Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...
By Michael J. Bologna
Jan. 7 — In the first ruling in the nation to interpret a state biometric privacy statute, a federal judge in Chicago handed a victory to a putative class that alleged the photo-sharing and storage company Shutterfly Inc. abused consumers' privacy in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), the plaintiffs' counsel in the matter said Jan. 7
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Norgle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Dec. 29 denied a motion to dismiss a BIPA action brought against Shutterfly and its subsidiary ThisLife Inc. (Norberg v. Shutterfly Inc., N.D. Ill., 15-cv-5351, 12/29/15).
Norgle said that the court had personal jurisdiction in the first-of-its-kind action and that the plaintiff, Brian Norberg, had met the minimum threshold for stating a claim for which relief may be granted.
Norgle said that the court was unaware of any previous judicial interpretation of the 2008 statute. Only Illinois and Texas have enacted statutes addressing biometric data. Illinois' law is unique because it authorizes a private right of action and statutory damages. Enforcement actions under the Texas biometric data law are reserved for the attorney general.
David P. Milian, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the ruling is a milestone for consumers seeking to preserve their digital privacy rights.
“There are serious privacy concerns related to the unauthorized capture and storage of biometric data by these companies and currently Illinois is the only state to allow private citizens to sue,” said Milian, a partner with the law firm Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya LLP, said in a statement. “The data privacy concerns are enormous. You can always change your password or get a new credit card or social security number if these websites are hacked, but you can't change your facial geometry.”
Norberg's original action, filed June 2015, alleged photograph storing site Shutterfly consistently violated the BIPA by collecting and scanning face geometry in photos uploaded to its various websites without gaining the consent of individuals featured in the images. The court ruled Norberg had made adequate allegations to survive a motion to dismiss.
“Here, plaintiff alleges that defendants are using his personal face pattern to recognize and identify plaintiff in photographs posted to websites. Plaintiff avers that he is not now nor has he ever been a user of websites, and that he was not presented with a written biometrics policy nor has he consented to have his biometric identifiers used by defendants,” the court said. “As a result, the court finds that plaintiff has plausibly stated a claim for relief under the BIPA.”
Norgle offered no specific views on Shutterfly's argument that its websites are beyond the scope of the BIPA. Shutterfly has asserted that the BIPA specifically excludes biometric identifiers derived from photographs. The statute defines biometric identifiers as “retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.” The statute excludes writing samples, signatures, photographs, biological samples, demographic data, tattoos, or physical descriptions.
The ruling raises questions about Facebook Inc.'s ability to prevail in a similar putative class action in federal court in Chicago alleging that the social media giant's use of biometric identification technology violates BIPA. Facebook articulated a similar defence in a motion dismiss filed with the court in November, asserting the BIPA excludes biometric identifiers derived from photographs (14 PVLR 2199, 12/7/15).
Counsel for Shutterfly couldn't be immediately reached for comment. The company is represented by Marc J. Zwillinger and Robert Huff of ZwillGen PLLC.
To contact the reporter on this story: Michael J. Bologna in Chicago at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Donald G. Aplin at firstname.lastname@example.org
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)