Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)

One of the most significantly litigated areas of privacy law is biometric privacy. Tools that collect biometric information and biometric identifiers—including facial geometries, fingerprint scans, and voiceprints—are increasingly common for businesses across industries. Unfortunately, such tools in recent years have become focuses of the plaintiffs’ bar.

2025 saw continued developments in litigation under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), one of the first and most important biometric privacy laws in the country, as well as other, lesser-litigated biometric laws. Squire Patton Boggs’ globally ranked “Elite” Data Disputes team is well experienced defending businesses and their data practices, including in the realm of biometric privacy, in both litigation and arbitration, including mass arbitration. See also https://www. privacyworld.blog/2025/12/2025-mass-arbitration-year-in-review/

In this article, informed by our practical experience litigating and arbitrating biometric cases, we: (I) provide a brief primer on BIPA and then take a look at some highlights of the 2025 biometric privacy litigation space, including (II) class action and mass arbitration activity under BIPA, (III) key questions regarding defenses to BIPA claims on appeal at the Seventh Circuit, (IV) a decision contrasting BIPA with New York City’s biometric regime, (V) developments under other biometric laws enforced by attorneys general, and (VI) the intersection of AI and biometric privacy laws.Continue Reading 2025 Year-In-Review: Biometric Privacy Litigation

Mass arbitrations—where a plaintiffs’ firm brings dozens, hundreds, or thousands of identical claims against a business—is a mechanism increasingly relied upon by the plaintiffs’ bar in the past few years.  This is because mass arbitrations enable a plaintiffs’ firm to create settlement pressure by leveraging unavoidable arbitration fees borne by a business regardless of the merits of the claims filed.  Further powered by litigation funding, plaintiffs’ firms have used the mass arbitration device to bring vexatious claims and escape review of the merits or any downside risk.Continue Reading 2025 Mass Arbitration Year in Review

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.Continue Reading Privacy World Week in Review

In a move that will be unwelcomed by plaintiffs’ lawyers, Illinois has enacted an amendment to its biometrics privacy law – the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – to provide that when a private entity that, in more than one instance, discloses, rediscloses, or otherwise disseminates the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

Australian Privacy Regulator Commences Penalty Proceedings Against Medibank | Privacy World

Guidance on how Ofcom and the ICO intend to…

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

Singapore Publishes Generative AI Model Governance Framework | Privacy World

FCC Chair Proposes Investigation of Potential Disclosure Requirements for AI-Generated…

Earlier this week, the Illinois Supreme Court denied a petition for rehearing of its decision in Cothron v. White Castle, a case which has tremendous implications on the effect of Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). As previously covered here on PW, the Court’s decision in February concluded that that each separate incident which is a violation of BIPA constitutes a distinct and separately actionable violation of the statute. In other words, plaintiffs may seek to collect liquidated damages per violation—$1,000 per violation, $5,000 per intentional/reckless violation—instead of per plaintiff, even if a plaintiff alleges daily violations over the course of years. This week’s ruling leaves in place the Cothron decision and its exponential expansion of the scope of damages that may be sought by an individual plaintiff.Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Reconsider Decision That BIPA Claims Accrue Individually with Each Violation

In case you missed it, below are recent posts from Privacy World covering the latest developments on data privacy, security and innovation. Please reach out to the authors if you are interested in additional information.

New York Releases Data Security Guide to Help Businesses Protect Personal Information | Privacy World

Selfie ID Biometric Verification Vendor’s…

One of the most notable trends in Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) class action litigation is the marked increase in the number of class actions targeting third-party biometric technology vendors, such as identity authentication systems and employee timekeeping devices. Importantly, because these vendors do not maintain any direct relationship with the end users of…

Last month, Kristin Bryan and Kyle Fath discussed the rapidly evolving realm of biometric data law and offered unique perspectives, both from advisory and litigation standpoints, on the complex challenges and concerns associated with the privacy in the area of biometrics.

Kristin and Kyle discuss biometric data and the current and forthcoming legal and…