The Seventh Circuit has declined to revisit its ruling affirming that a putative class action brought under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) should be heard in state court, rather than federal court. In an Order denying defendant Clearview AI’s petition for rehearing en banc in Thornley v. Clearview AI, No. 20-3249, the court
Many of the litigations that CPW has previously covered involving Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) have turned on issues with parties that have directly used biometric technology to collect and store personal information. These parties are often employers collecting information about their employees, such as having employees scan fingerprints to clock in and out.
CPW has previously covered the proliferation of data breaches, including in the healthcare context. In a dramatic rebuttal of how the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights’ (“OCR”) has historically enforced HIPAA, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down a landmark decision vacating a multi-million dollar penalty that
Several weeks ago, ConsumerPrivacyWorld reported that the Seventh Circuit had affirmed a district court decision to remand a putative class action brought under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) to Illinois state court. In Thornley v. Clearview AI, No. 20-3249, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1006 (7th Cir. Jan. 14, 2021), the Seventh Circuit found
While many federal courts have weighed in on the issue of what suffices for Article III standing in the context of a data breach litigation, not all state courts have. Last week, the Superior Court of Delaware found that a group of plaintiffs who received a notice that their personal information had been potentially compromised
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit weighed in on the critical issue of whether a plaintiff bringing a data privacy action – this time, under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – has Article III standing to sue in federal court. In a twist that civil procedure buffs will love, Plaintiffs claimed that they did not have
As a litigator, there’s nothing more important than pleading your case – and a recent case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reminds us that in litigation, more often than not, there are no chances for do-overs.
In Kelly v. Realpage, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01706-JDW, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 842 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 5, 2021),
It has become commonplace for government agencies and law enforcement, particularly in large metropolitan areas, to use facial recognition software. These practices, though, have garnered recent public attention and some controversy. In response to concerns raised by media coverage of Clearview’s practices, three cities last year banned their governments from using facial recognition technology, and
Rounding out 2020 a federal court right before Christmas squelched a significant litigation concerning alleged violations of children’s privacy rights brought against the operator of a video sharing platform and channel operators (including Cartoon Network, Inc., DreamWorks Animation LLC, Hasbro Studios LLC, and Mattel, Inc., among others). Hubbard, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239936 (N.D.
This week the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered the creation of two massive data privacy multidistrict litigations (“MDLs”), in a move that will have significant impact on the data privacy litigation landscape in 2021. The litigations, concerning claims brought against Clearview AI and Blackbaud Inc., are now headed to federal courts in Illinois