The Illinois Supreme Court recently clarified when a Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) claim accrues: each time, and not just the first time, a person’s biometric information is collected without consent. BIPA requires a business to obtain written consent before it may “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain” a person’s biometric information, and a violation of BIPA triggers $1,000 damages or $5,000 if the violation is willful. Under the Illinois Supreme Court’s interpretation in Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., a business that collects biometric information, such as through a fingerprint reader time clock for employees, faces liability of up to $5,000 each time it collects a fingerprint scan from each employee without consent.
That is exactly the scenario the Illinois Supreme Court confronted in Cothron. The court held that “a claim accrues under [BIPA] with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information.” Unmoved that this interpretation could subject companies to “annihilative liability,” the Court reiterated the legislature’s intent to give private entities “the strongest possible incentive to conform to the law and prevent problems before they occur.” But the Court left the door ajar for defendants to escape crushing liability. It acknowledged that, while one claim accrues with each non-consensual collection of biometric information, this does not necessarily mean each claim is worth $1,000 or $5,000. Instead, courts have the discretion to award damages that fully compensate class members without destroying the defendant.
This holding may be challenged. The Illinois Supreme Court noted White Castle’s argument that these ruinous damages could be unconstitutional, but gave the point no further discussion. While skirting the constitutional question, the dissent would have found that potentially imposing damages of $17 billion dollars for White Castle’s fingerprint system is an “absurd result,” and part of the Court’s mandate when interpreting statutes is to avoid such a result. This may provide an avenue for a challenge that such crushing liability results in grossly excessive damages in violation of the Due Process Clause. While Illinois may have clarified BIPA for the moment, court-watchers and businesses in Illinois will keep their eye on White Castle’s next steps.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome in this particular case, Cothron serves as a reminder that businesses that collect biometric information must proceed with care. In addition to facing liability for biometric timeclocks, businesses have been sued for BIPA violations for virtual try-on technology, identity verification based on facial recognition and face tagging in social media. Businesses can take the following steps to help reduce their exposure: