Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`Notice of Service of Process
`
`Primary Contact:
`
`Ms. Lynn Radliff
`Amazon.Com, Inc.
`440 Terry Ave N
`Seattle, WA 98109-5210
`
`null / ALL
`Transmittal Number: 20581407
`Date Processed: 10/23/2019
`
`Electronic copy provided to:
`
` Rochelle Lewis
` Scotty Bauder
` Rebecca Hartley
` Kimberly Thomas
` Lizette Fernandez
` Theresa Nixon
` Karen Curtis
` Lynn Foley-Jefferson
` Joell Parks
` Gianmarco Vairo
` Christine Schram
` Stephen Swisher
` Sara Rawson
` Michelle King
` Annamaria Taskai
` Maria Catana
` Eugide Matondo
` Jesse Jensen
`
`Entity:
`
`Entity Served:
`
`Title of Action:
`
`Document(s) Type:
`
`Nature of Action:
`
`Court/Agency:
`
`Case/Reference No:
`
`Jurisdiction Served:
`
`Date Served on CSC:
`
`Answer or Appearance Due:
`
`Originally Served On:
`
`How Served:
`
`Sender Information:
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`Entity ID Number 2684737
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., A Delaware Corporation
`Asia Hryniewicki vs. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`Summons/Complaint
`Class Action
`Lake County Circuit Court, IL
`19CH00001155
`Delaware
`10/22/2019
`30 Days
`CSC
`Personal Service
`Jad Sheikali
`312-893-7002
`
`Information contained on this transmittal form is for record keeping, notification and forwarding the attached document(s). It does not
`constitute a legal opinion. The recipient is responsible for interpreting the documents and taking appropriate action.
`
`To avoid potential delay, please do not send your response to CSC
`251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-1674 (888) 690-2882 | sop@cscglobal.com
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`.
`
`FILED
`10/8I2019 2:30 PM
`ERIN CARTWRIGHT WEINSTEIN
`IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
`Clerk Of the Circu“ (ion-rt
`NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`Lake County, I" ”10's
`LAKE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
`
`No.
`
`19CH00001155
`
`Hon.
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`) ) ) )
`
`ASIA HRYNIEWICKI, individually and
`on behalf of similarly situated individuals,
`
`Plaintififi
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`Delaware corporation.
`
`INC,
`
`a
`
`Defizndan I.
`___________~_
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`-———~—.__________—_
`
`Plaintiff Asia Hryniewicki (“Plaintiff”),
`
`individually and on behalf of other similarly
`
`situated individuals, brings thisClass Action Complaint against Defendant Amazon Web Services,
`
`Inc. (“Defendant”) for its violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS
`
`14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”). Plaintiff alleges as follows based on personal knowledge as to her own acts
`
`and experiences, and as to all other matters, upon information and belief, including an investigation
`
`conducted by her attorneys.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`BlPA defines a “biometric identifier” as any personal feature that is unique to an
`
`individual, including fingerprints and hand geometry. “Biometric information” is any information
`
`based on a biometric identifier, regardless of how it is converted or stored. 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`Collectively, biometric identifiers and biometric information are knowu as “biometrics.”
`
`2_
`
`Defendant is a leading cloud provider in the United States, offering its customers
`
`the ability to store their data, access their data remotely, and create back—up copies of their data.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`3.
`
`Defendant stores a myriad of types of data on behalf of a wide range of customers
`
`spanning virtually every industry sector.
`
`4.
`
`Notably, Defendant also offers cloud storage services for businesses that handle
`
`biometric identifiers and biometric information. For example, some of Defendant’s customers are
`
`commercial businesses that require their employees to provide their biometrics, e.g. fingerprints,
`
`to check in and out of their shifts at work. In such a scenario, Defendant stores data and information
`
`that is generated as a result of the capture, collection, and processing of biometric identifiers. This
`
`information is considered “biometric information” subject to regulation under BIPA.
`
`5.
`
`Indeed, BIPA not only regulates the conduct of entities that capture and collect
`
`biometric identifiers, such as many of Defendant’s commercial customers, but also of entities that
`
`store data and information derived from those biometric identifiers, like Defendant.
`
`6.
`
`BIPA provides, inter alia, that private entities, such as Defendant, may not store an
`
`individual’s biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints and hand scans, or any biometric
`
`information, including any data regardless of the manner from which it was converted, or is
`
`converted or stored, unless they first:
`
`a.
`
`inform that perSOn in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information will
`
`be stored;
`
`b.
`
`inform that person in writing of the specific purpose and the length of term for which
`
`such biometric identifiers or biometric information is being stored; and
`
`c.
`
`receive a written release from the person for the storage of their biometric identifiers
`
`or biometric information.
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(b)(l)-{3).
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`7.
`
`BIPA also requires private entities in possession of biometric information to
`
`develop a publicly available written policy outlining their biometric data storage and destruction
`
`policies. 750 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`8.
`
`Despite obtaining, storing, and possessing biometric information of thousands of
`
`Illinois residents, including Plaintiff's biometrics, on behalf of scores of its customers, Defendant
`
`failed to comply with BIPA.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for statutory damages and other remedies as a result 'of
`
`Defendant‘s conduct in violating her biometric privacy rights under BIPA.
`
`10.
`
`Compliance with BIPA is straightforward and minimally burdensome. For
`
`example, the necessary disclosures may be accomplished through a single sheet ofpaper or through
`
`a prominently featured notice affixed to a biometric-enabled device.
`
`11.
`
`BIPA‘S requirements bestow a right to privacy in biometrics and a right to make an
`
`informed decision when electing whether to provide or withhold biometrics.
`
`12.
`
`The deprivation of the statutory rights conferred by BIPA constitutes the actual
`
`injuries the Illinois Legislature sought to prevent.
`
`13.
`
`On behalf of herself and the proposed Class and Subclass defined below, Plaintiff
`
`seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA, as well as an award of statutory
`
`damages to the Class members and monetary damages to be determined at trial, together with costs
`
`and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc, is a Delaware corporation that couducts,
`
`and is licensed by the lllinois Secretary of State to conduct, business throughout Illinois, including
`
`in Lake County, Illinois.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`[5.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been a resident of Lake County, Illinois and a
`
`citizen of the state of Illinois.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`This Court may assert personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to 735 ILCS
`
`512-209 in accordance with the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States,
`
`because Defendant is doing business within this state and because Plaintiff’s claims arise out of
`
`Defendant’s unlawful in-state actions.
`
`1?.
`
`Venue is proper in Lake County, Illinois pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because
`
`Defendant is doing business in Lake County, Illinois, and thus resides there under § 2—102, and
`
`because the transaction out of which this cause of action arises occurred in Lake County, Illinois.
`
`FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF
`
`18.
`
`In order to store the same on its cloud servers on behalf of its commercial
`
`customers, Defendant obtained and possessed data and information, and/or portions of data and
`
`information, that were derived from Plaintiff‘s biometric identifiers, i.e. Defendant obtained and
`
`stored Plaintiff's biometric information. Such information would not exist absent the capture and
`
`collection of Plaintiff‘s biometric identifiers by Defendant’s commercial customers and
`
`Defendant’s subsequent possession and storage of the same.
`
`19.
`
`After its commercial customers capture and collect the biometric identifiers of
`
`individuals such as Plaintiff, Defendant stores biometric information that is derived from such
`
`biometric identifiers in a multitude of digitally convertedformats.
`
`20,
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has custody and control of the biometric
`
`information that it obtains and stores on its cloud servers. Defendant converts this information into
`
`usable formats and mediums for its customers.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`21.
`
`Despite possessing Plaintiff’s biometric information, Defendant has failed to
`
`implement a publicly available biometric data retention and destruction policy as required by
`
`Section 15(a) of BIPA.
`
`22.
`
`Further, despite obtaining and subsequently storing Plaintiffs biometric
`
`information, Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff of the length of time and purpose for which it
`
`was storing her biometrics, nor did Defendant obtain Plaintiff's informed written consent prior to
`
`obtaining and storing her biometrics, all in violation of Section 15(b) of BIPA.
`
`23.
`
`By failing to comply with BIPA, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’ s substantive state
`
`rights to biometric privacy.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated
`
`individuals pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2—801. Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class and Subclass
`
`(unless otherwise noted, “Class”) defined as follows:
`
`Class: All residents of the state of Illinois whose biometric identifiers or biometric
`information was stored by Defendant on behalf of a third-party at any time within the
`applicable limitations period.
`
`25.
`
`Excluded from the Class are any members of the judiciary assigned to preside over
`
`this matter; any officer or director of Defendant; and any immediate family member of such officer
`
`or director.
`
`26.
`
`There are at least thousands, if not hundreds ofthousands, of members of the Class,
`
`making the members of the Class so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
`
`Although the exact number ofmembers of the Class is currently unknown to Plaintiff, the members
`
`can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class she seeks to represent,
`
`because the bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and the Class is substantially the same, and
`
`because Defendant’s conduct has resulted in similar injuries to Plaintiff and to the Class.
`
`28.
`
`There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the
`
`Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of
`
`the Class. Common questions for the Class include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a. Whether Defendant stores data or information that is derived or based on biometric
`
`identifiers;
`
`b. Whether Defendant made available to the public a written policy that establishes a
`
`retention schedule and guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers or biometric
`
`information;
`
`c. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates BIPA;
`
`d. Whether Defendant’s BIPA violations are willful or reckless; and
`
`6. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages and injunctive relief.
`
`29.
`
`Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating
`
`their claims to be prohibitively expensive and would thus have no effective remedy. The class
`
`treatment of common questions of law and fact is superior to multiple individual actions or
`
`piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants and promotes
`
`consistency and efficiency of adjudication.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the other
`
`members of the Class she seeks to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial
`
`experience in prosecuting cemplex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff and her counsel are
`
`committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Class and
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to
`
`those of the other members of the Class.
`
`3].
`
`Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to
`
`ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and making injunctive
`
`or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the Class as a whole.
`
`COUNT I
`Violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/15(a)
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and against Defendant)
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant is a private entity under BIPA. 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`34.
`
`Section 15(a) of BIPA provides that private entities in possession of biometric
`
`information must develop a publicly available biometric data retention and destruction policy.
`
`35.
`
`As discussed herein, Defendant obtains and stores biometric information on behalf
`
`of its customers, and Defendant obtained and- stored Plaintiff’ s biometric information. Thus,
`
`Defendant necessarily, even if temporarily, possessed Plaintiff s biometric information in order to
`
`store the same and make the same available for remote and third-party access to its customers.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant maintains custody and coutrol of the
`
`biometric information it possesses on its servers.
`
`37.
`
`Despite obtaining Plaintiff’s biometric information and in violation ofSection l5(a)
`
`of BIPA, Defendant failed to develop and make publicly available a biometric data retention and
`
`destruction policy.
`
`38.
`
`Thus, Defendant violated Section 15(a) of BIPA and, in doing so, has violated
`
`Plaintiff‘s substantive state rights to biometric privacy
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`39.
`
`BIPA provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless
`
`violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 740
`
`chs 14/20(1)-(2).
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s violations of Section 15(3) of BIPA, as set forth herein, were knowing
`
`and willful, or were at least in reckless disregard of the statutory requirements. Alternatively,
`
`Defendant negligently failed to comply with Section 15(a) BIPA.
`
`41.
`
`Accordingly, with respect to Count 1, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the
`
`proposed Class, prays for the relief set forth below, including statutory damages for each of
`
`Defendant’s violations of Section 15(3) of BIPA.
`
`Violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1503)
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and against Defendant)
`
`COUNT II
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fillly set forth herein.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant is a private entity under BIPA. 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`44.
`
`Section 15(b) of BIPA provides that private entities may not store an individual’s
`
`biometric information unless they first inform the individual of the purpose and length of time for
`
`which such biometric information is being stored and obtain such individual’s written consent.
`
`45.
`
`As discussed herein, Defendant obtains and stores biometric information on behalf
`
`of its customers, and Defendant obtained Plaintiff’s biometric information, in order to store the
`
`same and make the same available for remote and third—party access.
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant maintains custody and control of the
`
`biometric information it stores on its servers.
`
`47.
`
`Despite storing Plaintiff’s biometric information and in violation of Section 15(b)
`
`of BIPA, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with any notice concerning the purpose for Which
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`her biometric information was being stored by Defendant, the length of time for which Defendant
`
`planned to store her biometric information, or when Defendant planned to delete her biometric
`
`information, nor did Defendant obtained Plaintiff's written consent before storing her biometric
`
`information.
`
`48.
`
`Thus, Defendant violated Section 15(b) of BIPA and, in doing so, has violated
`
`Plaintiff‘s substantive state rights to biometric privacy.
`
`49.
`
`BIPA provides for statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless
`
`violation of BIPA and, alternatively, damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA. 740
`
`ILCS 14/20(1)-(2).
`
`50.
`
`Defendant‘s violations of Section 15(b) of BIPA, as set forth herein, were knowing
`
`and willful, or were at least in reckless disregard of the statutory requirements. Alternatively,
`
`Defendant negligently failed to comply with Section 15(b) BIPA.
`
`51.
`
`Accordingly, with respect to Count 11, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the
`
`proposed Class, prays for the relief set forth below, including statutory damages for each of
`
`Defendant’s violations of Section 15(b) ofBIPA.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf ofherself and the proposed Class, respectfully requests
`
`that this Court enter an Order:
`
`a. Certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as class representative
`
`and the undersigned as class counsel;
`
`b. Declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set forth herein, violate Sections 15(a) and
`
`15(b) of BIPA;
`
`
`
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:8
`Case: 1:19-cv-07569 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 11/15/19 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:8
`
`c. Awarding injunctive and equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of
`
`Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA;
`
`d. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of
`
`BIPA, pursuant to 740 ILCS l4/20(2);
`
`e. Awarding statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA,
`
`pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/200);
`
`f. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other litigation expenses pursuant
`
`to 740 ILCS 14/20(3);
`
`g. Awarding pre— and post-judgment interest, as allowable by law; and
`
`h. Awarding such further and other relief as the Court deems just and'equitable.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.
`
`Dated: October 8, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`ASIA HRYNIEWICKI, individually and on
`behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jad Sheikali
`One QfPlafmiff's Attorneys
`
`Jad Sheikali (ARDC #6324641)
`Andrew T. Heldut (ARDC #6331542)
`MCGUIRE LAW, RC.
`55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
`
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: (312) 893—7002
`jsheikali@mcgpc.com
`aheldut@mcgpc.com
`
`Attorneys fer Plainttffand the Putative Class
`
`10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
