Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Another Federal Court Allows BIPA Claims to Proceed, Finding State of Mind Allegations Not Necessary for Plaintiff’s Claim

By Kristin Bryan & Christina Lamoureux on October 12, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
pexels-photo-1569012

In Bradenberg v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC, No. 20-cv-03198 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2021), another BIPA complaint this year proceeded past the complaint stage, as the Court found that Plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim.  While open ended questions remain regarding the statute’s scope and damages provisions (some of which may be shortly addressed by the Seventh Circuit), this trend underscores ongoing litigation risk for entities regulated under the statute.

As a short recap, BIPA protects the “biometric information” of Illinois residents, which is any information based on “biometric identifiers” that identifies a specific person—regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared.  740 ILCS 14/10.  Biometric identifiers are “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.”  Id. (collectively, with “biometric information,” “biometric data”).  The statute includes a private right of action and liquidated statutory damages.

Plaintiff’s allegations were relatively typical of BIPA actions, particularly those arising in the employment context: Plaintiff was an employee of defendant, a senior living facility that required its employees to scan their fingerprints at the beginning and end of each shift. Plaintiff alleged that each time she scanned her fingerprint, her personal identifying information (“PII”) was disclosed to defendant’s timekeeping vendor without her consent.

Defendant claimed that Plaintiff had failed to plead the requisite state of mind for BIPA violations, based on the four remedies available in Section 14/20 of BIPA that are available to plaintiffs who prevail on their claims. Two out of the four remedies—both liquidated damages—are available when a defendant acts with a specific state of mind, either negligently or willfully. The Court noted that the four types of remedies available were only a “menu” of remedies, and not a list of the necessary elements of a BIPA claim. Two of the remedies—attorney’s fees and costs and “other relief, including an injunction”—could be awarded without any state of mind requirements.

The Bradenberg Court additionally found that Plaintiff’s claims were timely brought. While defendant had claimed that Plaintiff’s state law claims either fell under a one-year statute of limitations—for publication of matter violating the right to privacy—or a two-year statute of limitations—for personal injury suits—the Court found that BIPA claims did not fit neatly into either of those two categories of suit, and instead found that Illinois’ general five-year statute of limitations applied. Because Plaintiff alleged violations beginning in 2017 and she filed her claims in 2020, those claims were timely.

As the Central District of Illinois has previously found, the Bradenberg Court also affirmed that Plaintiff’s BIPA claims were not preempted by the Illinois Workers Compensation Act (“IWCA”), as Plaintiff claimed an injury to her right to privacy and only physical or psychological injuries were compensable under the IWCA. Lastly, the Court found that defendant’s implied assumption of risk defense did not apply because BIPA is a strict liability statute.

Bradenberg is the latest to uphold a five-year statute of limitations for certain BIPA claims, and rejects a somewhat creative defense in affirming that Section 14/20 of BIPA is a list of remedies, rather than a list of necessary elements for a claim. We’ll continue to monitor all things BIPA for you at CPW.  Stay tuned.

Photo of Kristin Bryan Kristin Bryan

Kristin Bryan is a data privacy and cybersecurity litigator experienced in the resolution of complex disputes.

Kristin has deep expertise defending clients in federal class action and multidistrict litigations concerning allegations that their practices violated federal and state privacy laws. This includes in…

Kristin Bryan is a data privacy and cybersecurity litigator experienced in the resolution of complex disputes.

Kristin has deep expertise defending clients in federal class action and multidistrict litigations concerning allegations that their practices violated federal and state privacy laws. This includes in the context of data breach and incident response litigation. As a natural extension of her experience litigating data privacy disputes, Kristin also provides practical, business-oriented privacy advice to a wide range of clients and has represented them in government investigations regarding their privacy practices.

Kristin is CIPP/US certified and routinely publishes and speaks on cutting-edge developments in data privacy and cybersecurity litigation. Kristin is currently the co-chair of the International Association of Privacy Professional (IAPP)’s KnowledgeNet Chapter for Cleveland and on the IAPP’s Privacy Bar Advisory Board. She is a 2020-21 Vice Chair of the ABA TIPS Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Committee and managing editor of Squire Patton Boggs’ data privacy blog Consumer Privacy World.

Prior to joining the firm, Kristin worked at an international law firm in New York, specializing in Data Strategy & Security.

View full website bio.

Read more about Kristin BryanEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Christina Lamoureux Christina Lamoureux

Christina Lamoureux is an associate in the Litigation Practice in the Washington DC office. She focuses her practice on a variety of complex commercial matters, including class actions and intellectual property disputes.

View full website bio.

Read more about Christina LamoureuxEmail
  • Posted in:
    Privacy & Data Security
  • Blog:
    Consumer Privacy World
  • Organization:
    Squire Patton Boggs
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
  • Your ERISA Watch
  • Ciric Law Firm Blog
  • Sacramento Property & Poverty
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo