Biometric CURP: a court recasts privacy as personal digital sovereignty
Human right to privacy in its informational self-determination dimension. It must be reconceptualized as personal digital sovereignty in light of the new technical challenges, ethical dilemmas and legal issues raised by biometrics carried out by authorities.
Official heading (Spanish): DERECHO HUMANO A LA PRIVACIDAD, EN SU VERTIENTE DE AUTODETERMINACIÓN INFORMATIVA. ES NECESARIO RECONCEPTUALIZARLO COMO SOBERANÍA DIGITAL PERSONAL ANTE LOS NUEVOS DESAFÍOS TÉCNICOS, DILEMAS ÉTICOS Y RETOS JURÍDICOS QUE IMPLICA LA BIOMETRÍA LLEVADA A CABO POR AUTORIDADES.
The ruling
An individual filed an amparo against article 91 Bis of the General Population Law, which creates a mandatory biometric CURP (national ID code) and a Single Identity Platform; the District Court granted a provisional suspension and the authority appealed. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that informational self-determination must be reconceived as personal digital sovereignty in the face of the challenges posed by state biometrics.
Our take
This is an isolated precedent with a broad doctrinal approach, and it does not decide the merits on the biometric CURP. But it signals a trend: courts are starting to demand more from whoever collects biometric data. Although the case concerns authorities, the debate will reach the private sector, where fingerprints, faces and voices are used for access and attendance control. We recommend companies review now the legal basis, proportionality and security of their biometric processing. Our caveat: personal digital sovereignty is still a vague concept, and its reach will depend on how other courts develop it.
What to do
- Inventory biometric data processing for employees and visitors and its justification.
- Review privacy notices and security measures applicable to biometric data.
- Assess less intrusive alternatives for access and attendance control.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- I.20o.A.56 A (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032324
- Published
- June 26, 2026
- Area
- Amparo and constitutional
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.