FB pixel

A big BIPA decision: Plaintiffs have 5 years to file biometrics claims

A big BIPA decision: Plaintiffs have 5 years to file biometrics claims
 

A lawsuit limitation decision involving biometrics privacy has been handed down by the U.S. state of Illinois’ Supreme Court. It gives plaintiffs five years to sue private organizations that break the state’s landmark Biometric Information Privacy Act.

This is just one of many significant decisions coming out of BIPA, and almost all of them have been bitter pills for businesses – predominantly those being sued by employees forced to give up fingerprint and/or face scans when starting and ending a work shift.

There might be future cases that examine some aspects angles that were not argued in this case, Tims v. Black Horse Carriers (19CH3522)

In Tims, a lower court had decided that plaintiffs had a year to file a lawsuit against defendants. The Supreme Court said that court decided in error, and the Justices gave plaintiffs five years to file a complaint.

In a previous decision, it was decided that plaintiffs can sue for each violation, which continues to cause acute anxiety among employers using biometric scanners. The Supreme Court’s decision makes these payouts potentially five times greater.

BIPA is an attempt by lawmakers to give people more agency with their only permanent and irreplaceable identifiers.

Any private organization collecting any biometrics while doing business with Illinois residents has to get express consent to do so, protect the data and make clear how it will be managed.

There might be a toehold or two in Tims for future defendants.

Danielle Kays, senior counsel with law firm Seyfarth Shaw, says she is surprised that the justices did not address some cross-over issues between BIPA and the state’s Right of Publicity Act.

Defendants have clung to this act because plaintiffs have a year in which to file a claim, and relevant general legislation in Illinois commands a five-year statute of limitations. They need to cap their penalties by convincing the legal system that BIPA is highly related to the publicity act.

It might be a heavy lift. The Supreme Court, in its decision, writes that “had the legislature intended to include any privacy action that merely concerns or pertains to publication, it would have used such broad language.”

For the time being at least, Tims goes back to a circuit court for further lawyering.

Article Topics

 |   |   |   |   |   | 

Latest Biometrics News

 

Wrongful arrest in US linked to facial recognition error leads to $200K settlement

Jefferson Parish Louisiana Sheriff Joe Lopinto’s office has agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit brought…

 

Social media age check warning by NZ regulator reflects fear beyond proposal

A New Zealand bill that mirrors Australia’s social media ban for users under 16 could lead to large scale data…

 

ID verification integration can stop fake employees, customers and bots: Persona

Fake job seekers have been flooding companies, relying on AI technology such as deepfakes to fool hiring managers and apply…

 

American mDL uptake suggests digital ID mass adoption caught in the slow lane

Mobile driver’s licenses (mDLs) are coming online as the first wave of government-issued digital IDs in the United States. The…

 

Biometrica pushes back on alleged privacy risks, biometric data concerns

A controversy brewing over the prospective adoption of a public security system from Biometrica that uses facial recognition in Milwaukee…

 

World announces expansion in Thailand as Indonesia blocks its services

World has announced it will expand its services in Thailand thanks to strategic partnerships with a total of 11 local…

Comments

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Biometric Market Analysis

Most Viewed This Week

Featured Company

Biometrics Insight, Opinion

Digital ID In-Depth

Biometrics White Papers

Biometrics Events