Federal Judge Dismisses Biometric Privacy Lawsuit, Citing BIPA Amendment

A federal judge’s recent decision to dismiss a biometric data privacy lawsuit highlights the significant impact of a recent amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Judge Elaine Bucklo of the Northern District of Illinois ruled on November 13 that the amended BIPA limits claimable damages in lawsuits, affecting ongoing cases like that of John Gregg, a former employee of Central Transport LLC. This marks an early indication that courts are willing to apply the amended law retroactively to cases still pending.

John Gregg’s lawsuit, filed in March 2024, accused his employer of violating BIPA by using fingerprint time clocks without his informed consent. Initially, Gregg sought damages exceeding $75,000, allowing the case to proceed in federal court. However, Judge Bucklo ruled that under the amended BIPA, the maximum damages were reduced to $15,000. As a result, the case was dismissed from federal court for lack of jurisdiction.

“The new legal language…must be applied as if it were clear from the date of BIPA’s enactment,” Bucklo noted, emphasizing that the amendment clarified legislative intent.

The August 2024 amendment to BIPA, signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker, addressed concerns of “annihilative liability” by limiting violations to a single occurrence per individual rather than for each biometric scan. This change came in response to cases like Cothron v. White Castle, where prior interpretations exposed businesses to potentially billions of dollars in damages. The amendment also recognized electronic signatures as valid consent, aligning BIPA with modern data practices.

While the ruling was celebrated by defendants in BIPA cases, it sparked debate about the broader implications. Chicago attorney Danielle Kays, who represents businesses facing BIPA lawsuits, described the decision as a “big win” for employers. She observed that the amendment curtails damages sought by single plaintiffs and reduces the volume of class action lawsuits. However, Kays argued that plaintiffs often fail to demonstrate tangible harm from BIPA violations, such as data breaches.

Despite support from business groups, some critics argue that the amendment does not fully address retroactive application concerns. For instance, the Illinois Supreme Court’s earlier decisions prompted the legislature to clarify damages, suggesting that ambiguity persisted in BIPA’s original language. Bucklo’s ruling reinforced the amendment’s retroactive application, setting a precedent for pending cases and potentially limiting the scope of future litigation.

Source: Capitol News Illinois

–

November 20, 2024 – by Cass Kennedy