Rachel Laurel
rlaurel@smsm.com
Showing 3 posts by Rachel Laurel.
CYBER RISK CLIENT ALERT: Facebook Settles Its BIPA Suit for $550 Million While Damage and Jurisdiction Issues Remain
All eyes are on the recent settlement in Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019), where a group of class-action plaintiffs (“Class”) alleged that Facebook violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Patel had already received a lot of attention primarily because the Ninth Circuit found Article III standing in the absence of actual harm.
Patel settled for a massive $550 million. This is the largest cash settlement seen in a privacy-related suit according to the parties, which is creating a lot of new-found interest in BIPA with speculation on how the settlement amount will impact future claims. More »
CYBER RISK CLIENT ALERT: BIPA Cutbacks Stalled in Springfield - For Now.
In response to the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (actual harm is not required for standing under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act), the Illinois legislature is now considering amending the statute, in part, by removing its private right of action.
Illinois was the leader in enacting privacy protections for biometric data. Illinois is still one of only a few states to have such protections in place (along with Texas and Washington). Arizona, Florida, and Massachusetts have proposed regulations to protect biometric identification, and California will have its biometric protections take effect on January 1, 2020. More »
CYBER RISK CLIENT ALERT: Actual Harm is not Necessary Under BIPA
Recently, the Illinois Supreme Court resolved contradictory rulings from lower courts regarding standing under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS § 14/5 (West 2016). The likely result of this ruling was that there will be increased litigation under BIPA.
In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2017 IL App (2d) 170317, the Illinois Supreme Court held that an individual is not required to show actual harm; establishing a technical violation of under BIPA is sufficient to be “aggrieved” and allow a plaintiff to seek remedial measures. More »
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow us on TwitterRecent Posts
- Now That Vaccine Distribution Has Begun, What Issues Do Employers Face?
- Immunity From Liability For Healthcare Facilities and Healthcare Professionals in the Continuing Battle Against the Covid-19 Pandemic
- A National Approach to Biometric Privacy
- Illinois Appellate Court Says the Learned Intermediary Doctrine Does Not Shield a Device Manufacturer from Liability When a Doctor is Deceived About a Device’s Prior Testing and Suitability
- Remote Jury Selection by Video Conferencing
- Illinois Appellate Court Eliminates Key Defense to BIPA Claims
- What is Amy Coney Barrett’s Record on Federal Preemption and What Does it Mean for Future SCOTUS Rulings in Drug and Medical Device Litigation?
- COVID Delivers Fraud to the Trucking Industry
- The Application of the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to Bar Legal Malpractice Claims Following Allegations of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
- Prefabricated Construction Liability
Topics
- Professional Liability
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Appellate
- Reinsurance
- Insurance & Reinsurance Litigation & Counseling
- Insurance Coverage
- Cyber Risk & Liability
- Toxic Tort
- Asbestos
- Professional Development
- Construction Litigation & Counseling
- Workers' Compensation
- Trucking
- Product Liability
- Discrimination, Harassment & Hostile Workplace Claims
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
- Medical Negligence & Healthcare Liability
- Transportation
- Social Media & Privacy
- Employment Litigation & Counseling
- Warranty
