Tuesday, March 16, 2021
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has spawned hundreds of class action lawsuits and a raft of unresolved issues. A core issue from a litigation perspective as well as for companies bracing for potential lawsuits is one of “standing,” and in particular, what BIPA claims can be brought by plaintiffs in what venues.
As we discussed in an earlier post, in a case from last year (
Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc.), the Seventh Circuit ruled plaintiffs have federal standing for claims alleging that a company collected biometric information without written consent (i.e., violated Section 15
(b) of BIPA). BIPA has other requirements, however. Namely, that companies publicly disclose their biometric retention policy,
Tech
your username
February 24, 2021
On Monday in the Seventh Circuit, Clearview AI filed a motion asking the court to stay a mandate set to go into effect on Tuesday pending the filing and resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The defendant explained that the “petition for certiorari will present substantial questions worthy of a grant of certiorari, and the balance of equities favors a stay.”
Clearview AI contended that “staying the mandate will prevent potentially wasteful state court litigation should certiorari be granted.” According to the motion, the appeal considered if the plaintiff, who alleged that the defendant sold access to her biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), “necessarily alleges an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing.”
Recent Illinois State and Federal Court Decisions Governing the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act | Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Tuesday, February 9, 2021
Highlights from this issue include:
Supreme Court grants cert in securities class action to address whether the
Basic presumption of class-wide reliance can be rebutted based on the generic nature of the alleged representation and that the statement had no price impact.
Massachusetts appellate court emphasizes that evidence is required to support class certification, even under state law.
District court in the Second Circuit holds that
Daubert analysis must be conducted at the class certification stage.
Third Circuit holds that the failure to register tires under federal law is not enough to confer standing.
Seventh Circuit holds that violations of the data retention and destruction requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act are sufficient for standing.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On November 17, 2020, the Seventh Circuit addressed what constitutes an injury-in-fact for standing purposes under Illinois’s privacy law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). This is the latest in a series of federal court decisions defining the state privacy law’s injury requirement under
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins following the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling that actual injury was not required to bring a claim for violation of BIPA in state court in
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. The ruling addresses a question left open by the Seventh Circuit’s prior ruling in