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
- 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
- Seventh Circuit Recently Clarifies Article III Standing in BIPA Cases
- In Defense of Long-Term Care Facilities: Immunity, and What to do if There is Not Any
- Changes to Punitive Damages Coming to Missouri
- Retro-Fitting Reservations: The Re-Opening of Restaurants Amidst the COVID-19 Crisis
- Florida's Religious Re-Opening: Guidance For Faith Based Institutions To Mitigate Liability In Epidemic/Pandemic Events
- The Future of E-Cigarette Litigation: Is There One?
- Re-Opening States and Businesses and the Role OSHA May Play
Topics
- Professional Liability
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Reinsurance
- Insurance Coverage
- Appellate
- Insurance & Reinsurance Litigation & Counseling
- Cyber Risk & Liability
- Toxic Tort
- Asbestos
- Professional Development
- Employment Litigation & Counseling
- Product Liability
- Social Media & Privacy
- Construction Litigation & Counseling
- Workers' Compensation
- Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation
- Discrimination, Harassment & Hostile Workplace Claims
- Trucking
- Medical Negligence & Healthcare Liability
- Transportation
- Warranty
