`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`CLEARVIEW AI, INC., HOAN TON-THAT and
`RICHARD SCHWARTZ,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. _________________
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff DAVID MUTNICK, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
`
`individuals (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, brings this Class Action Complaint
`
`against Defendants CLEARVIEW AI, INC., HOAN TON-THAT and RICHARD SCHWARTZ
`
`and alleges the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Almost a century ago, Justice Brandeis recognized that the “greatest dangers to
`
`liberty
`
`lurk
`
`in
`
`insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without
`
`understanding.”1 The conduct of Defendant Clearview, as alleged herein, epitomizes the
`
`insidious encroachment on an individual’s liberty that Justice Brandeis warned about. However,
`
`unlike the “men of zeal” described by Justice Brandeis, Defendant Clearview’s conduct was not
`
`well-meaning. Rather, Defendant Clearview acted out of pure greed.
`
`1 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 2 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`2.
`
`Without obtaining any consent and without notice, Defendant Clearview used the
`
`internet
`
`to covertly gather
`
`information on millions of American citizens, collecting
`
`approximately three billion pictures of them, without any reason to suspect any of them of
`
`having done anything wrong, ever. After obtaining these images, Clearview used artificial
`
`intelligence algorithms to scan the facial geometry of each individual depicted in the images, a
`
`technique that violates multiple privacy laws. Clearview now furnishes this data to law
`
`enforcement agencies throughout the United States, including law enforcement agencies in
`
`Illinois, for a fee. Much like dossiers that police departments keep on prior suspects and
`
`convicted criminals to use in future investigations, these agencies are now using Clearview’s
`
`database. However, almost none of the citizens in the database has ever been arrested, much less
`
`been convicted. Yet these criminal investigatory records are being maintained on them, and
`
`provide government almost instantaneous access to almost every aspect of their digital lives.
`
`3.
`
`What Defendant Clearview’s technology really offers then is a massive
`
`surveillance state with files on almost every citizen, despite the presumption of innocence.
`
`Indeed, one of Defendant Clearview’s financial backers has conceded that Clearview may be
`
`laying the groundwork for a “dystopian future.” Anyone utilizing the technology could
`
`determine the identities of people as they walked down the street, attended a political rally or
`
`enjoyed time in public with their families.
`
`4.
`
`Moreover, by controlling the database privately, Clearview received, and
`
`continues to receive, real-time access to criminal investigations – it knows who the police are
`
`interested in and, often, where those people may be. Thus, Clearview is enmeshed in the use of
`
`state power against individual American citizens and, further, has the unique opportunity to tip-
`
`off and/or extort suspects.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 3 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Clearview’s technology poses a grave threat to civil liberties.
`
`Constitutional limits on the ability of the police to demand identification without reasonable
`
`suspicion, for instance, mean little if officers can determine with certainty a person’s identity,
`
`social connections, and all sorts of other personal details based on the visibility of his face alone.
`
`6.
`
`Moreover, while Defendant Clearview developed its technology in conjunction
`
`with law enforcement, the technology is not inherently limited to that use. Clearview has gone
`
`on to provide its database to private entities including banks and retail loss prevention specialists.
`
`Further, Clearview has actively explored utilizing its technology to allow a white supremacist to
`
`conduct “extreme opposition research” and has developed ways to implant its technology in
`
`wearable glasses that private individuals could use.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Clearview did not develop its technology out of a desire for a safer
`
`society. Rather, Clearview developed its technology to invade the privacy of the American
`
`public and monetize citizens’ rights for its own profit. In fact, Clearview created its database by
`
`violating each person’s privacy rights, oftentimes stealing their pictures from websites in a
`
`process called “scraping,” which violate many platforms’ and sites’ terms of service, and in other
`
`ways contrary to the sites’ rules and contractual requirements. Thus, while trying to paint itself
`
`as a tool of law enforcement, Clearview actually has conspired with law enforcement to break
`
`the law, and violated citizens’ rights under the U.S. Constitution in multiple ways, including
`
`violating the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment and the Contracts
`
`Clause of Article I, among others.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of all American citizens in the Clearview
`
`database for injunctive relieve to enforce these vital constitutional rights and for damages against
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 4 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`those responsible for this unconstitutional and anti-democratic scheme (the “Constitutional
`
`Rights Class”).
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of the citizens of Illinois in the database (the
`
`“Illinois Class”). Specifically, Defendant Clearview’s business model blatantly violates the
`
`privacy protections in the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 13/1, et seq.
`
`(“BIPA”). In so doing, Defendant Clearview and the individually-named defendants unjustly
`
`enriched themselves at the expense of millions of unsuspecting individuals, including Illinois
`
`residents.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Clearview’s practices have injured Plaintiff and class members (“Class
`
`Members”) by, among other things, unlawfully obtaining their biometric identifiers and
`
`information without consent and, subsequently, selling or otherwise profiting from it.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff and the Illinois Class retain a significant interest in ensuring that their
`
`biometric identifiers and information, which remain in Defendant Clearview’s possession, are
`
`protected from hacks and further unlawful sales and use. Plaintiff therefore seeks to remedy the
`
`harms Clearview and the individually-named defendants have already caused, to prevent further
`
`damage, and to eliminate the risks to citizens in Illinois and throughout the United States created
`
`by Clearview’s business misuse of millions of citizen’s biometric identifiers and information.
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID MUTNICK is an Illinois resident residing in the Northern
`
`District of Illinois. At relevant times, images of Plaintiff’s face appeared on numerous internet-
`
`based platforms and websites.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant CLEARVIEW AI, INC. is a private, for-profit Delaware corporation,
`
`headquartered in New York, New York (Defendant and its predecessors, hereinafter
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 5 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`“Clearview”). Clearview markets its technology throughout the United States, including in
`
`Illinois. Moreover, Clearview obtains the images that underlie its technology from millions of
`
`internet-based platforms and websites, including, on information and belief based on the
`
`magnitude of platforms and websites involved, platforms and websites of Illinois companies or
`
`companies who operate servers in Illinois.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant HOAN TON-THOT is a founder of Defendant CLEARVIEW AI, INC.
`
`and an architect of its illegal scheme, as alleged herein. RICHARD SCHWARTZ is a principal
`
`of CLEARVIEW and an architect of its illegal scheme. These defendants (collectively the
`
`“Individual Defendants”) are co-conspirators.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case brings federal
`
`constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(d)(2) (the “Class Action Fairness Act”) because sufficient diversity of citizenship exists
`
`between the parties in this action, the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000,
`
`exclusive of interests and costs, and there are 100 or more members of the Classes. This Court
`
`has supplemental jurisdiction over all the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Clearview because Illinois
`
`citizens’ rights were a target of its conspiracy, it knew that its conspiracy would cause injury
`
`here, it markets and contracts to provide its database in Illinois, and it collected and sold the
`
`biometric identifiers and information of Illinois citizens in violation of BIPA. Moreover, without
`
`authorization, Clearview scraped images of Plaintiff and Class Members that Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members created in Illinois, uploaded from Illinois, and managed via their Illinois-based
`
`computers and mobile devices. Further, Clearview obtained the images of Plaintiffs and Class
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 6 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`Members from millions of websites, including Facebook, YouTube and Venmo. On information
`
`and belief, based on the magnitude of websites involved, some of the platforms and websites
`
`from which Clearview obtained its more than three billion images were operated by Illinois
`
`companies or companies with servers located in Illinois.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants because they
`
`conspired to further the illegal scheme alleged in this Complaint, knowing that it would take
`
`place, at least in part, in this jurisdiction and that it would injure citizens living here. The
`
`Individual Defendants knew or had reason to know that the scheme they devised would deprive
`
`Illinois citizens of their statutorily-protected privacy rights, neutralize Illinois citizens’ ability to
`
`control access to their biometric identifiers and information via their Illinois-managed computers
`
`and social media accounts, and expose Illinois citizens to ongoing surveillance as they went
`
`about their lives within the state. Illinois citizens were subject to surveillance by any user of
`
`Clearview’s services, including but not limited to the Springfield, Illinois Police Department and
`
`other Illinois governmental entities and businesses that had access to the database.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Illinois. Defendants
`
`obtained images uploaded from Illinois, violating the user agreements and terms of services of
`
`the websites to which they were uploaded. Moreover, had Defendant Clearview complied with
`
`BIPA, Class Members residing in this District and managing their social media accounts
`
`primarily from within the District would have been able to decide whether, for what purposes,
`
`and to whom they wanted to provide access to their biometric data. Clearview’s failure to
`
`comply with BIPA—a principal omission giving rise to liability—is directed at this District.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 7 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because this Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Clearview.
`
`ILLINOIS BIOMETRIC PRIVACY LAWS
`
`19.
`
`According to BIPA, “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used
`
`to access finances or other sensitive information. 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-facilitated transactions.” 740 ILCS § 14/5(c).
`
`BIPA seeks to safeguard individuals’ biometric identifiers and information.
`
`Biometric identifiers include a scan of an individual’s face geometry. 740 ILCS §
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`14/10.
`
`22.
`
`Biometric information is “any information . . . based on an individual’s biometric
`
`identifier used to identify an individual.” 740 ILCS § 14/10.
`
`23.
`
`Pursuant to BIPA, a private entity, such as Defendant Clearview, is: (a) prohibited
`
`from collecting or otherwise obtaining an individual’s biometric identifiers and information
`
`without providing written notice and obtaining a written release; (b) prohibited from selling,
`
`leasing, trading or otherwise profiting from an individual’s biometric identifiers and information;
`
`(c) prohibited from disclosing, redisclosing or otherwise disseminating an individual’s biometric
`
`identifier or information unless specifically allowed by the statute; and (d) required to develop a
`
`written policy, made available to the public, that establishes a retention schedule and guidelines
`
`for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. 740 ILCS § 14/15.
`
`24.
`
`BIPA provides for a private right of action and allows a prevailing party to
`
`recover liquidated damages in the amount of: (a) $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 8 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`for negligent violations of its provisions; and (b) $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater,
`
`for intentional or reckless violations of its provisions. 740 ILCS § 14/20. BIPA also allows for
`
`the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs and injunctive relief. 740 ILCS § 14/20.
`
`I.
`
`Allegations Related to Plaintiff
`
`ALLEGATIONS
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff has been an Illinois resident, residing in the Northern District of Illinois
`
`since at least 2016.
`
`26.
`
`At relevant times, Plaintiff posted photos of himself on various publicly-
`
`accessible platforms and websites. Plaintiff posted the photos described in the preceding
`
`sentence while located in the Northern District of Illinois.
`
`27.
`
`At relevant times, others posted photos of Plaintiff on various publicly-accessible
`
`platforms and websites.
`
`28.
`
`At relevant times, photos of Plaintiff have appeared on various publicly-
`
`accessible websites.
`
`29.
`
`At no time did Defendant Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized
`
`representative of Plaintiff in writing that it had collected Plaintiff’s biometric identifier or
`
`biometric information.
`
`30.
`
`At no time did Defendant Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized
`
`representative of Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which
`
`Plaintiff’s biometric identifier and/or biometric information was being collected, stored and used.
`
`31.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff or his legally authorized representative provide Defendant
`
`Clearview with an executed written release allowing Clearview to use his biometric identifier
`
`and/or biometric information.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 9 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`32.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff or his legally authorized representative consent to
`
`Defendant Clearview disclosing or redisclosing his biometric identifiers and/or biometric
`
`information.
`
`33.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff or his legally authorized representative consent to
`
`Defendant Clearview engaging in a process called “scraping,” whereby Clearview used an
`
`automated process to steal and convert to its own use online photos of Plaintiff and
`
`corresponding information associated with those photos. Indeed, in many instances, the terms of
`
`service of the platforms or websites on which Plaintiff’s photos were posted prohibited scraping.
`
`Where such prohibitions were in place, Clearview breached the contractual terms governing its
`
`use of the relevant websites and thereby harmed Plaintiff, a third-party beneficiary of those
`
`contracts.
`
`II.
`
`Defendant Clearview’s Illegal Database
`
`34.
`
`Based on publicly-available information, Defendant Clearview collected and
`
`obtained biometric identifiers and information from approximately three billion images –
`
`including, on information and belief, the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members – and subsequently sold, traded, leased and otherwise profited from those
`
`biometric identifiers and information. Where Clearview acquired these images in violation of
`
`the contractual terms governing its use of the websites from which the images originated,
`
`Clearview impaired the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members, who were contractual parties
`
`and/or third-party beneficiaries of those contracts.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant Clearview, by and through its principals Defendants Ton-That and
`
`Schwartz, carried out the surveillance scheme, at least in part, with members of law enforcement
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 10 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`that would allow Clearview to assemble the database as an agent of law enforcement using illicit
`
`techniques that the government on its own could not or would not use.
`
`36.
`
`Based on publicly-available information, Defendant Clearview, by and through its
`
`principals Defendants Ton-That and Schwartz, has executed agreements with hundreds of state
`
`actors in jurisdictions throughout the country to deprive citizens of rights in a manner that the
`
`government agencies were prohibited from doing, would not do, or could not do, thereby: (a)
`
`making the public’s biometric identifiers and information instantly available to law enforcement
`
`and other clients without any privacy safeguards, warrants or showing of reasonableness; (b)
`
`adding to the searchable database new photos uploaded by law enforcement clients; (c) making
`
`law-enforcement investigative activity visible in real time to Clearview’s principals and
`
`employees; and (d) making available to law enforcement yet further identifying information
`
`about Plaintiff and Class Members, including social media profiles and online activity,
`
`uncovered by scanning and matching the biometrics in photos to those already in the database.
`
`37.
`
`To date, Defendant Clearview has entered into service agreements with over 600
`
`law enforcement agencies to the ends of creating, improving, updating and selling, leasing or
`
`otherwise profiting from its database. One such jurisdiction is the Springfield, Illinois Police
`
`Department.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Clearview provided customers, including law enforcement agencies,
`
`with a service agreement that ensured customers would have unlimited access to its database.
`
`The agreement made no mention of privacy protections, constitutional safeguards or limitations
`
`on information sharing of any kind.
`
`39.
`
`In practice, those with access to Defendant Clearview’s database could use the
`
`database to identify individuals via biometric searches and then share the results with other
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 11 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`interested entities, including law enforcement and private entities. As a result, a single user’s
`
`biometric search could potentially snowball into a nationwide dragnet.
`
`40.
`
`In violation of BIPA, Defendants collected, captured and otherwise obtained
`
`individuals’ biometric identifiers and information – including, on information and belief, the
`
`biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff and Class Members – without providing the
`
`requisite written information and without obtaining the requisite written releases.
`
`41.
`
`In violation of BIPA, Defendants sold, leased, traded and otherwise profited from
`
`individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the biometric identifiers and
`
`information of Plaintiff and Class Members.
`
`42.
`
`In violation of BIPA, Defendants disclosed, redisclosed and otherwise
`
`disseminated individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the biometric
`
`identifiers and information of Plaintiff and Class Members, even though: (a) neither the subjects
`
`of the biometric identifiers and information nor their authorized representatives consented to the
`
`disclosure or redisclosure; (b) the disclosure or redisclosure did not complete a financial
`
`transaction requested or authorized by the subjects of the biometric identifiers and information or
`
`their authorized representatives; (c) the disclosure or redisclosure was not required by State or
`
`federal law or municipal ordinance; and (d) the disclosure was not required pursuant to a valid
`
`warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
`
`43.
`
`In violation of BIPA, Defendants did not develop a written policy that they made
`
`available to the public that established a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
`
`destroying biometric identifiers and information.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 12 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`44.
`
`Rather than complying with BIPA’s notification and release requirements,
`
`Defendants did precisely the opposite, concealing their unlawful activities from Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members.
`
`45.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ violation of BIPA, Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`already have been injured and will continue to be injured, as set forth in more detail below.
`
`III.
`
`Individual Defendants’ Involvement in Clearview’s Illegal Scheme
`
`46.
`
`Pursuant to an understanding with the members of law enforcement, Defendant
`
`Clearview’s principals – Defendants Ton-That and Schwartz – agreed to direct, directed and
`
`continue to direct, Clearview’s employees to undertake the unauthorized scraping of
`
`photographic and other information from websites and to unlawfully extract biometric identifiers
`
`from billions of online images.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant Schwartz paid for the servers and other costs necessary to carry out the
`
`scraping and scanning operations. This unlawful collection and storage of biometric data
`
`continues to this day. As of October 2019, Clearview boasted in an advertising email that “our
`
`database is also rapidly expanding 24/7. Every day, we add 40-50 million new images for you to
`
`search with Clearview.”
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiff’s and Class Members Injuries and Damages
`
`48.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, as alleged herein, Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members have suffered and will continue to suffer severe consequences. Defendants’ conduct
`
`has resulted in, among other things: (a) Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ loss of constitutional
`
`rights to privacy and to prevent maintenance of personalized investigatory records without a
`
`prior conviction or just cause; (b) Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ loss of contractual rights; (c)
`
`unalterable biometric identifiers and information being collected and sold without their
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 13 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`permission; and (d) Plaintiff and Class Members being deprive of the very control over their
`
`biometric identifiers and information that BIPA was designed to protect. As a result of
`
`Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have no recourse for the fact that their
`
`biologically unique information has been compromised. Moreover, Plaintiff and Class Members
`
`are at heightened risk for identity theft, stalking, and other potential injuries, are likely to
`
`withdraw from biometric-facilitated
`
`transactions and other facially-mediated electronic
`
`participation.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself as a class action under Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 23, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of the following
`
`nationwide Class for which Plaintiff seeks certification:
`
`All American Citizens whose images are possessed by Defendant Clearview and for
`whom Clearview has scanned the facial geometry from those images (the “Constitutional
`Rights Class”).
`
`Persons in the Constitutional Rights Class include those for whom Defendant Clearview obtained
`
`images in violation of the terms of service or other contractual requirements of the websites on
`
`which the images were posted, as well those whose images were otherwise illegally obtained.
`
`Plaintiff also brings claims on behalf of himself as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of the following additional Class
`
`for which Plaintiff seeks certification
`
`All persons residing in Illinois whose facial geometry was scanned by Defendant
`Clearview and subsequently sold, leased, traded, disclosed, redisclosed or otherwise used
`by Clearview to profit without Clearview having complied with BIPA’s requirements
`(the “Illinois Class”).
`
`50.
`
`Excluded from the Classes are: (a) Defendant Clearview; (b) any parent, affiliate
`
`or subsidiary of Defendant Clearview; (c) any entity in which Defendant Clearview has a
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 14 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`controlling interest; (d) any of Defendant Clearview’s officers or directors; or (e) any successor
`
`or assign of Defendant Clearview. Also excluded are any judge or court personnel assigned to
`
`this case and members of their immediate families.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater
`
`specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.
`
`52.
`
`Numerosity. Consistent with Rule 23(a)(1), the proposed Classes are so
`
`numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While Plaintiff does not know the exact
`
`number of members of the proposed Classes, Plaintiff believes the proposed Classes contain
`
`millions of people. Class Members may be identified through objective means, including
`
`objective data available to Defendant Clearview regarding whose biometric identifiers and
`
`information it has obtained. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by
`
`recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail,
`
`electronic mail, internet postings, social media and/or published notice. All members of the
`
`proposed Classes are readily ascertainable because Defendant Clearview has access to
`
`information regarding the identity of each person whose biometric identifier and information it
`
`has obtained.
`
`53.
`
`Commonality and predominance. Common questions of law and fact exist as
`
`to all Class Members. These common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions
`
`affecting only individual members of the proposed Class. Common questions include, but are
`
`not limited to the following:
`
`a. Whether Defendant Clearview engaged in wrongful conduct as alleged herein;
`
`b. Whether Defendant Clearview has acted under color of law;
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 15 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`c. Whether Defendant has violated the First Amendment of the United States
`
`Constitution;
`
`d. Whether Defendant Clearview has violated the Fourth and/or Fourteenth
`
`Amendments of the United States Constitution;
`
`e. Whether Defendant Clearview has violated the Contracts Clause of Article I of
`
`the United States Constitution;
`
`f. Whether Defendant Clearview provided Plaintiff and Class Members with the
`
`written information required by BIPA;
`
`g. Whether Defendant Clearview obtained written releases from Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members as required by BIPA;
`
`h. Whether Defendant Clearview had in place – and disclosed to the public – the
`
`written policies required by BIPA;
`
`i. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members suffered damages as a proximate result of
`
`Defendant Clearview; and
`
`j. Whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to damages, equitable relief and
`
`other relief.
`
`Moreover, based on Defendant Clearview’s public statements, there is no reason to believe it
`
`treated any of the images on which it performed a facial geometry scan differently from any
`
`others in terms of obtaining the images, the information collected, the disclosures provided or not
`
`provided, the consent obtained or not obtained, the dissemination of the biometric scans to third
`
`parties, or the existence or nonexistence of a retention and destruction schedule. In short,
`
`whether Clearview violated BIPA’s requirements is a question that can uniformly be answered
`
`for all Class Members, including Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 16 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`54.
`
`Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Classes he seeks to
`
`represent because Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Classes have suffered similar
`
`injuries as a result of the same practices alleged herein. Plaintiff has no interests to advance
`
`adverse to the interests of the other members of the proposed Class.
`
`55.
`
`Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
`
`proposed Class and has retained as his counsel attorneys experienced in class actions and
`
`complex litigation.
`
`56.
`
`Superiority. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this dispute. The injury suffered by each Class Member, while
`
`meaningful on an individual basis, may not of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of
`
`individual actions against Defendants economically feasible. Even if Class Members could
`
`afford individual litigation, those actions would put immeasurable strain on the court system.
`
`Moreover, individual litigation of the legal and factual issues of the case would increase the
`
`delay and expense to all parties and the court system. A class action, however, presents far fewer
`
`management difficulties and provides the benefit of single adjudication, economy of scale and
`
`comprehensive supervision by a single court.
`
`57.
`
`In the alternative, the proposed classes may be certified because:
`
`a.
`
`The prosecution of separate actions by each individual member of the
`
`proposed Classes would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications, which
`
`could establish
`
`incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant
`
`Clearview;
`
`b.
`
`The prosecution of individual actions could result in adjudications that as
`
`a practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of non-party Class
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/22/20 Page 17 of 30 PageID #:1
`
`Members or which would substantially impair their ability to protect their
`
`interests; and
`
`c.
`
`Defendant Clearview acted or refused to act on grounds generally
`
`applicable to the proposed classes, thereby making final and injunctive
`
`relief appropriate with respect to members of the proposed Class.
`
`58.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4), particular issues are appropriate for certification –
`
`namely the issues described in paragraph 53, above, because resolution of such issues would
`
`advance the disposition of the matter and the parties’ interests therein.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT ONE
`(VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT – DENIAL OF ACCESS TO COURTS)
`(On behalf of the Constitutional Rights Class)
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges all paragraphs of this Complaint, as though fully
`
`59.
`
`set forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`Defendants knowingly and illicitly interfered in Plaintiff’s and Class Members’
`
`contracts with the platforms and websites to which they entrusted their photographs. In violation
`
`of the terms of use of those sites, Defendants used automated methods to obtain billions of
`
`photographs through “scraping” and other similar techniques which the websites prohibited.
`
`61.
`
`Knowing that these forgoing processes would violate the terms of use and/or other
`
`actionable rights, Defendants proceeded to engage in that conduct understanding that doing so
`
`would impair and violate Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ rights.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants could have easily afforded prior notice to the Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members and a process to object to and challenge the anticipated conduct. Defendants
`
`
`
`1