Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
March 23, 2022, Decided; March 23, 2022, Filed
No. 20 C 7692; No. 21 C 1785; No. 21 C 2620
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This opinion concerns three putative class actions brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. In each case, the plaintiffs are current or former students who took an exam using Respondus Monitor, a software program that their schools used to administer online exams without a proctor. Respondus Monitor employs a student's webcam and microphone to record the student and their examination environment. The plaintiffs allege that the program captures various types of biometric data, including scans of students' facial geometry.
All three sets of plaintiffs have sued the company that makes Respondus Monitor (Respondus, Inc., a Washington-based company), and one plaintiff has also sued her school (Lewis University, a private university in Illinois). All plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated BIPA by failing to obtain their informed, written consent to the collection of their biometric data, 740 ILCS 14/15(b), and by failing to publicly disclose a compliance policy regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in their [*4] possession, id. § 14/15(a). Some plaintiffs also allege that the defendants unlawfully profited from their biometric data, id. § 14/15(c), and unlawfully disclosed their biometric data to third parties, id. § 14/15(d).
Respondus and Lewis have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' BIPA claims on several grounds. The motions have generated a host of subsidiary disputes, including questions of civil procedure and contract law. After resolving these threshold issues, the court reaches the BIPA claims, addressing standing in addition to the issues briefed by the parties. As explained here, the court finds that the plaintiffs have successfully stated claims for violations of some BIPA provisions but that they lack Article III standing with respect to other provisions.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51991 *
COURTNIE PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESPONDUS, INC. and LEWIS UNIVERSITY, Defendants.CHENG WU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESPONDUS, INC., Defendant.LUCIUS VEIGA, MICHAEL STERCHELE, and ALEX PARKER ZIMMERMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RESPONDUS, INC., Defendant.
biometric, Terms, allegations, Privacy, motion to dismiss, choice-of-law, exam, Plaintiffs', collected, documents, retention, unconscionable, identifiers, captures, disclose, Removal, public policy, complaints, Notice, cases, financial institution, parties, disclosure, private entity, federal court, software, courts, facial, disseminating, recordings