Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`SHAWN A. WILLIAMS (213113)
`One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`Telephone: 415/288-4545
`415/288-4534 (fax)
`shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
`
`LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
`JOEL H. BERNSTEIN
`
`(Admitted pro hac vice)
`
`140 Broadway
`
`
`New York, NY 10005
`
`Telephone: 212/907-0700
`
`212/818-0477 (fax)
`
`
`jbernstein@labaton.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN
` GONYA, LLP
`DAVID P. MILIAN
`(Admitted pro hac vice)
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`Telephone: 305/371-7474
`305/372-7475 (fax)
`
`dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
`
`
`
`
`
`EDELSON PC
`JAY EDELSON
`(Admitted pro hac vice)
`350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: 312/589-6370
`jedelson@edelson.com
`312/589-6378 (fax)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`
`FREDERICK W. GULLEN, Individually and
`on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`1339802_1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`In re FACEBOOK BIOMETRIC
`INFORMATION PRIVACY LITIGATION
`
`
`Master File No. 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
`AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST
`UNDER RULE 56(d)
`
`Case No. 3:16-cv-00937-JD
`
`
`
`
`DATE:
`
`
`TIME:
`COURTROOM:
`
`
`January 25, 2018
`10:00 a.m.
`11, 19th Floor
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Facebook’s Course of Conduct ................................................................................2
`
`Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act ..........................................................4
`
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................5
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6
`
`FACEBOOK IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...................................7
`
`A.
`
`Facebook’s Extraterritoriality Affirmative Defense Does Not Warrant
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Facebook Failed to Plead, and Thus Waived, Its Purported
`Extraterritoriality Affirmative Defense ........................................................8
`
`Facebook’s Reliance on Self-Serving Employee Declarations and
`Testimony of Suspect Credibility Is Insufficient to Carry Its Initial
`Burden on Summary Judgment ..................................................................10
`
`Facebook’s Course of Conduct in Violation of BIPA Commenced
`and Occurred Primarily and Substantially in Illinois .................................12
`
`B.
`
`Facebook’s Dormant Commerce Clause Affirmative Defense Does Not
`Warrant Summary Judgment .................................................................................16
`
`18
`
`V.
`
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FACEBOOK’S MOTION SHOULD BE DEFERRED .........20
`
`19
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................22
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`1443 Chapin St., LP v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`258 F.R.D. 186 (D.D.C. 2009) ...........................................................................................20, 22
`
`Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
`398 U.S. 144 (1970) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean,
`342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................18
`
`Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,
`334 F. App’x 839 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................21
`
`Am. Top Eng., Inc. v. Lexicon Mktg. (USA), Inc.,
`No. 03 C 7021, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11486
`(N.D. Ill. June 18, 2004) ........................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .........................................................................................................6, 7, 21
`
`Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`835 N.E. 2d 801 (Ill. 2005) ....................................................................................12, 13, 14, 15
`
`Beall Bros. Supply Co. v. Indust. Comm’n,
`173 N.E. 64 (Ill. 1930) .............................................................................................................12
`
`Bio-Med. Research, Ltd. v. Thane Int’l, Inc.,
`249 F. App’x 539 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................21
`
`Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. v. Assiniboine
`& Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
`323 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................20, 21
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris,
`794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................19
`
`CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am.,
`481 U.S. 69 (1987) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`Deere & Co. v. Ohio Gear,
`462 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2006) ...................................................................................................22
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Dennis v. Higgins,
`498 U.S. 439 (1991) .................................................................................................................16
`
`Dobrowolski v. Intelius, Inc.,
`No. 17 CV 1406, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138587
`(N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2017) ........................................................................................................8, 9
`
`Doyle v. City of Medford,
`327 F. App’x 702 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................20
`
`DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank v. Connect Ins. Agency, Inc.,
`No. C14-5880JLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18614
`(W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2016) ................................................................................................9, 10
`
`F.T.C. v. Asia Pac. Telecomm., Inc.,
`788 F. Supp. 2d 779 (N.D. Ill. 2011) .......................................................................................18
`
`F.T.C. v. Pub. Clearing House, Inc.,
`104 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................11
`
`Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,
`525 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................20
`
`Fara Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Fara Estates, Ltd.,
`No. 96-17338, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 481
`(9th Cir. Jan. 9, 1998) ................................................................................................................7
`
`Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc.,
`94 Cal. App. 4th 1255 (2002) ............................................................................................17, 18
`
`Graham v. Gen. U.S. Grant Post No. 2665, V.F.W,
`43 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1969) ...............................................................................................................14
`
`Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. CNN,
`742 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Gros v. Midland Credit Mgmt.,
`525 F. Supp. 2d 1019 (N.D. Ill. 2007) ...................................................................12, 13, 14, 15
`
`H.R.R. Zimmerman Co. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,
`No. 99 C 5437, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16911
`(N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2002) .........................................................................................................8, 9
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Hackett v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`No. 10 C 7731, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71063
`(N.D. Ill. June 30, 2011) ............................................................................................................9
`
`Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) ...........................................................................................................16, 17
`
`Houghton v. South,
`965 F.2d 1532 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Hughes v. Okla.,
`441 U.S. 322 (1979) .................................................................................................................16
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Privacy Litig.,
`185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...............................................................................5, 13
`
`Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc. v. Linus Alarm Corp.,
`971 N.E. 2d 1183 (Ill. 2012) ....................................................................................................16
`
`Jamison v. Summer Infant (USA), Inc.,
`778 F. Supp. 2d 900 (N.D. Ill. 2011) .................................................................................13, 15
`
`Landau v. CNA Fin. Corp,
`381 Ill. App. 3d 61 (Ill. 2008) ..................................................................................................14
`
`MaryCLE, LLC v. First Choice Internet, Inc.,
`890 A.2d 818 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006) ..........................................................................17, 18
`
`McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp.,
`360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................11
`
`MediaTek Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-5341 YGR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18640
`(N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014)...........................................................................................................9
`
`Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`No. 16 C 10984, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149604
`(N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) ...............................................................................................8, 13, 19
`
`Morrison v. Mahoney,
`399 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) ...................................................................................................9
`
`Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp.,
`452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006) .....................................................................................18
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`784 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos.,
`210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Cty. of Alameda,
`768 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................16
`
`Rivera v. Google Inc.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017) ............................................................................. passim
`
`S.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke,
`467 U.S. 82 (1984) ...................................................................................................................16
`
`S.E.C. v. Koracorp Indus., Inc.,
`575 F.2d 692 (9th Cir. 1978) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.,
`569 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................6
`
`SEC v. Phan,
`500 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Shoemoney Media Grp., Inc. v. Farrell,
`No. 8:09CV131, 2009 WL 1383281
`(D. Neb. May 14, 2009) ...........................................................................................................18
`
`Specht v. Google, Inc.,
`660 F. Supp. 2d 858 (N.D. Ill. 2009) .......................................................................................14
`
`SPGGC v. Blumenthal,
`505 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2007).....................................................................................................18
`
`State Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt,
`523 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................22
`
`State v. Heckel,
`24 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001)........................................................................................................17
`
`U.S. E.E.O.C. v. NCL Am., Inc.,
`536 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Haw. 2008) .....................................................................................10
`
`Vance v. United States,
`90 F.3d 1145 (6th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................22
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`
`VISA Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am.,
`784 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................21
`
`Westrope v. Ringler Assocs.,
`No. 3:14-cv-00604-ST, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17932
`(D. Or. Feb. 12, 2015) ............................................................................................................8, 9
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Ill. Comp. Stat. 14 ............................................................................................................................4
`
`Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/5(b) ..................................................................................................................13
`
`Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/15(a) ..................................................................................................................5
`
`Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/15(b) ............................................................................................................5, 17
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`Rule 8(c).....................................................................................................................................9
`Rule 12(b) ..................................................................................................................................9
`Rule 12(g) ..................................................................................................................................9
`Rule 16(b) ................................................................................................................................10
`Rule 56 ............................................................................................................................. passim
`Rule 56(d) ........................................................................................................................ passim
`Rule 56(f) .................................................................................................................................20
`
`SECONDARY AUTHORITIES
`
`10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, §2727, at
`480, 485 (3d ed. 1998) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Jack Goldsmith & Alan Sykes, The Internet and the Dormant Commerce Clause,
`110 Yale L.J. 785, 816 (2001) .................................................................................................18
`
`11 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil §56.40 (3d ed. 2013) ...........................................................10
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Standing Order
`for Civil Cases, Plaintiffs1 hereby oppose Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) Motion for
`Summary Judgment Based on Illinois’ Extraterritoriality Doctrine and the Dormant Commerce
`
`Clause (ECF No. 257) (“MSJ”), hearing date set for January 25, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. In the
`
`alternative, pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s amended
`
`scheduling order (ECF No. 223) (“scheduling order”), Plaintiffs request that the Court defer
`
`Facebook’s motion until after the close of expert discovery, such that the Court and parties can
`
`address all summary judgment grounds at once on a complete evidentiary record.
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Facebook has again jumped the gun. When these actions under the Illinois Biometric
`
`11
`
`Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) were first consolidated before this Court, Facebook moved for
`
`12
`
`early summary judgment on a fact-specific choice-of-law affirmative defense. After Plaintiffs and
`
`13
`
`the Court indulged expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the Court rejected Facebook’s
`
`14
`
`purported defense and returned the case to an orderly schedule, thus exposing Facebook’s tact for
`
`15
`
`what it was: a premature, futile distraction.
`
`16
`
`Now, in clear violation of the Court’s scheduling order and admonition that summary
`
`17
`
`judgment would come after expert discovery, Facebook has moved for summary judgment on the
`
`18
`
`basis of two affirmative defenses. Just as before, Facebook’s arguments lack merit.
`
`19
`
`Facebook failed to plead the first defense – extraterritoriality under Illinois law – and thus
`
`20
`
`waived it. Even if not waived, Facebook relies on self-serving employee declarations and testimony,
`
`21
`
`all of which depends on credibility determinations and thus cannot carry Facebook’s initial burden
`
`22
`
`on summary judgment. And, in any event, Facebook’s BIPA violations occurred in Illinois because
`
`23
`
`the overwhelming majority of circumstances relating to the violations occurred there. Facebook
`
`24
`
`automatically collected Plaintiffs’ scans of face geometry without consent from photos uploaded in
`
`25
`
`Illinois, by Illinois residents, and from devices assigned Illinois-based internet protocol (“IP”)
`
`26
`
`addresses. Facebook targeted Illinois residents in Illinois, failed to get their consent in Illinois, failed
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`1 “Plaintiffs” refers to Nimesh Patel, Adam Pezen, Carlo Licata and Frederick William Gullen.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`to provide notice in Illinois, purports to have entered into related contracts with those Illinois
`
`residents in Illinois, and issued BIPA-deficient disclosures and data retention policies to those
`
`Illinois residents in Illinois. Indeed,
`
`
`
`
`
` As every court to
`
`consider the issue agrees, on such facts, Facebook’s BIPA violations occurred within Illinois.
`
`Facebook’s second defense – the dormant Commerce Clause – is even further off the mark.
`
`To comply with BIPA, Facebook need only refrain from collecting scans of face geometry without
`
`consent from photos uploaded in Illinois. Facebook already has the means to accomplish this.
`
`Facebook’s motion for summary judgment should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Facebook’s Course of Conduct
`A.
`Facebook operates the largest online social network in the world, with millions of users in
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Illinois alone. Facebook encourages users to fill their Facebook pages with personal information,
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`generating reams of data for Facebook to mine, sort, aggregate, disaggregate, and sell. One of the
`principal sources of such information is the torrent of photos users upload daily.2
`Since June 2011, virtually every uploaded photo has been immediately subjected to
`Facebook’s facial-recognition software.3 The software,
`Facebook’s “Tag Suggestions” feature
`
`, enables
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 See Facebook’s Registration Statement (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)
`Form S-1), at 74 (Feb. 1, 2012) (“[M]ore than 250 million photos per day were uploaded to
`Facebook in the three months end[ing] December 31, 2011.”). All internal citations and quotations
`omitted, and emphasis added throughout, unless stated otherwise.
`3 See ECF No. 169, at 1;
`exhibits filed with the instant motion.
`4
`
` All “Ex. __” references are to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`This integrated course of conduct commences immediately upon, and is complete within
`
`fractions of seconds after, the initial upload of a photo. At the time of upload, inter alia, Facebook
`knows: (a) the IP address associated with the device by which the photo was uploaded;7 (b) the state
`where that device IP address is located;8 (c) which Facebook user’s account uploaded the photos;
`(d) whether that account is associated with someone living in or a business or other organization
`located within Illinois; (e) whether that user account has opted out of the Tag Suggestions feature;9
`and (f) whether the uploading device is mobile, thus that the face detection and cropping occur
`locally on the device in the state where the device is located.10 Facebook also applies geo-
`recognition technology to spot geographic landmarks appearing in the photos and identifies where
`
`the photos were taken – e.g., identifying Sears Tower in the background and thus associating a photo
`(and any persons appearing therein) with Chicago, Illinois.11
`
`
`5 See Ex. 5,
`
`6
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`10
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`As Facebook insiders admit, the personal face-recognition data Facebook collects through
`12 Perhaps
`not surprisingly, then, Facebook’s user agreement (variously called its “Terms of Service,” “Terms
`
`this process
`
`of Use,” or “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities”) says nothing about collecting biometric data,
`
`or scanning, mapping and storing templates of users’ facial geometry, or its implications for user
`
`privacy. In 2010, Facebook added language to its privacy policy (which it purports to incorporate
`
`into the user agreement) explaining simply that Facebook merely “compar[es] your friend’s pictures
`to information we’ve put together from the photos you’ve been tagged in.”13 In 2013, Facebook
`added that it also derived information from profile pictures, though it left the remainder of the
`explanation unchanged.14 A user is not required or asked to acknowledge any other disclosures
`before using Facebook’s services or being automatically included in Facebook’s face-recognition
`
`process.
`Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act
`B.
`The foregoing course of conduct – Facebook’s surreptitious collection of Illinois residents’
`
`15
`
`face geometry – poses precisely the threat to individual privacy that motivated the Illinois legislature
`
`16
`
`to enact BIPA. 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14. As the legislature found, “biometrics are unlike other
`
`17
`
`18
`
`unique identifiers” because they can’t be changed. Id. “Therefore, once compromised, the
`
`individual has no recourse.” Id. Accordingly, the Illinois legislature adopted several safeguards to
`
`19
`
`ensure people in Illinois can maintain control over their face geometry and other biometric
`
`20
`
`identifiers. As relevant here, private companies may only collect scans of face geometry in Illinois if
`
`21
`
`they first inform the subject individuals and obtain their, or the subject’s authorized representative’s,
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`informed written consent, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/15(b), and must establish publicly available
`
`guidelines regarding when they will destroy the collected scans of face geometry. 740 Ill. Comp.
`
`Stat. 14/15(a). Across the board, Facebook fails to comply.
`Procedural History
`C.
`To redress Facebook’s wholesale BIPA violations, in Spring 2015, Plaintiffs commenced
`
`these class actions in Illinois. After transfer and consolidation in the Northern District of
`California,15 Facebook moved early for summary judgment, raising two principal arguments: (1) an
`affirmative defense that claims under Illinois law were precluded by California choice-of-law
`
`clauses in Facebook’s terms of use; and (2) a tortured statutory construction of BIPA that exempted
`
`10
`
`the collection of biometric identifiers from photographs. After expedited discovery and an
`
`11
`
`evidentiary hearing, the Court rejected both of Facebook’s arguments, holding: (1) that Illinois’s
`
`12
`
`fundamental policy of biometric privacy trumped any purported right of California corporations to
`
`13
`
`avoid diverse regulation; and (2) that Facebook’s statutory interpretation was “antithetical to
`
`14
`
`[BIPA’s] broad purpose of protecting privacy in the face of emerging biometric technology” and
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`rested on “no support in the words and structure of the statute.” See In re Facebook Biometric Info.
`
`Privacy Litig., 185 F. Supp. 3d 1155, 1172 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
`
`Facebook then answered the complaint, alleging twenty-two affirmative defenses but making
`
`18
`
`no mention of any defenses premised on extraterritoriality under Illinois law or violation of the
`
`19
`
`dormant Commerce Clause. ECF No. 126. Five months later Facebook amended its answer, adding
`
`20
`
`a dormant Commerce Clause affirmative defense but still failing to plead any defense of
`
`21
`
`extraterritoriality under Illinois law. ECF No. 169.
`
`22
`
`During the September 7, 2017 status conference, the Court considered the case schedule in
`
`23
`
`light of remaining fact discovery and yet-to-commence expert discovery, and specifically ordered –
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1339802_1
`
`
`
`
`15 See Ex. 30 (Declaration of David P. Milian in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant
`Facebook, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)). Gullen commenced
`his action in Illinois on August 31, 2015. After dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds, Gullen
`re-filed on January 26, 2016, in the Superior Court, County of San Mateo. On February 25, 2016,
`Facebook removed Gullen’s action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441 and 1446.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT; AND PLAINTIFFS’ DEFERRAL REQUEST UNDER 56(d) - 3:15-cv-03747-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03747-JD Document 272 Filed 12/22/17 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`at Facebook’s own urging, no less – that all motions for summary judgment be filed only after the
`
`close of expert discovery. The Court’s instructions were clear:
`
`Court: There’s going to be close of fact discovery. There’s going to be close
`of expert discovery. Then you’re going to do all of your motions after that. . . .
`Otherwise it’s too chaotic.16
`On September 11, 2017, the Court entered an amended scheduling order reflecting the same. ECF
`
`No. 223.
`
`In accordance with that schedule, Plaintiffs filed their class certification motions on
`
`December 8, 2017. See, e.g., ECF No. 255. Later that same day, Facebook filed its motion for
`
`summary judgment. ECF No. 257.
`
`10
`
`Given the plain procedural impropriety of Facebook’s motion, Plaintiffs immediately moved
`
`11
`
`the Court to summarily deny or continue the motion until after the close of expert discovery, in
`
`12
`
`accordance with the Court’s existing scheduling order and such that the Court and parties can
`
`13
`
`address all summary judgment grounds at once on a full evidentiary record. ECF No. 262.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Still, as explained below, Facebook’s motion for summary judgment also fail