questions, but to suggest anyone is being excluded based on the protected classes identified in state and federal civil rights laws is ludicrous.” 

In the face of mounting criticism from politicians, lawyers, and civil rights campaigners, the company added that its exclusion policy has “never applied to attorneys representing plaintiffs who allege sexual harassment or employment discrimination.”