Onslaught of BIPA Lawsuits Continue to Threaten Businesses Across Illinois

While several prominent claims under Illinois' "Biometric Information Privacy Act" have already settled, and claimants have received their checks (Facebook, Google, etc.), dozens of claims continue to remain in federal courts across Illinois. According to Law.com's "Radar," there were 34 cases filed between the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of Illinois in August. 

The 34 number is larger than the average of 21 complaints filed monthly over the past calendar year, the sheer volume each and every months suggests this sort of litigation is unlikely to go away anytime soon. The unique sort of lawsuits, which arise from the landmark biometric privacy legislation which puts Illinois on an island on its own, has continued to create a unique headache for entities large and small. 

Litigation pertaining to the Act has been far reaching, but caselaw has continuously painted an increasingly clear picture as to obligations when a violation did in fact take place. For example, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. 2019), reiterated that the plain language of the statute specifically authorizes claims to move forward, even when no actually injury is demonstrated. This is crucial, as it would seem to be very rare when an actual injury took place under this law. The statute specifically authorizes "aggrieved [person] shall have a right of action." 740 ILCS 14/1. 

When it comes to whether an insurance company's defense of an insured entity is precluded by the Employment-Related Practices Exclusion, often a key provision of a commercial insurance policy, courts have come to different decisions, often depending upon the facts. Understanding the current status of the law in this area is unclear, as the Seventh Circuit's decision earlier this year in USA Gymnastics v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, No. 20-1245 (7th. Cir. 2022), which pertains to timelines of appealing of a requirement to defend an insured, may raise more questions than answers when it comes to specific fact specific patterns. 

In the last month, separate class action complaints have been filed against companies in numerous industries and sizes, including not only giants like Youtube, Home Depot, and Amazon; but also several lesser known companies based in Illinois. 

The takeaway for businesses? There may still be serious concerns regarding previous BIPA violations. Just because no lawsuit is pending, does not mean the company is in the clear at this point. There is no shortage of BIPA litigation. While the law is still rather ambiguous in certain contexts, it is unambiguous that BIPA is here to stay and companies will continue to shell out massive checks as a result. 

Read the statutory text of BIPA here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michigan Tribunal Rules Wayfair Does Not Create Nexus for Local Tax Based on Resident Agent

 The 2018 Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair  overturned the 1992 decision  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota , which was a decision that strictly prohibited states from imposing sales taxes on vendors through mail order or internet businesses unless the vendor had a "physical presence" in the state. That decision, which came in the early days of the internet, represented a strikingly different world of internet sales. For example, Amazon was still two years away from its launch and Jeff Bezos had yet to even sell a book online.  The Michigan Tax Tribunal recently issued a decision in Apex Laboratories International, Inc. v. City of Detroit . This matter was brought forward after years of continued litigation, as the case was remanded to the Tribunal from the Court of Appeals over the question of whether the the Supreme Court's Wayfair decision changed the ruling as to whether Apex  could be found liable for local taxes instituted by the City of Detroit...
Read more

Trade secrets and unfair competition complaint - Gallagher v. Alliant Insurance

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. In the Northern District of Illinois.   The 43 page Complaint alleged several different causes of actions including: I. Tortuous interference with a contract; II. Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage;  III. Aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and  IV. Conspiracy.  While each element requires a fact-intensive analysis, there are several themes and considerations to consider as they play out. First, the crux of the dispute arises as Alliant allegedly has repeatedly recruited employees from Gallagher.  Per the Complaint, as they are recruited, they are asked to retain certain types of confidential information. In doing so, this places Gallagher in a precarious situation and requires that the employees not fulfill their duty of loyalty to Gallagher during the course of their employment.  While several fact patters stand out, an ...
Read more

New Treas. Reg. Provides New Guidance on IRS and State Investigations of Non-Profit Tax Status

Today, the Internal Revenue Service officially published a new Treasury Regulation entitled "Disclosure of Information to State Officials Regarding Tax-Exempt Organizations." Prior to enactment, the IRS was often unable to communicate with a state Attorney General regarding an ongoing investigation pertaining to the status of a non-profit organization. At times, this often amounted to both organizations investigating substantially similar issues, however, the IRS was unable to disclose the status of an ongoing investigation unless it had been finalized.   While the IRS was able to share some information with certain state officers, the IRS is now directed to inform a so-called "appropriate State officer" ("ASO") of (1.) a refusal to recognize an entity as a charitable organization; (2.) a charitable organization which no longer meets the guidelines to be tax-exempt; and (3.) mailing a notice of deficiency for any tax imposed under IRS Section 507 or Chapte...
Read more