October 16, 2021

Volume XI, Number 289

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 15, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 14, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 13, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Varied Limitations Periods Apply to Different Sections of BIPA

In a ruling that is unlikely to change the tide or significantly impact the disposition of litigation under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or the “Act”) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.), the Illinois Appellate Court recently held that (i) a five-year limitations period applies to claims under BIPA Sections 15(a), (b) and (e); and (ii) a one-year limitations period applies to claims under BIPA Sections 15(c) and (d). The Appellate Court’s holding in Tims, et al. v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. clarifies the applicable statutes of limitations under the Act, while leaving open a number of additional questions, including when a BIPA claim begins to accrue.   

The Tims, et al. v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. Decision

In the Tims case, Plaintiff Jorome Tims sued Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (“Black Horse”) in March 2019, alleging that Black Horse violated BIPA when it scanned the fingers of its employees, including plaintiff, for timekeeping purposes.1 Specifically, plaintiff alleged that Black Horse violated Sections 15(a), (b) and (d) of the Act. Those Sections of the Act place both restrictions and affirmative obligations on private entities related to biometric identifiers (such as fingerprints, voiceprints, retinal scans and facial geometry) and biometric information (e.g., information based on biometric identifiers to the extent used to identify an individual), including the following: 

  • Private entities in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the information. 740 ILCS 14/15(a). 

  • Private entities which collect, capture, purchase, receive or otherwise obtain biometrics must first inform the subject of that fact in writing, as well as the specific purpose and length of time for which the information will be retained, and must obtain a written release executed by the subject. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). 

  • Private entities are prohibited from selling or disclosing biometric identifiers or biometric information, subject to certain exceptions. 740 ILCS 14/15(d).

Notably, the Act contains no provision as to the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, Black Horse moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the one-year limitations period applied for privacy actions under Section 13-201 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (the “Code”). The one-year limitations period established by Section 13-201 applies to “actions for slander, libel or for publication of matter violating the right of privacy.” 735 ILCS 5/13-201. Plaintiffs argued that the five-year limitations period should apply to the Act, for all civil actions where no statute of limitations is otherwise provided, as stated under Section 13-205 of the Code. See 735 ILCS 13/201 and 13/205. 

The Appellate Court found that different statutes of limitations applied to different Sections of the Act. The Appellate Court reasoned that the one-year limitations period under Section 13-201 “does not encompass all privacy actions but only those where publication is an element or inherent part of the action.” As a result, the Appellate Court held that the one-year limitations period applies to claims under BIPA Sections 15(c) (which forbids a private party to “sell, lease, trade, or otherwise profit from” biometric data) and 15(d) (which prohibits the selling or disclosing of biometric data). In contrast, the Appellate Court found that claims under BIPA Sections 15(a), (b) and (e,)2  which do not require a defendant’s publication or disclosure of biometric data, are subject to the five-year limitations period under Section 13-205 of the Code.

The Tims Ruling’s Impact on Your Business 

The Tims decision appears unlikely to have a significant impact on the typical BIPA case. Just like Tims, most BIPA cases are brought against an employer or other user of devices that allegedly capture or collect biometric data for timekeeping or security purposes. As a result, the typical BIPA case includes claims for violations of Section 15(a) or (b), which place affirmative obligations on private entities related to written policies and notices. Almost all trial-level courts to consider the issue applied a five-year limitations period to these claims, and so the Illinois Appellate Court’s Tims decision is consistent with these prior rulings. Since it is uncommon for a BIPA case to be limited to claims for violation(s) of Section 15(c) or (d), the one-year limitations period announced in Tims will rarely affect a BIPA case in its entirety. 

Nor has Tims completely resolved the BIPA statute of limitations issue. Specifically, Tims did not address when a BIPA claim accrues for purposes of applying the limitations period. The accrual issue is currently pending before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. In addition, the Illinois Third District Appellate Court is considering the applicable BIPA limitations period in Marion v. Ring Container Technologies LLC. In light of the potential for inconsistent rulings between Tims and Marion, and Cothron’s request that the Seventh Circuit refer the accrual issue to the Illinois Supreme Court, significant questions remain and weigh heavily over the BIPA landscape. It may well take rulings by the Illinois Supreme Court to provide final clarity as to these questions. 

Ultimately, every business should perform a critical analysis as to any business practice that potentially concerns biometrics (including employee timekeeping, identification procedures or security protocols). The failure to fully comply with BIPA, even when such a failure results in no actual injury to an individual, may lead to significant liability. Vedder Price attorneys are at the forefront in defending BIPA claims and counseling clients on BIPA-related policy and disclosure language.


FOOTNOTES

1 In September 2019, the complaint was amended to add Isaac Watson as a plaintiff. 

2 Section 15(e) of the Act requires a private entity in possession of biometric data to “store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all” biometric data using a reasonable standard of care. 740 ILCS 14/15(e). 

© 2021 Vedder PriceNational Law Review, Volume XI, Number 265
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Legal, Business, Joseph A. Strubbe, Litigation Attorney, Vedder Price Law Firm
Shareholder

Joseph A. Strubbe joined Vedder Price in 1996 as a Shareholder and is a member of the firm’s Litigation practice area. He has significant experience in complex commercial and financial institution litigation, the defense of major class action claims and intellectual property matters. Mr. Strubbe also has widespread litigation and counseling experience in matters involving federal and state environmental issues, including government and private cost recovery and contribution actions under CERCLA, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) claims, enforcement matters, groundwater...

(312) 609 7765
Brian Ledebuhr, Vedder Price, Litigation attorney
Shareholder

Brian W. Ledebuhr is a Shareholder in the Litigation practice area at Vedder Price.

Mr. Ledebuhr works diligently with commercial and individual clients to develop a strategic, cost-effective approach to achieve success in any legal matter. 

Mr. Ledebuhr has experience handling every phase of litigation, from emergency injunctions through trial and appeal, in a variety of complex commercial litigation matters. Such matters include securities litigation, officer and director investigations, shareholder derivative actions, class action defense, patent...

(312) 609 7845
Zachary Watters Litigation Attorney
Associate

Zachary J. Watters is an Associate in the Chicago office of Vedder Price and a member of the firm’s Litigation practice area.

Mr. Watters focuses his practice on complex commercial litigation and has significant experience counseling and representing a broad array of clients in matters concerning professional negligence, contract disputes, commercial torts, intellectual property, and product liability. He has significant jury and bench trial experience as well as appellate experience in multiple state and federal appellate courts.

Prior to joining Vedder Price, Mr. Watters...

312-609 7594
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement