Residents of Texas and Illinois are currently unable to access a new artificial intelligence (AI) editing feature in Google Photos, highlighting the complex intersection of emerging technology and state-level biometric privacy laws in the United States. This limitation is particularly notable given Google’s broad push to integrate AI tools across its product lineup.
The feature in question, named Conversational Editing, enables users to modify their photos by typing commands or speaking aloud, simplifying photo editing for everyday users who may not have the skills or desire to navigate advanced software. From minor tweaks to complete image transformations, Conversational Editing offers an intuitive, accessible way to enhance photos within the Google Photos app.
Initially launched exclusively on Google’s Pixel 10 smartphone series, Conversational Editing was expanded in September 2023 to all eligible Android devices in the US, and more recently extended to iOS users as well. However, Google never clearly defined who qualifies as "eligible," only noting vaguely that the feature is “not available in all regions at this time.” It was soon revealed that this geographic limitation includes two of the most populous US states—Texas and Illinois—due to legal restrictions.
The root of the issue is not the conversational editing technology itself, but a related biometric component embedded within Google Photos called Face Groups. Face Groups automatically detects faces in photos and groups similar faces together using a biometric technique known as facial geometry. This involves analyzing physical features such as shapes, proportions, and angles to create a unique “face model” for each individual. The feature then allows users to label these groups with names, streamlining photo organization and search.
Face Groups is an optional feature that users can enable or disable at will. If turned off, all stored facial data and labels are deleted. Despite its convenience, the use of facial recognition technology has legal implications, especially in states with strict biometric privacy laws. Both Texas and Illinois have enacted legislation that places stringent controls on how biometric identifiers—including facial geometry—can be collected, stored, transmitted, and used.
Frank Fagen, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, explains that the common thread in both states’ laws is the regulation of biometric data collection and retention. The laws are designed to protect individuals from unauthorized or non-consensual use of their biometric information, which is considered highly sensitive.
Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is regarded as a robust privacy law and is often referred to as the “gold standard” for biometric regulation. BIPA requires companies to obtain explicit consent before collecting biometric data and provides individuals with a private right of action. This means that people affected by violations can sue companies directly. A significant ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2019 clarified that plaintiffs do not need to prove actual harm to bring a lawsuit, resulting in a surge of legal actions against companies over biometric data practices.
Google itself faced a $100 million settlement in Illinois in 2022 related to its Face Groups feature. The state’s legal environment makes it challenging for companies to operate biometric technologies without strict compliance or risk of costly litigation.
Texas, while having a different legal framework, also has strict biometric privacy rules under the Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). Unlike Illinois, only the Texas attorney general can initiate lawsuits under this law, but penalties can be severe, with fines of up to $25,000 per violation. Texas sued Google in 2022 for allegedly collecting biometric data without proper consent, a case that was settled in May 2025.
A particular challenge posed by Texas law is its requirement that biometric data be destroyed within a “reasonable time” tied to the purpose for which it was collected. Since Face Groups operates continuously—always ready to detect and group faces in newly uploaded photos—it effectively has an indefinite purpose, complicating compliance efforts.
Given these legal hurdles, Google’s decision to disable Conversational Editing in Texas and Illinois appears to be a pragmatic compliance measure. According to Professor Fagen, disabling the feature in these states avoids potential conflicts with biometric privacy laws, while still allowing the technology to operate elsewhere.
It’s important to note that the conversational editing functionality itself is not inherently problematic; rather, the legal issues revolve around the biometric data collection required for Face Groups. Indeed, conversational AI photo editing is available through Google’s separate Gemini app, which residents in Texas and Illinois can use without restrictions, since it does not rely on facial geometry or similar biometric data.
Google’s experience is not unique. Other major tech companies have faced legal challenges linked