The Illinois Supreme Court, however, viewed the defendant’s challenge to the plaintiff’s right to bring suit as “meritless.” The court found that “principles of statutory construction” compel the conclusion that a person need not have sustained actual damage, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in order to bring action under it. Plaintiff did not allege that her son suffered any actual injury or harm and sought monetary damages and injunctive relief under Section 20 of the Act.ĭefendant contended, and the intermediate appellate court agreed, that an individual must have sustained some actual injury or harm, apart from the statutory violation itself, in order to have standing to sue under the Act as an “aggrieved” person. Moreover, neither of them signed any written release regarding the taking of the fingerprint, and neither of them consented to the collection or use of that biometric information. Section 20 provides a private right of action for “ny person aggrieved by a violation of this Act” to recover damages, legal fees, and other relief.Īccording to the allegations, neither the plaintiff nor her son were informed of the specific purpose and length of term for which his fingerprint had been collected. Section 15(b) requires that a private entity collecting or using a person’s biometric information (1) inform a person in writing that his or her biometric information is being collected, (2) explain the purpose and length of time for which the information will be used, and (3) receive written consent. Plaintiff Stacy Rosenbach had filed a lawsuit against defendant Six Flags, alleging that it violated BIPA’s requirements under Section 15(b) when Six Flags took her son’s fingerprint as part of his purchase of a season pass to the amusement park. The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that an individual need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under BIPA, in order to qualify as an “aggrieved” person and be entitled to bring private action under the Act.
14 (2008), was insufficient to confer standing to sue and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the state’s appellate court’s ruling that a mere technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILL.
0 kommentar(er)
