James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object

In January 2023, James Dolan defended MSG's facial-recognition exclusion of lawyers at firms suing the company, and New York officials objected. A 2023 appeals ruling said state law requires admitting ticket holders to concerts but not games, and a 2026 report described another exclusion.

Open the original interview

Madison Square Garden in New York City on June 24, 2019. File photo.

Case period:January 25, 2023

Published by The Dispute Index editorial teamPublished October 18, 2026Updated October 18, 2026

James L. Dolan Letitia James Brad Hoylman-Sigal

Privacy Free Speech Basketball Consumer Protection

Overview

In January 2023, James Dolan defended MSG Entertainment's use of facial recognition to bar lawyers at firms suing the company, saying a property owner may choose whom it serves. Letitia James and Brad Hoylman-Sigal objected that the policy punished people for pursuing legal claims. A New York appeals court later held that state law requires MSG to admit ticket holders to concerts and theatrical shows but not sporting events, with damages as the only remedy. MSG described the exclusions as a safety measure in 2025, and WIRED reported in May 2026 that MSG had revoked the tickets of a lawyer suing it.

Read the full background

This case records the January 2023 dispute over MSG Entertainment's policy of excluding lawyers at firms with active lawsuits against the company, and what later happened to that policy. It is not about facial recognition in general. Statements are labeled by their response to the policy: one that defends it is labeled as defending it, and one that criticizes it as condemning it. The attorney general raised possible legal violations; Dolan asserted a right to control entry. As MSG described the policy on January 26, 2023, it kept those attorneys out of its venues until the litigation ended and did not cover sexual harassment or employment discrimination claims (MSG Entertainment (opens in a new tab)). In February 2023 MSG lifted the policy for firms in litigation with Tao Group entities (ABA Journal (opens in a new tab)).

In March 2023 the Appellate Division held that Civil Rights Law 40-b requires MSG venues to admit ticket holders to concerts and theatrical performances, but not sporting events, and that the law's remedy is damages rather than an injunction (decision (opens in a new tab)). Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, the first firm to sue, dropped its case in late 2023 after the litigation behind its ban was resolved (ABA Journal (opens in a new tab)). A federal judge dismissed a biometric-privacy suit tied to the exclusions in May 2024 (opinion (opens in a new tab)). The State Liquor Authority's case over the policy, which an appeals court allowed to proceed in November 2023 (decision (opens in a new tab)), ended in July 2026 when the authority dropped its access charges and three MSG venues agreed to pay $10,000 each on a separate corporate-change charge (Gothamist (opens in a new tab)).

ESPN reported in August 2025 that the exclusion list remained in effect. In a statement issued after that report, MSG said the policy is a safety and security measure, that lawyers at firms suing the company or its employees are barred from its venues until the litigation concludes, and that they are reinstated afterward (ESPN (opens in a new tab)). In April 2026 MSG revoked the tickets of a lawyer suing it on behalf of an injured police officer, according to a letter WIRED reviewed (WIRED (opens in a new tab)). We did not find a later company statement of the policy's terms, so we could not confirm its scope or exceptions as of October 2026, including whether the 2023 carve-out for sexual harassment and employment discrimination claims still applies. Bills to extend the ticket-holder law to sporting events remained in committee in both chambers of the Legislature as of October 2026 (Assembly bill A6310 (opens in a new tab)). A City Council bill to bar businesses from using biometric recognition on customers gained a majority of Council members as sponsors in August 2026 (Gothamist (opens in a new tab)). As of October 17, 2026, the Council's legislative record listed it as laid over in the Committee on Technology since a March 2026 hearing, with no vote (Int. 213 (opens in a new tab)). We did not find a public result of the attorney general's 2023 information request. Whether the policy is justified, whether admission laws cover it and whether the technology misidentifies people are separate questions.

People in this case

Letitia JamesDirectly involved
Brad Hoylman-SigalDirectly involved
Jumaane WilliamsCommented
Kristen GonzalezCommented

Follow this case

Timeline

12 timeline entries on this page. Dates: January 25, 2023 to August 14, 2026

January 2023
1. January 25, 2023
  Letitia James requests information about facial-recognition exclusions
  The attorney general questioned whether litigation-related exclusions violated civil and human rights laws and urged MSG to reverse its policy.
  [01]Letitia James
  James questions the exclusion of lawyers at firms suing MSG and asks the company to reverse its policy. Her letter raises possible violations; it is not a court finding.
  Letitia James seeks information about MSG's facial-recognition exclusion policy · Letitia JamesAttorney general's statement and description of the information request
2. January 26, 2023
  Dolan defends the policy; Hoylman-Sigal calls for legislation
  Reaction
  Dolan defended the exclusions in a FOX 5 interview. Hoylman-Sigal responded that legislators should expand admission protections to sporting events. In a statement the same day, MSG said the policy kept attorneys with active lawsuits against the company out of its venues until the litigation ended and did not cover sexual harassment or employment discrimination claims.
  [02]James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interview
  Dolan argues that a private venue may exclude lawyers involved in litigation against it. The article also carries MSG's explanation of the policy and its exceptions.
  James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interviewFacial recognition and property-rights exchanges; company statement at the end
  [03]Brad Hoylman-Sigal
  Hoylman-Sigal calls for legislation expanding admission protections to sporting events and criticizes the exclusion policy.
  Brad Hoylman-Sigal responds to James Dolan's defense of the exclusions · Brad Hoylman-SigalHoylman-Sigal's response to the FOX 5 interview
  [04]Georgetown Law Technology Review analysis of MSG's facial-recognition exclusions
  Rodriguez criticizes the policy while questioning whether existing state law prohibited it. His analysis argues for broader regulation of private facial-recognition uses.
  Georgetown Law Technology Review analysis of MSG's facial-recognition exclusionsMarch 2023 analysis; paragraphs separating legality from the policy's merits
  [05]MSG Entertainment states its position regarding adverse attorney policy
  MSG's statement describes the policy as barring attorneys with active lawsuits against the company until the litigation ends and says it does not cover sexual harassment or employment discrimination claims.
  MSG Entertainment states its position regarding adverse attorney policyOur Policy and Our Rights section
February 2023
1. February 2, 2023
  Assembly bill would extend ticket-holder protections to sporting events
  Assemblymember Tony Simone's bill, the same as Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal's S2424, would add sporting events to Civil Rights Law 40-b, which bars covered venues from turning away adult ticket holders. It was referred to committee in 2023 and again in 2024 and did not advance. A 2025-2026 version, A6310, the same as S9738, was referred to committee in 2025 and 2026. We found no record that either chamber had passed it as of October 2026.
  [06]New York Assembly bill A3195 (2023-2024 session)
  The Assembly record shows the bill, the same as S2424, adding sporting events to Civil Rights Law 40-b, and its referrals to committee in 2023 and 2024.
  New York Assembly bill A3195 (2023-2024 session)Bill summary, actions and sponsor memo
  [07]New York Assembly bill A6310 (2025-2026 session)
  The Assembly record shows the 2025-2026 version of the sporting-events bill, the same as S9738, with referrals to committee in March 2025 and January 2026. The sponsor memo cites MSG's exclusions of ticket holders.
  New York Assembly bill A6310 (2025-2026 session)Bill summary, actions and sponsor memo
2. February 6, 2023
  MSG exempts lawyers in Tao Group litigation from the policy
  MSG Entertainment said it had lifted its adverse attorney policy for litigation pending with Tao Group Hospitality entities while it explored a sale of its majority stake in Tao. The company said the policy stayed in place for other firms with active litigation against it.
  [08]Madison Square Garden lifts ban on some lawyers as it explores sale of Tao Group
  The ABA Journal quotes MSG's announcement lifting the policy for litigation with Tao Group entities and keeping it for other firms with active litigation against the company.
  Madison Square Garden lifts ban on some lawyers as it explores sale of Tao GroupArticle text quoting MSG's February 6 release
March 2023
1. March 28, 2023
  Appeals court vacates the injunction in Hutcher's suit over the ban
  The Appellate Division, First Department, agreed with the trial court that Civil Rights Law 40-b requires MSG venues to admit ticket holders to theatrical performances and concerts but not to sporting events. It vacated the November 2022 preliminary injunction, holding that the statute's damages remedy is the plaintiffs' only remedy.
  [09]Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., March 2023 appellate decision
  The First Department held that Civil Rights Law 40-b covers MSG venues when they host theatrical performances or concerts but not sporting events. It vacated the preliminary injunction because the statute's damages remedy is the plaintiffs' only remedy.
  Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., March 2023 appellate decisionDecision and order, 2023 NY Slip Op 01646
November 2023
1. November 28, 2023
  Appeals court lets the Liquor Authority case against MSG proceed
  The Appellate Division affirmed an April 2023 judgment dismissing MSG's bid to stop a State Liquor Authority proceeding. The authority had charged that the attorney exclusions meant the venues were no longer open to the general public. The court held that the authority had not exceeded its power and that MSG had to complete the administrative hearing before seeking court review. It quashed one investigatory subpoena the authority had sent to a nonparty.
  [10]Matter of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. v New York State Liquor Authority, November 2023 appellate decision
  The court affirmed the dismissal of MSG's challenge to a State Liquor Authority proceeding over its attorney exclusions, required MSG to complete the administrative hearing first, and quashed one subpoena issued to a nonparty.
  Matter of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. v New York State Liquor Authority, November 2023 appellate decisionDecision and order, 2023 NY Slip Op 06090
December 2023
1. December 7, 2023
  Appeals court rules in the Hutcher case as the firm drops its suit
  The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of MSG's motion to dismiss the Civil Rights Law 40-b claims and reversed, as premature, a partial summary judgment of $662.35 for one of the firm's lawyers. The plaintiffs had told the court they would not pursue the case. Larry Hutcher said the firm dropped its suit after the ticket-reseller litigation that led to its ban was resolved, the ABA Journal reported.
  [11]Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., December 2023 appellate decision
  The court affirmed the denial of MSG's motion to dismiss the Civil Rights Law 40-b claims and reversed a partial summary judgment of $662.35 as premature. It notes that the plaintiffs said they would not pursue the case.
  Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., December 2023 appellate decisionDecision and order, 2023 NY Slip Op 06314
  [12]Lawsuits challenging Madison Square Garden's lawyer ban are abating; only 2 remain
  The ABA Journal reports that Davidoff Hutcher & Citron dropped its suit after the ticket-reseller case behind its ban was resolved, and that two challenges to the policy remained.
  Lawsuits challenging Madison Square Garden's lawyer ban are abating; only 2 remainArticle text
May 2024
1. May 7, 2024
  Federal judge dismisses a biometric-privacy suit tied to the exclusions
  Judge Lewis A. Kaplan dismissed claims by Aaron Gross and Jacob Blumenkrantz that MSG violated a New York City biometric privacy law by sharing customers' biometric data with a vendor to keep out lawyers at firms suing it. The court ruled that the law bars profiting from the data transaction itself and does not reach every indirect benefit a company draws from sharing the data.
  [13]Gross v. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., memorandum and opinion
  Judge Kaplan dismissed claims that MSG violated New York City's biometric identifier law by sharing biometric data with a vendor to keep out lawyers at firms suing it. The opinion addresses the city law, not the merits of the exclusion policy.
  Gross v. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., memorandum and opinionDocument 46, Case 1:23-cv-03380 (S.D.N.Y.), pages 2-4
August 2025
1. August 13, 2025
  MSG says lawyers suing it stay barred until their cases end
  ESPN reported that MSG's exclusion list remained in effect and that, according to reports, more than a thousand lawyers at about 90 firms had been barred since 2022. In a statement issued after the story was published, MSG said the policy exists "to ensure the safety and security of our patrons and employees" and that firms suing the company or its employees "are deemed to be hostile and are prohibited from patronizing our venues until the litigation is concluded." MSG said their lawyers are reinstated once the litigation ends.
  [14]ESPN reports that MSG's exclusion list remains in effect
  Devin Gordon's August 2025 ESPN feature describes MSG's letters barring lawyers at firms suing the company and quotes a statement MSG issued after publication. Figures on the number of barred lawyers are attributed to other reports.
  ESPN reports that MSG's exclusion list remains in effectSections on the attorney exclusion letters and MSG's statement
April 2026
1. April 30, 2026
  MSG revokes the tickets of a lawyer suing it for an injured officer
  WIRED reported that a letter to attorney John Scola dated April 30, 2026, said "Any tickets to MSG Venues ... are hereby revoked." Scola had sued MSG in February on behalf of NYPD officer John Przybyszewski, who alleges injuries suffered while working security at a 2025 boxing match at an MSG venue. MSG did not respond to WIRED's request for comment.
  [15]A New York Cop Got Injured at a Boxing Match. Now Madison Square Garden Is Banning His Lawyer
  WIRED reports that an April 30, 2026, letter revoked attorney John Scola's tickets to MSG venues after he sued MSG for an injured NYPD officer. MSG did not respond to WIRED's request for comment.
  A New York Cop Got Injured at a Boxing Match. Now Madison Square Garden Is Banning His LawyerArticle text describing the April 30 letter
July 2026
1. July 22, 2026
  Liquor Authority drops its access charges against MSG venues
  Gothamist reported on July 22, 2026, that the State Liquor Authority had dropped, the previous week, its charges that the attorney exclusions violated the public-access rule for liquor licensees. Under the agreement, Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall and the Beacon Theatre each agreed to pay $10,000 on a separate charge over an unauthorized corporate change. An authority spokesperson said the withdrawal did not endorse any exclusion policy. An MSG spokesperson said the fines concerned an administrative error.
  [16]State drops case over MSG lawyer blacklist, issues $30K fine for paperwork
  Gothamist reports that the State Liquor Authority dropped its access charges against three MSG venues in an agreement under which each venue agreed to pay a $10,000 penalty on a corporate-change charge. It quotes the authority and an MSG spokesperson.
  State drops case over MSG lawyer blacklist, issues $30K fine for paperworkArticle text
August 2026
1. August 14, 2026
  City Council bill to bar face scans of customers gains majority support
  A City Council bill that would bar businesses open to the public, including arenas and concert venues, from using biometric recognition on customers had 28 co-sponsors, a majority of the 51-member Council, Gothamist reported. Councilmember Shahana Hanif announced the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration at a rally outside Madison Square Garden, where speakers cited Dolan's use of the technology to bar attorneys suing the venue. The bill still lacked the support of Speaker Julie Menin.
  [17]Momentum builds to ban Madison Square Garden's 'surveillance empire'
  Gothamist reports that a City Council bill restricting businesses' use of facial recognition on customers gained a majority of Council sponsors and the Mamdani administration's backing. It quotes an MSG spokesperson.
  Momentum builds to ban Madison Square Garden's 'surveillance empire'Article text
  [18]New York City Council Int. 213-2026, biometric recognition in public accommodations
  The Council's legislative record lists the bill's sponsors and actions: introduced and referred on January 29, 2026, heard and laid over by the Committee on Technology on March 2, 2026.
  New York City Council Int. 213-2026, biometric recognition in public accommodationsLegislation details and history

Claims

Claims separate what was said from what is contested. Follow each source for the original wording and context.

What's disputed

Disputed claim

James L. DolanJanuary 26, 2023

MSG is justified in excluding lawyers at firms litigating against it as a matter of private property ownership.

Sources (1)

James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interviewFacial recognition and property-rights exchanges; company statement at the end

Response record

Responses

Choose one response filter, or select All responses to see the full record.

13 responses. First 6 shown initially. Newest first.

Electronic Frontier FoundationElectronic Frontier Foundation, in regulatory commentsMarch 6, 2023
Before this statement
EFF's comments address the privacy and civil-rights effects of commercial data use.
"Madison Square Gardens was recently caught using this technology to exclude employees of a law firm that sued the venue’s parent company. ... A business could easily extend this kind of “enemies list” to people who, online or on the sidewalk outside, protest a venue’s discriminatory policies."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
EFF criticizes excluding employees of a law firm that sued MSG's parent company and warns that similar lists could target protesters.
After the statement
The comments use MSG's exclusions as an example of how businesses could use facial recognition against people who oppose them.
EFF warns that venue blacklists can extend to criticsSection on discriminatory automated decisions, page 7
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. EFF cites MSG's exclusion of a law firm's employees as an example of discriminatory face recognition and warns that a business could extend such a list to protesters. Mixed or conditional loses because the comments offer no defense or qualification of that use.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
New York Civil Liberties UnionNYCLU, through privacy and technology testimony by Daniel SchwarzFebruary 24, 2023
Before this statement
NYCLU submitted testimony to a City Council hearing on facial recognition in businesses.
"The widely reported deployment of facial recognition at Madison Square Garden to ban people from the stadium that had already purchased tickets ... illustrates the dangers from the growing surveillance industry and the urgent need for comprehensive privacy protections."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
NYCLU cites MSG's use of facial recognition to ban ticket holders as an example of surveillance dangers requiring privacy protections.
After the statement
The testimony also raises concerns about storing biometric data and about government surveillance.
NYCLU urges biometric privacy safeguards after MSG exclusionsTestimony, pages 1-2 and 5-6
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. The NYCLU testimony says MSG's use of facial recognition to ban ticket holders illustrates the dangers of the surveillance industry. The closest alternative is that the passage only gives an example, but it attaches a negative evaluation to MSG's conduct, so it is criticism.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Jumaane WilliamsNew York City public advocate, in City Council testimonyFebruary 24, 2023
Before this statement
Williams spoke at a City Council hearing on businesses' use of facial recognition, including MSG's venue exclusions.
"Individuals should not be removed from a place of business, because their employer is involved in legal action against said business."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Williams criticizes excluding patrons because their employer is involved in legal action against a business and calls for stronger facial-recognition rules.
After the statement
Williams's testimony also addresses wider concerns about corporate and government use of facial recognition.
Jumaane Williams condemns facial-recognition blacklistingStatement as delivered to the City Council
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Williams says people should not be removed from a business because their employer is in litigation against it, which rejects the policy directly. Mixed or conditional loses because the testimony sets no condition on that view.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
New York State Bar AssociationNew York State Bar Association, through its presidentFebruary 2, 2023
Before this statement
In early 2023, MSG was using facial recognition to exclude lawyers at firms suing the company.
"The use of facial recognition software to exclude members of law firms from a Knicks basketball game or a Taylor Swift concert discriminates against lawyers for doing their jobs"
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Through president Sherry Levin Wallach, the association condemns facial-recognition exclusions tied to lawyers representing clients against a venue.
After the statement
The association launched a working group to study how the technology affects lawyers' ability to represent clients.
State Bar Association examines facial-recognition retaliationPresident Sherry Levin Wallach's statement
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. The association's president says using facial recognition to exclude members of law firms discriminates against lawyers for doing their jobs. Challenged the characterization loses because the statement rejects the practice rather than only disputing how it is described.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
James L. DolanMSG Entertainment chief executive, interviewed on Good Day New YorkDirectly involvedJanuary 26, 2023
Before this statement
Dolan appeared on Good Day New York to discuss facial recognition and MSG's lawyer exclusions.
"This is just about owning property, you know, any, a bakery, right? A restaurant, right? You get to say who you serve, right?"
Defended or excused
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Dolan defends the exclusions as a private venue owner's decision about whom to admit.
After the statement
Dolan compared excluding litigating lawyers with a bakery declining business from a customer suing it.
James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interviewFacial recognition and property-rights exchanges; company statement at the end
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms with active lawsuits against it. Dolan argues that a property owner may choose whom it serves, which justifies the policy. Challenged the characterization is the closest alternative and loses because Dolan defends the policy itself rather than only disputing how critics describe it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Brad Hoylman-SigalNew York state senatorDirectly involvedJanuary 26, 2023
Before this statement
Hoylman-Sigal responded to Dolan's FOX 5 interview.
"New York shouldn’t allow petty tyrants to impose their warped fantasies on the public while reaping millions each year from taxpayer subsidies."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Responding to Dolan's defense of the exclusions, Hoylman-Sigal said New York should not let "petty tyrants" impose their will on the public while collecting taxpayer subsidies, and called for closing the sporting-event exception in the state Civil Rights Law that allows Dolan to ban fans from Madison Square Garden.
After the statement
Hoylman-Sigal then thanked the attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney for opening inquiries into what the statement calls Dolan's vindictive business practices.
Brad Hoylman-Sigal responds to James Dolan's defense of the exclusions · Brad Hoylman-SigalHoylman-Sigal's response to the FOX 5 interview
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Hoylman-Sigal calls Dolan a petty tyrant over the exclusions and seeks legislation to stop them. Challenged the characterization loses because the statement attacks the practice itself rather than MSG's account of it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement

View all 13 responsesShow fewer responses

Letitia JamesNew York attorney generalDirectly involvedJanuary 25, 2023
Before this statement
The attorney general sent MSG an information request about facial recognition and litigation-related exclusions.
"MSG Entertainment cannot fight their legal battles in their own arenas ... we’re urging MSG Entertainment to reverse this policy."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
James criticizes the exclusions and calls on MSG to reverse the policy while seeking information about possible legal violations.
After the statement
The request raises possible violations of civil and human rights laws; it does not establish a violation.
Letitia James seeks information about MSG's facial-recognition exclusion policy · Letitia JamesAttorney general's statement and description of the information request
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. James says MSG cannot fight its legal battles in its arenas and urges the company to reverse the policy, which is direct criticism. Mixed or conditional loses: the attorney general's letter asks about possible legal violations, but the stated view of the policy carries no condition.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Larry K. HutcherAttorney, Knicks season-ticket holder and plaintiff suing MSG over the exclusionsJanuary 23, 2023
Before this statement
MSG used facial recognition to enforce a policy excluding attorneys at firms in litigation with the company, including attorneys not personally handling the litigation.
"It's clear that everyone recognizes that Dolan has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, it is based in a mean-spirited and vindictive way."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Hutcher calls Dolan's lawyer ban arbitrary and capricious and welcomes the proposed law.
After the statement
Hutcher's firm was suing MSG at the time. In the same report, MSG defended its policy and criticized the proposed legislation.
Larry Hutcher condemns MSG exclusions and supports legislationHutcher interview
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Hutcher, a plaintiff suing MSG over the policy, says Dolan acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in a mean-spirited and vindictive way. Challenged the characterization loses because Hutcher criticizes the exclusions themselves.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Kristen GonzalezNew York state senator and technology committee chairJanuary 15, 2023
Before this statement
Elected officials and privacy advocates rallied after MSG used facial recognition to exclude an attorney from a venue.
"If Madison Square Garden can use biometric technology to ban an attorney from its premises, what recourse is there for the average New Yorker? I'm alarmed by the lack of oversight regulating the use of biometric technologies by both private and public entities in the State."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Gonzalez expresses alarm about biometric oversight after MSG excluded an attorney and calls for privacy regulation.
After the statement
In the same statement, Gonzalez said it is long overdue for the state to step in and enact regulations protecting the right to privacy and guarding against discrimination.
New York officials and privacy advocates oppose MSG's facial-recognition exclusionsStatements by Gonzalez, Krueger, Simone and Fox Cahn
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Gonzalez asks what recourse ordinary New Yorkers have if MSG can ban an attorney with biometric technology and says the lack of oversight is alarming. The question treats the exclusion as a misuse of the technology, so the statement is criticism. Mixed or conditional loses because Gonzalez expresses no support for any part of the practice.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Liz KruegerNew York state senatorJanuary 15, 2023
Before this statement
Elected officials and privacy advocates rallied after MSG used facial recognition to exclude an attorney from a venue.
"MSG’s use of facial recognition technology to retaliate against employees of law firms engaged in litigation against them is deeply concerning. It is an unacceptable invasion of the privacy of all their patrons, and a blatant attempt to intimidate and bully those who might want to pursue their day in court against the company."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Krueger condemns MSG's lawyer exclusions as retaliation and urges scrutiny of its public permits and benefits.
After the statement
Krueger added that the city and state should reconsider the permits, licenses and benefits they provide to MSG.
New York officials and privacy advocates oppose MSG's facial-recognition exclusionsStatements by Gonzalez, Krueger, Simone and Fox Cahn
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Krueger calls the policy retaliation, an invasion of patrons' privacy and an attempt to intimidate people who might sue the company. Challenged the characterization loses because Krueger criticizes the conduct itself.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Tony SimoneNew York state assemblymemberJanuary 15, 2023
Before this statement
Elected officials and privacy advocates rallied after MSG used facial recognition to exclude an attorney from a venue.
"The use of facial recognition technology by MSG Entertainment to ban members of the public, not for safety reasons, but as perceived legal adversaries is incredibly disturbing ... Any policies that bar members of the public for non-safety reasons must cease immediately."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Simone condemns excluding perceived legal adversaries rather than security risks and demands an end to the policy.
After the statement
Simone's statement also notes that MSG operates under a city special permit, holds State Liquor Authority licenses and receives a state tax abatement.
New York officials and privacy advocates oppose MSG's facial-recognition exclusionsStatements by Gonzalez, Krueger, Simone and Fox Cahn
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Simone calls banning perceived legal adversaries, rather than safety risks, disturbing and says such policies must stop. Minimized loses because Simone does not downplay the policy in any way.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Surveillance Technology Oversight ProjectS.T.O.P., through executive director Albert Fox CahnJanuary 15, 2023
Before this statement
Elected officials and privacy advocates rallied after MSG used facial recognition to exclude an attorney from a venue.
"If MSG can do this to attorneys suing the company, they can also target employees and customers who sue the company for violating the law. It’s terrifying to think that other companies might follow suit, and that anytime you exercise your rights in court it will mean getting banned from public life."
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Through Albert Fox Cahn, S.T.O.P. condemns MSG's exclusions and warns that other businesses could punish customers for exercising legal rights.
After the statement
The coalition called on MSG to adopt a written policy for destroying biometric data once its initial purpose was complete.
New York officials and privacy advocates oppose MSG's facial-recognition exclusionsStatements by Gonzalez, Krueger, Simone and Fox Cahn
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Speaking for S.T.O.P., Albert Fox Cahn warns that the same approach could be used against employees and customers who sue and calls that prospect terrifying. The warning is criticism of the policy itself, so Challenged the characterization loses.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement
Samuel L. DavisPartner at the firm employing excluded attorney Kelly ConlonDecember 19, 2022
Before this statement
MSG used facial recognition to enforce a policy excluding attorneys at firms in litigation with the company, including attorneys not personally handling the litigation.
"This whole scheme is a pretext for doing collective punishment on adversaries who would dare sue MSG in their multi-billion dollar network"
Condemned
Case context: James Dolan defends MSG's facial-recognition lawyer exclusions; New York officials object
Full statement and sources
Davis calls excluding lawyers because of their employer's litigation collective punishment.
After the statement
MSG says litigation creates an adverse environment and that only Conlon was excluded, not the rest of the Girl Scout group.
Sam Davis challenges MSG's exclusion of lawyersSam Davis statement
Why this label?
Reference point: MSG's policy of excluding lawyers at firms suing it. Davis, a partner at the firm where Kelly Conlon worked, calls the policy a pretext for collective punishment of people who sue MSG. Challenged the characterization loses because Davis rejects the policy itself rather than MSG's description of it.
This label describes the statement's response within the context above.
Read statement Link to this statement

Sources

(25)

Interview

James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interview

James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interviewFacial recognition and property-rights exchanges; company statement at the end

Overview

People in this case

Timeline

January 2023

Letitia James requests information about facial-recognition exclusions

Dolan defends the policy; Hoylman-Sigal calls for legislation

February 2023

Assembly bill would extend ticket-holder protections to sporting events

MSG exempts lawyers in Tao Group litigation from the policy

March 2023

Appeals court vacates the injunction in Hutcher's suit over the ban

November 2023

Appeals court lets the Liquor Authority case against MSG proceed

December 2023

Appeals court rules in the Hutcher case as the firm drops its suit

May 2024

Federal judge dismisses a biometric-privacy suit tied to the exclusions

August 2025

MSG says lawyers suing it stay barred until their cases end

April 2026

MSG revokes the tickets of a lawyer suing it for an injured officer

July 2026

Liquor Authority drops its access charges against MSG venues

August 2026

City Council bill to bar face scans of customers gains majority support

Claims

What's disputed

Sources

James Dolan defends MSG's lawyer-exclusion policy in a FOX 5 interview

New York City Council Int. 213-2026, biometric recognition in public accommodations

ESPN reports that MSG's exclusion list remains in effect

MSG Entertainment states its position regarding adverse attorney policy

Momentum builds to ban Madison Square Garden's 'surveillance empire'

New York Assembly bill A6310 (2025-2026 session)

New York Assembly bill A3195 (2023-2024 session)

State drops case over MSG lawyer blacklist, issues $30K fine for paperwork

A New York Cop Got Injured at a Boxing Match. Now Madison Square Garden Is Banning His Lawyer

Madison Square Garden lifts ban on some lawyers as it explores sale of Tao Group

Lawsuits challenging Madison Square Garden's lawyer ban are abating; only 2 remain

Gross v. Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., memorandum and opinion

Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., December 2023 appellate decision

Matter of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. v New York State Liquor Authority, November 2023 appellate decision

Hutcher v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., March 2023 appellate decision

Sam Davis challenges MSG's exclusion of lawyers

Larry Hutcher condemns MSG exclusions and supports legislation

EFF warns that venue blacklists can extend to critics

NYCLU urges biometric privacy safeguards after MSG exclusions

State Bar Association examines facial-recognition retaliation

New York officials and privacy advocates oppose MSG's facial-recognition exclusions

Jumaane Williams condemns facial-recognition blacklisting

Georgetown Law Technology Review analysis of MSG's facial-recognition exclusions

Letitia James seeks information about MSG's facial-recognition exclusion policy

Brad Hoylman-Sigal responds to James Dolan's defense of the exclusions

Want the next important update?

Follow disputes like this one.

Share or embed this case

Cite this record