It is becoming a common trend in litigation involving the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – an employee files suit, alleging that their employer failed to provide notice, obtain informed consent, and publish data retention policies in regards to the collection of their biometric information, as required under the statute.  The dispute in Sherman

In 2019, the health care sector was the most frequent target of cybercriminals.  This trend has persisted in 2020.  As CPW’s Kristin Bryan covered, in response to this growing threat, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a

The Eleventh Circuit recently took a huge bite out of consumers’ ability to bring class actions. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33995 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2020) (en banc), the court uprooted the circuit’s plaintiff-friendly view of standing and forcefully held that consumers can’t sue for technical statutory violations.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) went into effect in 2008 and since then has been heavily litigated in state and federal court.  Since its inception, there has been an emerging divide between state and federal courts regarding when a plaintiff has standing to pursue claims for alleged violations of BIPA.  Generally, state courts

This is getting to be a common refrain in BIPA cases – plaintiffs bring BIPA class actions in plaintiff-friendly state court; defendants remove; and plaintiffs move to remand arguing there is no injury-in-fact and thus no Article III standing.  In Thornely v. Clearview AI, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197519 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020),