June 28, 2022

Volume XII, Number 179

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Beware BIPA Bifurcation: Plaintiffs’ New Gambit to Split BIPA Claims Between State and Federal Courts

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, and retain biometric information in accordance with such policy (i.e., violations of Section 15(a) of BIPA). While the Bryant case found there was standing for violations of Section 15(b), the court found at the same time that a violation of the disclosure requirement (Section 15(a)) does not create standing.  However, a few months later in Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a violation of the retention requirement under Section 15(a) does create standing.

Companies who are sued under BIPA for their biometric practices often find it desirable to defend themselves in federal court, as under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure it can be harder to have a class certified than in state court. On the other hand, plaintiffs increasingly favor splitting up BIPA class actions between state and federal court, likely because the outcomes in state court may be more favorable, and having litigation running in two venues can have advantages for them.

What does the Fox decision mean in this environment? First, plaintiffs are starting to plead only that a company has failed to disclose its biometric retention policy. That way, if the defendant—who wishes to defend itself in federal court—tries to argue that BIPA cases should be heard in federal court, not state court, the plaintiffs can argue the federal court lacks jurisdiction. So far, this strategy has yielded mixed results for BIPA plaintiffs.

Putting It Into Practice: Companies that collect biometric information in Illinois should keep in mind that plaintiffs’ counsel are actively working to have biometric policy violation allegations heard exclusively in state court, not always a preferred venue. This is a reminder that by having a written policy that specifies a retention and destruction schedule for individuals’ biometric information, and making that policy available to those from whom it collects biometric information, companies may be able to avoid these standing battles.  

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 75
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

David M. Poell Business Trial Attorney Sheppard Mullin Chicago, IL
Associate

David Poell is an associate in the Business Trial Practice Group in the firm’s Chicago office, particularly focusing on the areas of consumer privacy and class action litigation.

Areas of Practice

David represents companies in a variety of class actions, multi-district litigations and other complex commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts. He specializes in defending corporate clients in high-stakes litigation matters involving federal consumer-protection statutes, privacy torts, unfair business practices, false advertising claims and large...

312-499-6349
Kari Rollins Intellectual Property Lawyer Sheppard
Partner

Kari M. Rollins is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's New York office.

Areas of Practice

Ms. Rollins focuses her practice on privacy and complex commercial litigation matters. She has successfully represented clients in the financial services, audit and accounting, food services, retail, and fashion industries before state and federal courts, as well as in front of state attorneys general, federal regulators, and U.S. and international commercial arbitration forums....

212.634.3077
Liisa Thomas, Sheppard Mullin Law Firm, Chicago, Cybersecurity Law Attorney
Partner

Liisa Thomas, a partner based in the firm’s Chicago and London offices, is Co-Chair of the Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice. Her clients rely on her ability to create clarity in a sea of confusing legal requirements and describe her as “extremely responsive, while providing thoughtful legal analysis combined with real world practical advice.” Liisa is the author of the definitive treatise on data breach, Thomas on Data Breach: A Practical Guide to Handling Worldwide Data Breach Notification, which has been described as “a no-nonsense roadmap for in-house and...

312-499-6335
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement