throbber
Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`Return Date: No return date scheduled
`Heating Date: 1/21/2020 9:30 AM — 9:30 AM
`Courtroom Number: 2301
`Location: District 1 Court
`
`12-Person Jury
`
`FILED
`9/20/2019 9:24 AM
`
`Cook County, IL
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
`CIRCUET CLERK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9/20/20199:24AM201QCH13873
`
`
`
`C
`
`356
`
`N
`
`o.
`
`
`
`BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
`
`COOK COUNTY, IL
`20190H10373
`6648765
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VIMEO, INC, a Delaware corporation,
`
`Serve Registered Agent:
`[The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust
`Center, 1209 Orange St, Wilmington, DE 19801}
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Bradley Acaley (“Plain Lift”), individually and on behalf Of all others similarly situated,
`
`brings this Class Action Complaint for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act,
`740 ILCS 14/1, at m]. (“BIPA”), against Vimeo, Inc. (“Vimeo”), and alleges as follows based on
`
`petsonal knowledge as to himself, on the investigation of his counsel and the advice and consultation
`
`of certain thirdwparty agents as to technical matters, and on information and belief as to all other
`
`matters, and demands trial by iury:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Piaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies
`
`resulting from the illegal actions of Vimeo in collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff’s and other
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`FILEDDATE:QIZOI'ZG‘IQ9:24AM20190H10873
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`similarly situated individuals’ biometric identifiers' and biometric information2 (collectively,
`
`“biometrics” without informed written consent, in direct violation of BIPA.
`
`2.
`
`The lilinois Legislature has found that “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique
`
`identifiers that are used to access finances or other Sensitive information.” 740 ELCS 14/5(c). “For
`
`example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are
`
`biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is
`
`at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to Withdraw from biometric-iiiciiitated transactions.”
`
`Id.
`
`3.
`
`In recognition of these concerns over the security of individuals’ biometrics—m
`
`particularly in the City of Chicago, which was recently selected by major nadonai corporations as a
`
`“pilot
`
`tearing sitefi for new applications of biometriofacilitatcd financial
`
`transactions, including
`
`finger—scan technologies at grocer}.r stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias” (740 ILCS 14/ S(b))~—
`
`the Illinois Legislature enacted the BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like Vii-nee
`
`may not obtain and/ or possess an individual’s biometrics unless it: (1) informs that person in writing
`
`that biometric identifiers or information will be collected or stored, see id; (2) informs that person in
`
`writing of the specific purpose and iength of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric
`
`information is being collected, stored and used, res id; (3) receives a written release from the person
`
`for the collection of his or her biometric identifiers or information, rec id; and (4) publishes publicly
`
`available written retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers
`
`and biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`
`
`' A “biometric identifier” is any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including fingerprints, iris
`scans, DNA and “face geometry,” among others.
`
`“Biometric information” is any information captured, converted. stored, or shared based on a person's
`2
`biometric identifier used to identify an individual.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`FILEDDATE:9l20l20‘199:24AM2019CH10873
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`4.
`
`In direct vioiat‘ton of each of the foregoing provisions of § 15(a) and § 1503) of the
`
`BIPA, Vimeo is actively collecting, storing, and using—without providing notice, obtaining informed
`
`written consent or pubiishing data retention policies—the biometrics of thousands of unwitting
`
`individuals throughout the country whose faces appear in photographs and/ or videos uploaded to
`
`the Magisto “smart video editor” application in Illinois.
`
`5.
`
`Specifically, Vimeo has created, collected and stored, in conjunction with its cloud
`
`based Magisto service, thousands of “face templates” (or “face prints”)——highly detailed geometric
`
`maps of the face—from thousands of Magisto users; Vimeo creates these templates using
`
`sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts and analyzes data from the points and
`
`contours of faces that appear in photos and videos taken on mobile devices and uploaded to the
`
`Magisto app. Each face template that Vimeo extracts is unique to a particular individual, in the same
`
`way that a fingerprint or voiceprint uniqueiy identities one and only one person.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
`
`to prevent Vimeo from further violating the privacy rights of Magisto users, and to recover statutory
`
`damages for Vitneo’s unauthorized collection, storage, and use of these individuals" biometrics in
`
`violation of the BIPA.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff-is, and has been at all relevant times, a resident and citizen of Illinois.
`
`
`
`Vimeo is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters at 555 West 18th Street, New
`
`York, New York 10011. Accordingly, Vimeo is a citizen of the states of Delaware and New York.
`
`IURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This is a class action complaint for violations of BIPA (740 ILCS 14/1, extra),
`
`seeking statutory and actual damages.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120f20i99:24AM2019CH10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`10.
`
`No federal question is presented by this complaint. Plaintiff brings this complaint
`
`solely under state law and not under federal law, and specifically not under the United States
`
`Constitution, nor any of its amendments, nor under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 1982, nor any other federal
`
`statute, law, rule, or regulation. Plaintiff believes and alleges that a cause of actiOn exists under state
`
`law for the conduct complained of herein.
`
`‘i'l.
`
`This class action is brought on behalf of only illinois citizens residing within the
`
`State of Illinois whose biometric information was uploaded to Vimeo within the State of Illinois.
`
`1.2.
`
`Venue is proper under 735 ILCS 5/ 1-108 and 2401 of the Illinois Code of Civil
`
`Procedure, as a substantial portion of the transactions giving rise to the causes of action pleaded
`
`herein occurred in Cook County. Specifically, upon information and belief, Vimeo’s collection of
`
`Plaintiffs and numerous other class members‘ biometric information occurred within Cook County,
`
`Illinois.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`Biometric Technology Implicates Consumer Privacy Concerns
`
`13.
`
`“Biometrics” refers to unique physical characteristics used to identify an individual.
`
`One of the most prevalent uses of biometrics is in facial recognition technology, which works by
`
`scanning a human face or an image thereof, extracting facial feature data based on specific “biometric
`
`identifiers" (11.9., details about the face’s geometryr as determined by facial points and contours), and
`
`comparing the resulting “face template” (or “facepriut”) against the face templates stored in a “face
`
`template database.” If a database match is found, an individual may be identified.
`
`14.
`
`The use of facial recognition technology in the commercial context presents
`
`numerous consumer privacy concerns. During a 2012 hearing before the United States Senate
`
`Subcormnittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, US. Senator Al Franken stated that “there is
`
`nothing inherently right or wrong with [facial recognition technology, but] if we do not stop and
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9i20l20199:24AM203969410873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`carefully consider the way we use {it}, it may also be abused in ways that couid threaten basic aspects
`
`of our privacy and civil liberties.”5 Senator Franken noted, for example, that facial recognition
`
`technology could be “abused to not only identify protesters at political events and rallies, but to target
`
`them for selective jailing and prosecution.”4
`
`15.
`
`The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has raised simiiar concerns and recently
`
`released a “Best Practices” guide for companies using facial recognition technology. 5 in the guide,
`
`the Commission underscores the importance of companies obtaining affirmative consent from
`
`consumers before extracting and coliecting their biometric identifiers and biometric information from
`
`digital photographs.
`
`i6.
`
`As explained below, Vimeo failed to obtain consent from anyone when irintroduced
`
`its facial recognition technology. Not only do the actions of Vimeo fly in the face ofFTC guidelines,
`
`they also violate the privacy rights of individuals appearing in photos and videos uploaded to lvlagisto
`
`in Iilinois.
`
`II.
`
`Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy" Act
`
`17.
`
`In 2008, Iliinois enacted BIPA due to the “very serious need [for] protections for
`
`the citizens of Illinois when it [comes to their] biometric information.” Illinois House Transcript,
`
`2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276. BIPA makes it unlawful for a company to,
`
`infer (din, “collect, capture,
`
`purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a cusromer’s biometric identifiers“
`
`or biometric information, unless it first:
`
`
`
`-‘ What Fade! Remgm‘tiaa Technology Mermrfirl’iimgr and Cr'ia'ZLibem'et: Hearing 13¢”? [be Jemima. on Poetry, Tet/i.
`«if
`the
`Law tgf
`t/Jr
`.S'.
`Comm.
`an
`the
`farming,
`112th
`Cong.
`1
`(2012),
`rivet/41523
`at
`httpsszwwwc fforg/fiiesf iilenode/jenniferlvnch_eff—senate-tcstimony-face_recognitio.n.pdf (last visited Mar.
`i, 2016).
`4
`Id.
`
`Facing Perch: Ber! Pmamu‘jirr Common Ulcer (Ji‘Tmia/ Bungalow: Technalqgier, Federal Trade Commission (Oct.
`5
`2012),
`cued/able at http://www.ftc.gov/sites/clefault/ files/documeuts/reports/ facing—facts—best-practices-
`common-uses-facial—recognition-technologies/ lZlOZZfacialtechrptpdf (last visited Mar. 1, 2616).
`6
`BIPA’S definition of “biometric identifier” expressly includes information collected about the geometry of
`the face (i.e., facial data obtained through facial recognitiOn teclmology). See '240 ILCS 14/10.
`
`

`

`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120320199:24AM201QCH10873
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`in writing that a biometric
`.
`.
`.
`(l) informs the snbiect
`identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored;
`
`. in writing of the specific purpose
`.
`(2) informs the subject .
`and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
`information is being collected, stored, and used; and
`
`(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the
`biometric identifier or biometric information or the subiect’s legally
`
`authorized representative.”
`
`740 ILCS 14/15 (13).
`
`‘18.
`
`Section 15(a) of BIPA also provides:
`
`A private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or
`biometric information must develop a written policy, made available
`to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for
`permanently
`destroying
`biometric
`identifiers
`and
`biometric
`information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such
`identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the
`inclivicluai’s last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs
`first.
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`19.
`
`As alleged below, Vimco’s practices of collecting, storing, and using Magisto users’
`
`biometric identifiers and information derived from photographs and/ or videos uploaded in Illinois
`
`without informed written consent violate all three prongs of § 15(b) of BIPA. Vimeo’s failure to
`
`provide a publicly available written policy regarding their schedule and guidelines for the retention
`
`and permanent destruction of individuals’ biometric information also violates § 15(a) of BIPA.
`
`III.
`
`Vimeo Violates Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act
`
`20.
`
`In 2009, Magisto was founded and released as a mobile app for automated video
`
`editing and production. In 2019, Vimeo acquired Magisto. Users of Magisto upload millions of
`
`videos and/or photos per day, making videos and photographs a vital part of the Magisto
`
`experience.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120.20199:24AM2019CH10873
`
`2.1.
`
`On the Magisto webpagc entitled, “How Does Magisto Video Editor WorkP”,
`
`Vimco touts its so-callcd “artificiai intelligence engines” that intuitively anaiyze and edit video
`
`content. As part of its artificiallyuintciligcnt algorithms, Viinco claims that Magisto employs facial
`
`detection and recognition technology: “On the visual side of things, we analyze everything from in—
`
`frame action to camera motion, face detection and indexing, object detection and tracking, facial
`
`recognition and more.” 5m? https://\mvw.magistocom/howuit-worlrs (last visited Aug. 27, 2019)
`
`(emphases added).
`
`22.
`
`Users can download and connect any mobile device to Magisto to upload and access
`
`videos and photos to produce and edit their own videos. Magisto is available through the app stores
`
`on both Android and Apple mobile devices.
`
`23.
`
`Unbcknonvnst to the average consumer, and in direct vioiation of § 15(b)(1) of the
`
`BEPA, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Magisto’s facial recognition technoiogy scans each and
`
`every video and photo uploaded to Magisto for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the unique
`
`points and contours (123., biometric identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and store
`
`a template of each face — ali without ever informing anyone of this practice.
`
`24.
`
`The Magisto service uses these face templates to orgasflze and group together videos
`
`based upon the particular individuals appearing in the videos. This technology works by comparing
`
`the Face templates of individuals who appear in newly-uploaded videos or photos with the Facial
`
`templates already saved in Magisto’s face database. Specificaiiy, when a Magisto user uploads a new
`
`video or photo, Magisto’s sophisticated facial recognition technology creates a template for each face
`
`depicted therein, and then compares each template against Magisto’s face template database. If there
`
`is a match, then the Magisto service groups the Video from which the newiysuploacled face template
`
`was derived with the previously uploaded videos depicting that individuai.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:912020199:24AM20190H10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`25.
`
`These unique face templates are not 011i)r collected and used by Magisto to identify
`
`individuals, but also to recognize their gender, age, and location. Accordingly, Vimeo also collects
`
`“biometric information” from non-users. ice 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`26.
`
`In direct violation of §§ ‘15(b)(2) and 15(h)(3) of BIPA, Vimeo never informed
`
`iliinois residents who had their face templates collected of the specific purpose and iength of term
`
`for which their biometric identifiers or information wouid he collected, stored, and used, nor did
`
`Vimeo obtain a written release from an}r of these individuals.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`In direct violation of§ 15(2) of BIPA, Vimeo does not have written, puhliciy
`
`available policies identifying their retention schedules or guidelines for permanently destroying any of
`
`these biometric identifiers or information.
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiff’s Experience
`
`28.
`
`In or around December 2m 7, Plaintiff downioaded the Magis to app on his Android
`
`mobile device as well as his iPad. After downloading the app and logging in via his Google account,
`
`Plaintiff purchased a one-year subscription for the Magisto Professionai service for approximateiy
`
`$120.
`
`29.
`
`After purchasing the Magisto Professional service, Plaintiff used his Android device
`
`to take and upioad numerous videos and/or photos in the State of Illinois to the Magisto app’s cloud-
`
`based service while his devices were located in the State of lilinois and assigned to an Illinois-based
`
`IP address. Typicaily, Plaintiff’s upioaded videos and photos were of him and his family, including
`
`his minor children. Plaintiff would then use the Magisto app on his iPad to edit the uploaded videos
`
`and/ or create videos from the uploaded photos and videos.
`
`30.
`
`When his annuai Magisto Professional subscription expired in or around December
`
`2018, Plaintiff did not renew the subscription. Once his annual subscription expired, Plaintiff could
`
`no longer access the edited videos of him and his family on the Magisto app. To date, the Magisto
`
`

`

`
`
`FiLEDDATE:9120120199:24AM20190H103'i3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`app remains on Plaintiff’s devices but he cannot access its video content without an active
`
`subscription. Many of the photos and videos uploaded by Plaintiff also included artwork created by
`
`Plaintiff and his family members, proprietary content which they can no longer access despite creating
`
`and owning it.
`
`31.
`
`immediately after upload to the Magisto app, Vimeo analyzed Plaintiff’s videos and
`
`photos by automatically locating and scanning Plaintiff’s face and by extracting geometric data relating
`
`to the contours of his face and the. distances between his eyes, nose, and ears—«data which Vimeo
`
`then used to create a unique template <>fPlai11titfs face.
`
`32.
`
`The resulting unique face template was usecl by Vimeo to locate and group together
`
`all videos antl/or photos depicting Plaintiff for organizational purposes.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff’s face template was also used by Vimeo to recognize Plaintiff’s gender, age,
`
`race, and location.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff never consented, agreed, or gave pernfissionmwritten or otherwisem—to
`
`Vimeo for the collection or storage of his unique biometric identifiers or biometric information.
`
`35.
`
`Further, Vimeo never provided Plaintiff with nor did he ever sign a written release
`
`allowing Vimeo to collect or store his unique biometric identifiers or biometric information.
`
`36.
`
`Likewise, Vimeo never provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to prohibit or prevent
`
`the collection, storage, or use of his unique biometric identifiers or biometric information.
`
`37.
`
`Nevertheless, when videos and photos of Plaintiff were automatically uploaded to
`
`Magisto from within the state of Illinois, Vimeo located Plaintiff’s face in the videos and/ or photos,
`
`scanned PlaintifE1 s facial geometry, and created a unique face template corresponding to Plaintiff, all
`
`in direct violation of the BlPA.
`
`

`

`
`
`FILEDDATE:9/20/20199:24AM20190H10873
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`38.
`
`Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant
`
`to 735 ILCS 5/2-801,
`
`individually on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows (the “(Zia-5.5”);
`
`All lliinois citizens who are users of the Magisto service and had their
`biometric identifiers,
`including scans of face geometry, collected,
`captured, received, or otherwise obtained by Vimeo from videos
`and/or photographs uploaded within the state of Illinois.
`
`The following are excluded from the Class: (1) any judge presiding over this action and
`
`members of his or her family; (2) Vimeo, Vimeo’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and
`
`an},r entity in which Vimco or its parent has a controlling interest (as well as current or former
`
`employees, officers and directors); (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for
`
`exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the
`
`merits or otherwise released;
`
`(5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Vimeo’s counsel; and {6) the legal
`
`representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
`
`39.
`
`Numerosity: The number of persons within the Class is substantial, believed to
`
`amount to thousands of persons. It is, therefore, impractical to join each member of the Class as a
`
`named Plaintiff. Further, the size and relatively modest value of the claims of the individual members
`
`of the Class renders joinder impractical. Accordingly, utilization of the class action mechanism is the
`
`most economically feasible means of determining and adjudicating the merits of this litigation.
`
`40.
`
`Commonality and Ptedominance: There are well~defmed common questions of
`
`fact and law that exist as to all members of the Class and that predominate over any questions affecting
`
`only individual members of the Class. These common legal and factual questions, which do not vary
`
`from Claszs member to Class member, and which may be determined without reference to the
`
`individual circumstances of any class member include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`(a) whether Vimeo collected or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs and the Class’s biometric
`identifiers or biometric information;
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120/20199:24AM2019CH10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`(b) whether Vimeo properly informed Plaintiffand the Class that it collected, used, and
`stored their biometric identifiers or biometric information;
`
`(C) whether Vimeo obtained a written release (as defined in 740 ILCS 1410) to collect,
`use, and store Plaintiffs and the Class’s biometric identifiers or biometric
`information;
`
`((1) whether Vimeo deveioped a written policy, made avaiiable to the public, estabiishing
`a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers
`and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such
`identifiers or information has been satisfied or within three years of their last
`interaction, whichever occurs first;
`
`(6) whether Vimeo used Plaintiffs and the Class‘s biometric identifiers or biometric
`information to identify them; and
`
`(1‘) whether Vimeo’s violations of BIPA were committed intentionally, recklessly, or
`negligently.
`
`41.
`
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiff has retained and is represented by qualified
`
`and competent counsel who are highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation.
`
`Plaintiff and his counsei are committed to vigorously prosecuting this class action. Neither Plaintiff
`
`nor his counsel has any interest adverse to, or in conflict with, the interests of the absent members of
`
`the Class. Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of such a Class.
`
`Plaintiff has raised viable statutory claims of the type reasonably expected to be raised by members
`
`of the Class, and will vigorously pursue those claims. If necessary, Plaintiff may seek leave of this
`
`Court to amend this Class Action Complaint to include additional Class representatives to represent
`
`the Class or additional claims as may be appropriate.
`
`42.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the ciaims of all Class
`
`members is impracticable. Even if every member of the Class could afford to pursue individual
`
`iitigation,
`
`the Court system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which
`
`individual litigation of numerous cases would proceed. Individualized litigation would also present
`
`the potential for varying, inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would magnify the delay and
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120f20199:24AM201QCH19873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from muitiple trials of the same factual issues.
`
`By contrast, the maintenance of this action as a class action, with respect to some or ail of the issues
`
`presented herein, presents few management difficuities, conserves the resources of the parties and of
`
`the court system and protects the rights of each member of the Class. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty
`
`in the management of this action as a class action. Class—wide relief is essential to compel compliance
`
`with BIPA.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`FERST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of 740 ILCS 14/1, er seq.
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`BIPA makes it unlawful for any private entity to, among other things, “collect,
`
`capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric
`
`identifiers or biometric information, unless it
`
`first: ('l) informs the subject
`
`in writing that a
`
`biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; (2) informs the subiect .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
`
`information is being collected, stored, and used; and (3) receives a written release executed by the
`
`subiect of the biometric identifier or biometric information .
`
`.
`
`. .” 740 lLCS 14/1563) (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`45.
`
`Vimeo is a Delaware corporation and thus qualifies as a “private entity” under the
`
`BIPA. Jr: 740 ILCS i4/ '10.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members are Magisto users who had their “biometric identifiers ,”
`
`including scans of face geornetry, collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained by Vimeo from
`
`photos and/or videos that were uploaded to Magisto from within the state of Iliinois. Ste 7'40 ILCS
`
`14/10.
`
`
`
`
`
`ia
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`FILEDDATE:9.90120199:24AM201QCH10373
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff and Class members are individuals who had their “biometric information”
`
`collected by Viineo (in the form of their gender, age and location) through Vimeo’s coilection and
`
`use of their “biometric identifiers.”
`
`48.
`
`Vimeo systematically and automatically collected, used, and stored Plaintiffs and
`
`Class members’ biometric identifiers anti/or biometric information without first obtaining the written
`
`release required by 740 ILCS 'i4/15(b)(3).
`
`49.
`
`In fact, Vimeo faiied to properly inform Plaintiff or the Class in writing that their
`
`biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were being “collected or stored” on Magisto, nor
`
`did Vimeo inform Plaintiff or Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of term
`
`for which their biometric identifiers and/ or biometric information were being “coliected, stored and
`
`used,” as required by 3’40 ILCS 14/15(b}(1)—(2).
`
`50.
`
`In addition, Vimeo does not publicly provide a retention schedule or guidelines for
`
`permanently destroying the biometric identifiers anci/or biometric information of Plaintiff or Class
`
`members, as required by BIPA. 5a? 740 ILCS 14/1561).
`
`51.
`
`By collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs and the Class’s biometric identifiers and
`
`biometric information as described herein, Vimco violated the rights of Plaintiff and each Class
`
`member to keep private these biometric identifiers and biometric information, as set forth in BIPA.
`
`52.
`
`On behalf of himself and the proposed Class members, Plaintiff seeks: (‘1) injunctive
`
`and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Ciass by requiring Vimeo
`
`to compiy with BIPA’S requirements for the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and
`
`biometric information as described herein; (2) statutory damages of $5,000.00 for the intentional and
`
`reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/ 20(2), or alternatively, statutor)r damages of
`
`$1,000.00 pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1) if the Court finds that Vimeo’s violations were negligent;
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`FELEDGATE:91'201'20199:24AM2019CH10873
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`and (3) reasonable attorneys" fees and costs and other iitigation expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS
`
`14/20(3).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Bradley Acaley, on behaif of himself and the proposed Class,
`
`respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
`
`A.
`
`Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above, appointing
`
`Plaintiff as representative of the Ciass, and appointing his counsel as Class Counsei;
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Deciaring that Vimeo’s actions, as set out above, violate BIPA, 7’40 ILCS 14/1, 6! mgr;
`
`Awarding statutory damages of $5,000.00 for each and every intentional and reckless
`
`
`
`violation of BIPA pursuant to 7'40 ILCS 14/20(2), or alternatively, statutor3r damages of $1,000.00
`
`pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1} if the Court finds that Vimeo’s violations were negligent;
`
`D. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests
`
`of the Class, including,
`
`inter said, an order requiring Vimeo to collect, store, and use biometric
`
`identifiers or biometric information in compiiance with BIPA;
`
`E.
`
`Awarding Piaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’
`
`fees;
`
`F.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre~ and post~judgment interest, to the extent
`
`aliowable; and
`
`G Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require.
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Flaintiff demands a trial by jury for ali issues so triabie.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: September 20, 2019
`
`By: [5,! {ad Sheikali
`
`Myies McGuire
`1mm:guire@mcgpc.com
`
`M
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:912026199:24AM20190H10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`jad Sheikali
`jsheikali@mcgpc.com
`Timothy P7 Kingsbury
`tkiugsbuxy@mcgpc.com
`McGuire Law, RC.
`55 “(est W’acker Drive, 9th FE.
`
`Chicago, Iilinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 893-7002
`
`Tina Wolfsofi“
`
`twolfson@ahdootwolfsoncom
`Bradley King“
`bkh1g@ahdoomoifson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`10728 Lindbrook Drive
`
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Teiephone: (310) 474-9111
`Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
`
`Frank S. Hedirfl‘
`
`fhedin@hedinhall.com
`HEDIN HALL LLP
`
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
`Miami, Florida 33131
`
`Telephone: (786) 831-6555
`
`*Pro Ha: Vice Applicatior; Pbfibramirg
`
`Counsel fob: P131}: tiffand the Putative Class
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 17 Of 35 PagelD #:7
`
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
`CERCUIT CLERK
`COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
`COOK COUNTY. IL
`201 QCH10873
`
`FILED
`912012019 9:55 AM
`
`NO. 2019-CH-10873
`
`6649695
`
`Hon. Sophia H. Hall
`
`) ) ) ) ) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`BRADLEY ACALEY, individually and
`on behalf of similarly situated
`individuals,
`
`Plaintiffi
`
`v.
`
`VIMEO, INC., a Delaware corporation.
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF ’S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
`FOR A DEFERRED CLASS CERTIFICATION RULING PENDING DISCOVERY
`
`Plaintiff Bradley Acaley, by and through his undersigned counsel, pursuant to 735 ILCS
`
`5/2-801, moves for entry of an order certifying the Ciass proposed below, appointing Plaintiff as
`
`Class Representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel. Alternatively, Plaintiff
`
`requests, to the extent the Court determines further evidence is necessary to prove any element of
`
`735 ILCS 5/2-801, that the Court defer consideration of this Motion pending a reasonable period
`
`to complete discovery. See, 9.3., Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohl! ’3 Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc,
`
`2015 IL 118644, at 111] 42-43 (citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp, 662 F.3d 891, 896—97 (7th Cir.
`
`2011). In support of his Motion, Plaintiff submits the foliowing Memorandum of Law.
`
`Dated: September 20, 2019
`
`By: [3/ Jad Sheikali
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Myles McGuire
`mmcguire@mcgpc.com
`Jad Sheikali
`
`jsheikali@mcgpc.com
`Timothy P. Kingsbury
`tkingsbury@mcgpc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9120120199:55AM20199110873
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FILEDDATE:9i20l20199:55AM201QCH10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`McGuire Law, RC.
`55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 893-7002
`
`Tina Wolfson*
`
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`Bradley King*
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOO’I‘ & WOLFSON5 PC
`10728 Lindbrook Drive
`
`Los Angeles, California 90024
`Telephone: (310) 474-91 1 1
`Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
`
`Frank S. Hedin*
`
`fliedin@hedinhail.com
`HEDIN HALL' LLP
`
`1395 Briekell Avenue, Suite 900
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: (786) 831-6555
`
`*Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming
`
`Counselfor Plaintiffand the Putative Class
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`FiLEDDATE:9120120199:55AM2019CH10873
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-O7164 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:7
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket