Illinois Supreme Court Issues Ruling On What "Aggrieved" Means Under The Biometric Information Privacy Act
The Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, et al. just held that under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) "an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to qualify as an 'aggrieved' person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief."
Rosenbach claimed Six Flags violated BIPA when it scanned her son's thumbprint for his season pass without written consent. The Illinois Appellate Court held that a plaintiff must demonstrate more than a technical violation of BIPA in order to state a claim. There have been conflicting decisions about whether actual harm is required since "person aggrieved" is not defined in the statute.
During oral arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court, both parties heavily relied on legislative intent and statutory interpretations to support their definitions of the term "aggrieved party." Rosenbach contended the plain meaning of "aggrieved party" should be broadly construed to mean the infringement of a legal right, such as a legal right created by BIPA. In response, Six Flags argued Rosenbach was not an "aggrieved party" because neither she nor her son suffered an injury from this technical violation.
BIPA provides that a prevailing party may recover liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation, and $5,000 for each willful violation. BIPA also allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover litigation costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Illinois has seen a surge of BIPA cases filed as class actions. Most of the filed lawsuits have arisen in the employer/employee context. However, BIPA acts more like a consumer protection statute rather than a labor law. There are obvious differences in defending a consumer class action as compared to an employment class action.
With that said, Hinshaw has a large number of attorneys in its consumer class action defense practice and its employment group. Hinshaw is currently representing clients in defense of pending BIPA class actions.
Topics
- 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
- ACA
- Appellate Decisions
- Appointment Power
- Arbitration
- Arbitration Rule
- Attorneys' Fees
- Autodialer
- Automated Telephone Dialer Service
- Bankruptcy
- Bankruptcy Code
- Biometric Information Privacy Act
- BIPA
- Blockchain
- California
- California Court of Appeal
- Car Dealership
- CFPB
- Circuit Split
- City of Miami
- Class Action
- Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
- Class Certification
- Cole Memorandum
- Colorado
- Compliance Audit
- Compliance Corner
- Congressional Review Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Act
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- Consumer Protections
- Corporate Compliance
- Corporate Governance
- Craigslist
- Credit Report
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Debt Buyers
- Debt Collection
- Debt Collector
- Debt Purchase
- Deceased Debtors
- Default Notice
- Department of Education
- Department of Financial Services
- DFS
- Dodd-Frank
- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
- Education
- Employee Benefits
- Employer Participation Student Loan Assistance Act
- Equal Opportunity Act
- FACTA
- Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
- Fair Credit Billing Act
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Fair Employment and Housing Act
- Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017
- FCBA
- FCC
- FCRA
- FDCPA
- Federal
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Federal Housing Authority
- FHA
- Financial CHOICE Act
- Financial Regulatory
- Florida
- Florida Supreme Court
- Forbearance Agreement
- Foreclosure
- Foreclosure Sale
- FTC
- Hearsay
- HMDA
- HUD
- Illinois
- Illinois Student Loan Bill of Rights
- Illinois Supreme Court
- IRS
- Kathleen Kraninger
- Legal Standing
- Legislation
- Litigation
- Loan Defaults
- Loan Modification
- Loan Servicing
- Maine
- Mandatory Arbitration
- Marijuana
- Massachusetts
- Massachusetts Land Court
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Materiality Requirement
- Medical Marijuana
- Mortgage
- Mortgage Debt
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- Mortgage Loans
- New Jersey
- New York
- Obama Administration
- OFAC
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Pre-Foreclosure Mediation
- Privacy
- Proposed Legislation
- Real Estate Settlement Act
- Regulatory Relief
- RESPA
- Reverse Mortgage
- Revocation Claims
- Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Supreme Court
- Richard Cordray
- RICO
- S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act
- Safe-Harbor Provision
- SCOTUS
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Seventh Circuit
- Statute of Limitations
- Statutory Interpretation
- Student Loans
- Students
- TCPA
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Texting
- Third Circuit
- TILA
- Trump
- Trump Administration
- Truth in Lending Act
- UCC
- UDAAP
- Unauthorized Use
- Uniform Commercial Code
- United States Supreme Court
- United States Treasury
- Voluntary Discontinuance
- Voluntary Dismissal
- Wisconsin