Chicago Federal Law Blog

A privacy suit against Lexis Nexis Risk Solutions was removed to federal court last week, six weeks after it was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The complaint was filed by several Chicago-area activists, who are objecting to Lexis Nexus’s bulk sale of personally identifiable data, specifically regarding the sale of this information to law enforcement  agencies. Lexis Nexis offers data available to purchase, the company claims the information is 99% accurate, and that there are 276 million so-called “Lexis IDs.” Put into context, there are just over 258 million American adults, according to the 2020 census. The complaint, primarily brought by immigration activists, alleges that law enforcement is permitted to buy this information, including license plate scanner information, and is in turn, able to obtain farm more information than would be possible through other methods. Namely, law enforcement is able to obtain these records without seeking a court order, sub...

A Biometric Information Privacy Act Complaint against Amazon was removed to the Northern District of Illinois on Wednesday morning. The class action Complaint alleges that Amazon unlawfully obtained biometric information of its employees at several locations.   Notably, the suit states that it is unclear how long Amazon stores the biometric information, which likely runs afoul of the Illinois statute. Among other portions of the Act, the Complaint alleges that Amazon knowingly disregarded the requirements to inform employees that biometric information was being collected, that a written release be obtained prior, and that the company was profiting off of the information.   One particularly interesting element of the Factual Background portion of the Complaint is its explanation of BIPA, including references to its legislative history. Specifically, the Complaint outlines how BIPA was created after Pay by Touch,   which provided fingerprint scanners to grocery retailers sp...

 Xpressdocs Partners, L.P. ("ExpressDocs") filed a breach of contract lawsuit Monday morning against D'Aprile Properties, LLC, Midwest Lending Corporation, and Ryan D'Aprile ("D'Aprile"), individually; in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging breach of contract in the amount of $317,391.57 for alleged marketing services rendered. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants are ultimately one and the same, as D'Aprile, and the entities largely operate in the same fashion, as such, it alleges the Defendants together failed to pay the marketing bills for over six months.  Xpressdocs provides a wide variety of marketing services, its website lists brand management, automated direct mail, and print and direct mail fulfillment; as the three primary tabs of services provided. Xpressdocs also is geared towards specific industries, with Real Estate being listed as the first option under "By Industry," on its website.  Ryan D'Aprile is a real...

Several prominent companies have been hit with digital privacy class action suits over the past week in the Northern District of Illinois. Lisa Cuevas filed a class action in the Northern District of Illinois against Bloomberg L.P., alleging violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2711 (“VPPA”). Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s knowingly disclosure digital privacy information of its digital subscribers to a third-party. Namely, the purported information was distributed to Meta (parent company of Facebook). Brittney Wright’s case against Buzzfeed brings forward a largely identical claim as the one brought against Bloomberg just a few weeks prior. Likewise, there is another similar suit pending, which was filed recently, against Warner Brothers by the same firm, Peiffer, Wolf, Carr, Kane, Conway & Wise. A similar suit was filed against Time Warner.  The Bloomberg LP complaint alleges the company distributed personal Facebook Identification infor...

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 ...

Earlier this week, Franklin Capital Holdings LLC ("Franklin Capital") filed suit against the United States Small Business Administrator ("the SBA") in the United States District Court of Northern Illinois, after the SBA denied forgiveness of Franklin Capital's Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") forgivable loan. PPP was administered in 2020 as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act"). Rather than allocating grants to businesses, the program was administered as a "forgivable loan," meaning that businesses would have their loan forgiven in its entirety should they meet certain qualification criteria.  The beginning of the complaint addresses the procedural requirements to bring suit in Federal court pertaining to an adverse administrative decision. Namely, that Plaintiff is entitled to judicial review of a Final Administrative decision. After the SBA reached its final decision, it was then appealed t...

  For many university students, the “new normal” often includes room scans during remote proctored exams. Despite the protocols obvious relation to the integrity of exams, this practice has now been ruled unconstitutional by a federal Judge in the Northern District of Ohio. A chemistry student filed suit against Cleveland State University, a public institution of higher education. The federal court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the Cleveland State student. The plaintiff’s argument centered around the notion that the room scan was a search pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. And as such, it was an unreasonable search inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In order for the state action to be considered a search, they found that the plaintiff must demonstrate a subjectively reasonable expectation of privacy, furthermore, society must provide for said expectation to be reasonable. Here, the plaintiff was in his home, which is subje...