Duerr v. Bradley Univ.

Duerr v. Bradley Univ.

Opinion

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Bradley University's motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8. Also before the Court are Plaintiffs Thomas Duerr and Gabriel Foley's motion for leave to file a sur-reply, ECF No. 15, Defendant's first motion for leave to cite additional authority, ECF No. 19, and Defendant's second motion for leave to [*2]  cite additional authority, ECF No. 20. For the reasons below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, Plaintiffs' motion to file a sur-reply is DENIED, and Defendant's motions for leave to cite additional authority are GRANTED.

BACKGROUND¹

Defendant is a private university in Peoria, Illinois. During the fall 2020 semester, Plaintiffs, currently undergraduates there, were enrolled in classes that incorporated remote, online exams. To take those exams, Plaintiffs were required to use Respondus Monitor, a third-party proctoring tool licensed by Defendant that is designed to detect misconduct, such as another person replacing a test-taker midway through an exam.

The "heart" of Respondus Monitor is a "powerful artificial intelligence engine" that "performs a second-by-second analysis of the exam session" using "facial detection, motion, and lighting to analyze the student and examination environment." Am. Class Action Compl. ¶ 33 (quotation marks omitted), ECF No. 5. "[D]ata then flows into the 'Review Priority system,'" id. ¶ 35 (quotation marks omitted), which "rank[s] proctoring results according to the risk that violations have occurred," id. ¶ 36 (quotation marks omitted). All the while, [*3]  "Respondus Monitor captures . . . student[s'] facial geometry and other biometric identifiers" from their webcams. Id. ¶ 79.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a proposed class to include "[a]ll persons who took an assessment using Respondus Monitor, as a student of Bradley University in Illinois, at any time during the five years prior to the filing of this Complaint through January 20, 2021." Id. ¶¶ 109-10. They allege Defendant committed multiple violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") by failing to maintain or comply with biometric information collection guidelines in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a) ("Section 15(a)"), id. ¶¶ 122-29; collecting students' biometric information in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b) ("Section 15(b)"), id. ¶¶ 130-37; profiting from biometric information in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(c) ("Section 15(c)"), id. ¶¶ 138-45; and disclosing biometric information in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(d) ("Section 15(d)"), id. ¶¶ 146-52.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.