A federal judge in California has granted Meta Platforms permission to seek summary judgment in an ongoing lawsuit alleging that the company violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting users’ voiceprints through its Facebook and Messenger services. The case, known as Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc., centers on allegations that Meta harvested and stored biometric voice data without the informed consent required by Illinois law.
In the ruling issued toward the end of last week, the judge allowed Meta to move forward with its legal argument that the alleged conduct does not constitute a BIPA violation. However, the decision does not determine the outcome of the case—it merely permits Meta to attempt to resolve the matter without proceeding to a full trial. If granted, summary judgment would mean the court found there are no material factual disputes and that Meta is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
At an earlier stage in the case, the court rejected Meta’s argument that the lawsuit concerned voice recordings rather than voiceprints. The judge found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged the capture of biometric voiceprints, referencing Meta’s own patent filings and privacy policies to support the claim. These findings allowed the case to proceed past Meta’s motion to dismiss.
BIPA is widely regarded as one of the most robust biometric privacy laws in the United States. It requires private entities to obtain explicit, informed consent before collecting or storing biometric identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial scans, and voiceprints. Companies found in violation of the law may be liable for steep statutory damages. Meta has previously paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle BIPA-related claims, including a $650 million settlement involving facial recognition technology on Facebook, and a more recent $68.5 million settlement tied to Instagram’s alleged biometric data practices.
Although the current lawsuit involves voiceprints, not facial recognition, the case has drawn comparisons to Meta’s broader legal challenges over biometric privacy. For example, Meta recently agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in Texas over its facial recognition technology—specifically the “Tag Suggestions” feature—which violated Texas law, not BIPA. The distinction is important, as the Texas case dealt with a different state statute and type of biometric data.
The legal landscape surrounding BIPA has evolved in recent years. In 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle held that each individual biometric scan could constitute a separate violation. However, in response to growing concerns about excessive damages, lawmakers enacted amendments to BIPA in 2024 to limit liability. The revised law now treats repeated biometric collections from the same person using the same method as a single violation. This legislative update significantly reduces potential financial exposure for companies facing BIPA claims.
Meta’s motion for summary judgment represents its attempt to show that, under the current legal framework, its practices did not violate BIPA. While the court has yet to decide the merits of that argument, the ruling allowing the motion signals that the case may hinge on legal interpretation rather than disputed facts.
This lawsuit is part of a growing wave of litigation testing the boundaries of biometric privacy laws. Recent judicial decisions, such as an Illinois appeals court ruling reinstating lawsuits over hand-scanning time clocks, suggest that courts are increasingly willing to interpret BIPA broadly in favor of consumers. The outcome of Meta’s case could help clarify how the law applies to voice data and potentially influence future enforcement trends.
Source: MLex
—
April 21, 2025 – by Cass Kennedy
