Plaintiff Joann Davis’ claims against Walmart, her former employer, for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act would fail if adjudicated in court, but her case doesn’t belong in court, said Walmart’s memorandum Monday (docket 1:24-cv-03373) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of its motion to compel arbitration. Walmart also seeks a stay, pending the outcome of that arbitration. Davis’ April 25 class action alleges that Walmart’s “unlawful collection,” storage and use of its employees’ biometric data “exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks” (see 2404260002). But Davis “expressly agreed to arbitrate her claims against Walmart on an individual basis” when she signed Walmart’s human resources documents in September 2022 “at the outset of her employment,” said Walmart’s memorandum.
Employees at Illinois companies that use Recognition Systems scanners are required to have their hand geometry scanned into a biometric device as a condition of employment, exposing them to “serious and irreversible privacy risks,” alleged an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) class action Monday (docket 9:24-cv-03999) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York.
Walmart’s “unlawful collection,” storage and use of its employees’ biometric data “exposes them to serious and irreversible privacy risks,” alleged Joann Davis’ privacy class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-03373) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. If Walmart’s database containing its employees’ fingerprint scans is hacked, breached or otherwise exposed, employees “have no means by which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private information,” said the complaint. As an employee of the Silvis, Illinois, Walmart Davis was required when clocking into and out of her daily shift, including any lunch breaks, to have her fingerprint scanned, said her complaint. Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Protection Act “to protect residents' privacy interests in their biometric data,” it said. Courts “analogize an individual's privacy interest in their unique biometric data to their interest in protecting their private domain from invasion, such as from trespass,” it said. Walmart “has collected and stored the fingerprint of each employee who was required to use the fingerprint scanning technology as part of Walmart’s timeclock procedure,” said the complaint. Each fingerprint scan the retailer extracts “is unique to a particular individual in the same way that facial geometry or voiceprint uniquely identifies a particular individual,” it said. The suit seeks a declaration that Walmart has violated the BIPA, plus statutory damages of $5,000 for those “intentional and reckless” violations.
T-Mobile unlawfully uses biometric data and it benefits the company's bottom line, a class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-03070) alleged in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Fast food chain Wingstop and voice AI technology platform ConverseNow capture biometric identifiers, including unique voiceprints of customers, without informing them in writing or obtaining their written consent, as required by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02302) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Illinois in Chicago.
Seven minors, through their guardians, sued Epic Games over its alleged collection of their personal information for financial gain, said a privacy class action Monday (docket 3:24-cv-00517) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego.
Plaintiff Kevin Kohn voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his privacy class action vs. eHarmony, said his notice Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00613) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. In his January lawsuit, Kohn, who uploaded a selfie to gain access to eHarmony's dating platform, alleged eHarmony collected and retained his biometric information to verify his identity without giving him a retention schedule, in violation of the Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (see 2401250016).
Gas and convenience store chain Speedway required plaintiff Sakara Lindsey to enroll in its third-party biometric system when she was hired in September 2015, alleged her Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) complaint Friday (docket 1:24-cv-01984) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Illinois resident was employed by the store through September.
A Chicago-area child care agency violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by using an employee timekeeping system that includes the dissemination of biometrics to third parties, such as data storage vendors and payroll services, alleged Evilin Cortez’s class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-01589) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Little Achievers Learning Center's system stores and repeatedly uses employees’ biometrics each time they clock in or out for their jobs, said the complaint. Cortez relied on her employer “to not only provide a lawful and legally compliant system, but to also disclose all material information regarding the technology and system, including retention, destruction, and dissemination policies,” it said. Before taking possession of Cortez’s biometrics through its timekeeping system, Little Achievers didn’t inform her in writing that her biometrics “were being collected, stored, used, or disseminated,” nor did it publish any policy “specifically about the collection, retention, use, deletion, or dissemination of biometrics,” it said. To this day, the child care worker is unaware of the status of her biometrics obtained by her employer, which hasn’t informed her whether it still retains her biometric information, and if it does, for how long it intends to retain such information without her consent, it said. To the extent Little Achievers is still retaining Cortez’s biometrics, “such retention is unlawful,” said the complaint. Cortez wouldn’t have provided her biometric data to her employer or used its biometric timekeeping technology had she known that her information would remain with the employer “for an indefinite period or subject to unauthorized disclosure,” it said.
After they were unable to resolve their CapCut videoediting app privacy claims against TikTok and ByteDance in mediation (see 2401120043), the plaintiffs topped off their amended complaint with five additional causes of action, said their complaint Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-04953) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago.