Judge Certifies Class of Illinois Facebook Users in Privacy Suit Over Facial Recognition
The lawsuit, set to go to trial in July, confronts the company with billions in potential damages.
April 16, 2018 at 09:13 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge in San Francisco has certified a class of Illinois Facebook users in a privacy lawsuit set to go to trial later this year, escalating the stakes in a lawsuit that could result in billions of dollars in damages against the social media giant.
U.S. District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California on Monday certified a class in a case brought against Facebook under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA—a law governing the collection and storage of biometric indicators like fingerprints, facial features and iris scans.
A Facebook spokesperson said Monday afternoon that the company was reviewing the decision. “We continue to believe the case has no merit and will defend ourselves vigorously,” the spokersperson said.
Plaintiffs claim that Facebook violated BIPA by collecting and storing Illinois users' biometric data without prior notice or consent through its “Tag Suggestions” tool—a feature launched in 2011 that prompts users to identify friends in pictures uploaded to the social media site.
Donato in February rejected Facebook's bid to dismiss the suit, finding BIPA left “little question that the Illinois legislature codified a right of privacy in personal biometric information.”
In Monday's decision, Donato found that not all photos uploaded to Facebook resulted in the collection of biometric data. The judge rejected a proposed class of all Illinoisians with an uploaded photo during the class period as “too amorphous and potentially over-inclusive to be certified.”
But Donato found a more narrowly defined class–consisting of users in Illinois for whom Facebook stored a “face template” after June 7, 2011–could help address two questions central to the case: “[D]id Facebook's facial recognition technology harvest biometric identifiers as contemplated under BIPA, and if so, did Facebook give users prior notice of these practices and obtain their consent?”
Donato noted that Facebook's lawyers at Mayer Brown put great emphasis on their argument that not all class members qualified “aggrieved” parties under BIPA. Donato, however, wrote that Facebook's lawyers “almost exclusively” relied on Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment, a December 2017 decision from Second District Appellate Court of Illinois which held that plaintiffs must allege “actual harm” to get BIPA claims to stick.
While Donato downplayed the persuasiveness of the Six Flags decision, calling it “a currently unpublished opinion by an intermediate court of appeals in Illinois,” he posited that the Illinois court likely would have found actual harm in the Facebook case. The Six Flags case, he noted, involved a season pass program where the amusement park clearly disclosed that it was collecting customer fingerprints to speed admissions.
Donato wrote “an express request for a fingerprint scan is a far cry from the situation here, where plaintiffs plausibly argue that simply using Facebook or reading Facebook's user policy did not put them on notice that Facebook was collecting their biometric data.”
The ruling sets up a high-stakes trial in the case, which is scheduled to begin in July. BIPA carries statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation, and $5,000 for those that are “intentional and reckless.”
Jay Edelson of Edelson PC, one of the lead lawyers for plaintiffs in the cases, declined to comment. Shawn Williams of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, who also represents the plaintiffs, said he was “very pleased” with the “detailed and thorough opinion.”
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 AllA Look Back at 'Goldman Sachs': How Price Impact Is Changing Securities Class Actions
5 minute readLitigators of the Week: An Early Knockout Win in the Decongestant MDL
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
Litigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
Trending 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