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