Clearview AI files to re-argue remand in biometric data privacy case to avoid state court
A motion filed by Clearview AI with the Seventh Circuit requests the court rehear its argument against the previously-rendered decision to remand its Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act case to state jurisdiction, Law360 reports.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Clearview’s initial appeal in January, but the company says the panel was mistaken in ruling that the plaintiffs lack standing in federal court based on their allegations of violated biometric data privacy.
Plaintiffs in the case filed allegations against Clearview under BIPA section 15(c), which governs share or profiting from biometric data, without including allegations under section 15(a) or 15(b), which govern informed consent and data retention. Statutory violations based on improper biometric data acquisition, storage and retention have been ruled to cause property harm, and therefore are considered to have federal standing.
In remanding the case to state court, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the plaintiffs are within their rights to pursue the allegation under one section of BIPA without addressing the other.
The company argues that the decision has important implications for Spokeo (which sets precedent on standing in general) as well as Illinois’ biometric privacy law, and as delivered increases confusion on unpredictable legal ground.
Circuit Judge David Hamilton acknowledged when the court ruled the plaintiffs were entitled to tailor their allegations to avoid federal court that a “consistently predictable rule or standard” is not found in a review of precedent. The company argues in essence that regardless of the inconsistency, all precedents lead to federal court.
Clearview was recently ordered to delete biometric data it holds on a single individual by a German data protection authority.