Illinois Biometrics Ruling May Lead to Flood of Plaintiff Suits, Attorneys Say
A recent decision from the state's Supreme Court may have opened the floodgates for plaintiffs' filings and class actions over improperly collected biometric data.
February 06, 2019 at 11:00 AM
3 minute read
Violation claims over Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) may start rolling into the state's court systems after Six Flags was hit with a ruling finding it could be required to pay damages over biometrics violations even if the damages aren't tangible.
BIPA went into effect in 2008 and requires private entities in Illinois to obtain prior written consent before collecting an individual's fingerprint, voiceprint, iris scan or other biometric. It also requires companies provide a written document notifying consumers of any biometric collection and the length of the data's storage.
If a defendant negligently violated the law, plaintiffs may recover attorney fees and liquidated damages of up to $5,000 or actual damages.
On Jan. 25, in a unanimous opinion, the Illinois Supreme Court said actual injuries beyond violation of BIPA weren't needed for the plaintiffs to seek damages.
While the Illinois Supreme Court's opinion cited various case law that defined damages as intangible, some lawyers said the Six Flags case presented a sea change.
“Six Flags is a bit of an outlier compared to normal jurisprudence,” said Robert Cattanach of Dorsey & Whitney. “I think the biggest attention-getter is arguably, not everyone will agree, is this being out of somewhat step with the U.S. Supreme Court's Spokeo [v. Robins] case.” In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held “you have to show actual harm to the individual. This is a fairly significant sea change in this space,” he explained.
With the Illinois Supreme Court's decision, now businesses “face exposure and have a lot of hungry plaintiff attorneys looking for people collecting biometric data,” Cattanach added.
Indeed, the possibility of liquidated damages rolled into a large class action suit may stoke the interest of plaintiffs attorneys.
“We think this is a significant victory for employees and consumers in Illinois because the Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed the protections that the Illinois Legislature intended to impose with BIPA,” said plaintiffs attorney Jim Zouras of Chicago-based Stephan Zouras. He noted his firm has filed 50 class actions over BIPA violations.
For Downers Grove, Illinois-based plaintiffs attorney Cynthia Pietrucha, the ruling means that BIPA violation claims have been revived in Illinois' courtrooms.
“Why this is particularly powerful for individuals, now it means if a private company takes biometric data from an individual and an individual has a problem with it they can sue and [possibly] win,” Pietrucha said. “Attorneys may start marketing more [to clients] as, 'Do you think your biometric data has been impeded on?'” she added.
“The risks of damages that have to be paid versus actual harm is so out of proportion, I think there's an incentive to file lawsuits,” added Justin Kay of Drinker Biddle & Reath's Chicago office. “I think businesses will be more wary about deploying biometrics in Illinois.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250