Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit weighed in on the critical issue of whether a plaintiff bringing a data privacy action – this time, under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – has Article III standing to sue in federal court. In a twist that civil procedure buffs will love, Plaintiffs claimed that they did not have
CPW has previously covered how companies can proactively use binding arbitration agreements to manage litigation risk-including in the context of data privacy litigation. But as a biometric software developer just learned, if you’re not a signatory to the agreement, you better make sure the arbitration clause is drafted broadly enough to cover you to
It has become commonplace for government agencies and law enforcement, particularly in large metropolitan areas, to use facial recognition software. These practices, though, have garnered recent public attention and some controversy. In response to concerns raised by media coverage of Clearview’s practices, three cities last year banned their governments from using facial recognition technology, and
This week the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered the creation of two massive data privacy multidistrict litigations (“MDLs”), in a move that will have significant impact on the data privacy litigation landscape in 2021. The litigations, concerning claims brought against Clearview AI and Blackbaud Inc., are now headed to federal courts in Illinois
It is becoming the data privacy version of paint by numbers: a plaintiff files a putative class action against their employer, alleging that the employer collected employees’ biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Well, in the most recent permutation of the litany of BIPA litigations filed this year, a
Readers of CPW already know about Bryant involving litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). That is because earlier this year in a closely watched decision the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Plaintiff in Bryant adequately alleged Article III standing (for some of her BIPA claims)—meaning that the case could
It is becoming a common trend in litigation involving the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – an employee files suit, alleging that their employer failed to provide notice, obtain informed consent, and publish data retention policies in regards to the collection of their biometric information, as required under the statute. The dispute in Sherman
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) went into effect in 2008 and since then has been heavily litigated in state and federal court. Since its inception, there has been an emerging divide between state and federal courts regarding when a plaintiff has standing to pursue claims for alleged violations of BIPA. Generally, state courts
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) regulates the collection and use of biometric data and includes a private right of action as an enforcement mechanism. This month, a BIPA class action lawsuit was filed against Del Monte Foods, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In Metoyer v. Del Monte Foods, Inc.
As most of you already know, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) regulates the storage and sale of biometric data. Following a New York Times expose earlier in the year, ten lawsuits were filed against Clearview AI which alleged, among other things, that Clearview’s practices violated BIPA. Why? Well, according to complaints filed in