Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`PAUL CLARKE, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`EXAMITY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul Clarke (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
`
`situated, by and through his attorneys, makes the following allegations pursuant to the
`
`investigation of his counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to allegations
`
`specifically pertaining to himself and his counsel, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a class action suit brought against Defendant Examity Inc. (“Examity” or
`
`“Defendant”) for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS
`
`14/1 et seq. Defendant develops, owns, and operates an eponymous online proctoring software
`
`that collects biometric information.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies
`
`resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in collecting, storing and using his and other
`
`similarly situated individuals’ biometric identifiers1 and biometric information2 (referred to
`
`collectively at times as “biometrics”). Defendant failed to provide the requisite data retention and
`
`                                                            
`1
`A “biometric identifier” is any personal feature that is unique to an individual, including
`fingerprints, iris scans, DNA and “face geometry”, among others.
`2
`“Biometric information” is any information captured, converted, stored or shared based on
`a person’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:2
`
`
`
`destruction policies, and failed to provide Plaintiff the specific purpose and length of term for
`
`which a biometric identifier or biometric information was being collected, stored, and used.
`
`3.
`
`The Illinois Legislature has found that “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique
`
`identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information.” 740 ILCS 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-facilitated
`
`transactions.” Id.
`
`4.
`
`In recognition of these concerns over the security of individuals’ biometrics the
`
`Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA, which provides, inter alia, that a private entity like Defendant
`
`that possesses biometrics must inform individuals in writing of the specific purpose and length of
`
`term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric information are being collected, stored and
`
`used. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`5.
`
`Moreover, entities collecting biometrics must publish publicly available written
`
`retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometrics collected. See 740 ILCS
`
`14/15(a).
`
`6.
`
`In direct violation of §§ 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA, Defendant collected, stored and
`
`used—without first publishing sufficiently specific data retention and deletion policies—the
`
`biometrics of hundreds or thousands of students who used Defendant’s software to take online
`
`exams.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff is a student who used Examity. During Plaintiff’s use of the software,
`
`Examity collected his biometrics, including eye movements and facial expressions (i.e., face
`
`geometry).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Defendant does not sufficiently specify how long it will retain biometric
`
`information, or when it will delete such information. Accordingly, the only reasonable conclusion
`
`is that Defendant has not, and will not, destroy biometric data when the initial purpose for
`
`collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied.
`
`9.
`
`BIPA confers on Plaintiff and all other similarly situated Illinois residents a right
`
`to know of the risks that are inherently presented by the collection and storage of biometrics, and
`
`a right to know how long such risks will persist after ceasing using Defendant’s software.
`
`10.
`
`Yet, Defendant failed to provide sufficient data retention or destruction policies to
`
`Plaintiff or the Classes.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further violating the privacy
`
`rights of Illinois residents and to recover statutory damages for Defendant’s improper and
`
`lackluster collection, storage, and protection of these individuals’ biometrics in violation of BIPA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332(d) because there are more than 100 class members and the aggregate amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest, fees, and costs, and at least one Class
`
`member is a citizen of a state different from Defendant.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:4
`
`
`
`13.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because the biometrics that
`
`give rise to this lawsuit (1) belonged to Illinois residents, and (2) were collected by Defendant at
`
`Illinois schools or from students taking exams in Illinois.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
`
`does substantial business in this District and a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s
`
`claims took place within this District because Plaintiff Clarke’s biometrics were collected in this
`
`District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Paul Clarke is, and has been at all relevant times, a resident of Aurora,
`
`Illinois and has an intent to remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of Illinois.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Examity, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 135 Needham Street, Newton, Massachusetts 02464. Defendant develops, owns, and
`
`operates an online proctoring software of the same that is used throughout Illinois.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act
`
`17.
`
`The use of a biometric scanning system entails serious risks. Unlike other methods
`
`of identification, facial geometry is a permanent, unique biometric identifier associated with an
`
`individual. This exposes individuals to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a
`
`device or database containing individuals’ facial geometry data is hacked, breached, or otherwise
`
`exposed, individuals have no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking.
`
`18.
`
`Recognizing the need to protect citizens from these risks, Illinois enacted the
`
`Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”) in 2008, to regulate
`
`companies that collect and store biometric information, such as facial geometry. See Illinois House
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276.
`
`19.
`
`BIPA requires that a private entity in possession of biometrics:
`
`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 individual’s last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first.
`
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`
`20. Moreover, entities collecting biometrics must inform individuals “in writing of the
`
`specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is
`
`being collected, stored, and used.” 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2).
`
`21.
`
`As alleged below, Defendant violated BIPA §§ 15(a) and 15(b) by failing to specify
`
`the length of time that it would retain biometrics, or provide a deletion schedule for biometric
`
`information.
`
`22. Moreover, and upon information and belief, because Defendant has failed to specify
`
`the length of time it retains biometrics, the only reasonable conclusion is that Defendant has not,
`
`and will not, destroy biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data
`
`has been satisfied.
`
`II.
`
`Defendant Violates Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant develops, owns, and operates an eponymous online proctoring software.
`
`One of the ways in which Examity monitors students is by collecting and
`
`monitoring their facial geometry and “keystroke cadence.” According to Examity’s website, as
`
`published in August 2020, Examity offers both auto and live proctoring.
`
`25.
`
`For auto proctoring, Examity offers both a “standard” and “premium” version.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:6
`
`
`
`26.
`
`For the standard auto-proctoring, Examity begins with a “comprehensive auto
`
`authentication.” The auto authentication begins with software that verifies and compares a “real-
`
`time image” with the “test-taker’s ID on file.” Auto authentication also collects a test-taker’s
`
`“digital signature that measures the keystroke cadence, to be matched against the test-taker’s
`
`original digital signature on file.” During test administration, Examity’s “automated proctoring
`
`technology takes over – monitoring the test from start to finish”3:
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Examity advertises its “premium” auto-proctoring as even more invasive, stating
`
`that “Automated Premium maintains the same authentication stages as our Automated Standard
`
`solution,” capturing “audio, motion, and systematic changes.” Further, “once the proctoring
`
`session is complete, Automated Premium provides an additional level of scrutiny” with a human
`
`audit reviewing “all AI-related findings”4:
`
`                                                            
`3 https://web.archive.org/web/20200818091256/https://examity.com/auto-proctoring/
`4 Id.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`For its live-proctoring services, Examity also provides “standard” and “premium”
`
`services.
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:8
`
`
`
`29.
`
`For its standard live-proctoring, as published in August 2020, Examity matches
`
`“the ID on file” and “the ID brought to the test” with “a real-time webcam feed of the test-taker.”
`
`Further, Examity collects “a digital signature” and assures clients that “the session will be recorded
`
`from state to finish” and that Examity’s “AI -technology will monitor the exam for any unusual
`
`activity”5:
`
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`                                                            
`5 https://web.archive.org/web/20200818101524/https://examity.com/live-proctoring/
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:9
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s “premium” live-proctoring is just as intrusive, “[w]ith the same
`
`capabilities of Standard Live Proctoring’s pre-test authentication and post-test audit” only a “live
`
`proctor will oversee the entire session, from authentication to test completion”6:
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Put differently, all four proctoring services offered by Defendant actively collect
`
`biometric identifiers—including face scans and keystroke cadence—from the beginning of an
`
`exam until the end.
`
`32.
`
`Indeed, Defendant’s Product Privacy Policy, as published in August 2020, verifies
`
`as much, stating that “we have collected the following categories of personal information from our
`
`Users within the last twelve (12) months . . . E. Biometric information. Genetic, physiological,
`
`behavioral, and biological characteristics, or activity patterns used to extract a template or other
`
`identifier or identifying information, such as fingerprints, faceprints, and voiceprints, keystrokes.”7
`
`                                                            
`6 Id.
`7 https://web.archive.org/web/20200817024924/https://examity.com/product-privacy-policy/.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s Product Privacy Policy is silent on if, when, or how it will delete or
`
`retain Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers or biometric information.8
`
`34.
`
`Online proctoring companies like Defendant have seen a significant uptick in light
`
`of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has caused institutions to move exams online. This has led to
`
`significant privacy implications for students.9
`
`                                                            
`8 Id. 
`9 See, e.g., Drew Harwell, Mass School Closures In The Wake Of The Coronavirus Are Driving
`A New Wave Of Student Surveillance, WASH. POST, Apr. 1, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost
`.com/technology/2020/04/01/online-proctoring-college-exams-coronavirus/ (“‘Students are
`asked to agree to these decisions, but they have no meaningful power not to consent,’ said Guy
`McHendry, an associate professor at Creighton University, which has used Examity for some
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:11
`
`
`
`35.
`
`For instance, some students taking the Bar Exam were forced to urinate while being
`
`monitored, because if they “broke eye contact,” their exams would be terminated.10
`
`36.
`
`Other students have broken down in tears during exams, recorded on video by
`
`online proctoring companies such as Examity.11
`
`37.
`
`Students have also published numerous petitions across the country to ask school
`
`administrators to cease using online proctoring tools.12
`
`38.
`
`In direct violation of BIPA § 15(b)(2), from at least approximately March 2020
`
`through present, Defendant never informed Illinois students who had their facial geometry or
`
`keystroke signature collected of the length of time for which their biometric identifiers or
`
`information would be collected, stored and used.
`
`39.
`
`In direct violation of § 15(a) of BIPA, from at least approximately March 2020
`
`through present, Defendant did not have written, publicly available policies identifying its
`
`retention schedules or guidelines, and has continued to retain the biometrics beyond the intended
`
`purpose for collection.
`
`                                                            
`proctored exams. ‘And because we’re doing this with such urgency, we don’t really have time to
`ingest all the implications of what these companies will do.’”).
`10 Staci Zaretskym Law Students Forced To Urinate While Being Watched By Proctors During
`Remote Ethics Exam, ABOVE THE LAW, Aug. 18, 2020, https://abovethelaw.com/2020/08/law-
`students-forced-to-urinate-while-being-watched-by-proctors-during-remote-ethics-exam/.
`11 Thomas Germain, Poor Security at Online Proctoring Company May Have Put Student Data at
`Risk, CONSUMER REPORTS, Dec. 10, 2020, https://www.consumerreports.org/digital-security/
`poor-security-at-online-proctoring-company-proctortrack-may-have-put-student-data-at-risk/.
`12 Jason Kelley, Students Are Pushing Back Against Proctoring Surveillance Apps, ELECTRONIC
`FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Sept. 25, 2020, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/students-are-
`pushing-back-against-proctoring-surveillance-apps.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:12
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Experience of Plaintiff Paul Clarke
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Clarke is an Illinois domiciliary. Plaintiff Clarke used Examity to take to
`
`take online exams while enrolled at Western Governors University.
`
`41. When Plaintiff Clarke used Examity, his facial geometry, including his eye
`
`movements and facial expressions, was collected by Defendant.
`
`42. When Plaintiff Clarke logged onto Examity, his facial geometry would be matched
`
`up to the biometrics he provided to Defendant to ensure he was the individual who was supposed
`
`to be taking an exam.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant did not inform Plaintiff Clarke of the specific length of time that it
`
`intended to collect, store, and use his biometrics, nor did Defendant provide Plaintiff Clarke with
`
`a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying his biometrics.
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Examity continues to retain Plaintiff Clarke’s
`
`biometrics beyond the intend purpose for collection.
`
`45.
`
`Thus, when Plaintiff Clarke provided his biometrics to Defendant, Defendant
`
`collected said biometrics in violation of BIPA §§ 15(a) and 15(b).
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`46.
`
`Class Definition: Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
`
`individuals defined as all Illinois residents who used Examity from March 2020 through present
`
`to take an exam online and who had their facial geometry collected, captured, received, or
`
`otherwise obtained and/or stored by Defendant (the “Class”).
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Clarke seeks to represent a subclass of similarly situated individuals,
`
`defined as follows (the “WGU Subclass”):
`
`All Illinois residents who took online exams at Western Governors
`University from March 2020 through present and who had their facial
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:13
`
`
`
`geometry collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained and/or
`stored by Defendant.
`
`Collectively, the Class and the WGU Subclass shall be known as the “Classes.”
`
`Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and
`
`
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`discovery, the above-described Classes may be modified or narrowed as appropriate, including
`
`through the use of multi-state subclasses.
`
`50.
`
`Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members
`
`of the aforementioned Classes. However, given the size of Defendant’s business and the number
`
`of students who attended Western Governors University, the number of persons within the Classes
`
`is believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.
`
`51.
`
`Commonality and Predominance: There is a well-defined community of interest
`
`in the questions of law and fact involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the
`
`members of the Classes that predominate over questions that may affect individual members of
`
`the Classes include:
`
`(a) whether Defendant collected or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s and the
`Classes’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information;
`
`
`(b) whether Defendant developed 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 their last interaction, whichever
`occurs first;
`
`
`(c) whether Defendant destroyed Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric
`identifiers and/or biometric information once that information was no
`longer needed for the purpose for which it was originally collected; and
`
`
`(d) whether Defendant used a reasonable standard of care when collecting,
`storing, and protecting from disclosure the biometrics of Plaintiff’s and
`the Classes;
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:14
`
`
`
`(e) whether Defendant collected, stored, and protecting from disclosure the
`biometrics of Plaintiff’s and the Classes in a manner that that is as
`protective if not more than the manner in which Defendant collects other
`biometric information;
`
`(f) whether Defendant’s violations of BIPA were committed intentionally,
`recklessly, or negligently.
`
`52.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Classes because Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`like all members of the Classes, used Examity to take an online exam, and had his biometrics
`
`recorded and improperly stored by Defendant in violation of BIPA.
`
`53.
`
`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 counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this class action. Moreover,
`
`Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Classes. Neither
`
`Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse to, or in conflict with, the interests of the absent
`
`members of the Classes. Plaintiff has raised viable statutory claims or the type reasonably expected
`
`to be raised by members of the Classes, and will vigorously pursue those claims. If necessary,
`
`Plaintiff may seek leave of this Court to amend this Class Action Complaint to include additional
`
`representatives to represent the Classes, additional claims as may be appropriate, or to amend the
`
`definition of the Classes to address any steps that Defendant took.
`
`54.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
`
`efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all members
`
`of the Classes is impracticable. Even if every member of the Classes could afford to pursue
`
`individual litigation, 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
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:15
`
`
`
`delay and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same
`
`factual issues. By contrast, the maintenance of this action as a class action, with respect to some
`
`or all of the issues presented herein, presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources
`
`of the parties and of the court system and protects the rights of each member of the Classes.
`
`Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. Class-wide
`
`relief is essential to compliance with BIPA.
`
`COUNT I – FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT
`VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/15(A)
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`proposed Classes against Defendant.
`
`57.
`
`BIPA mandates that companies in possession of biometric data establish and
`
`maintain a satisfactory biometric data retention – and, importantly, deletion – policy. Specifically,
`
`those companies must: (i) make publicly available a written policy establishing a retention
`
`schedule and guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data (at most three years after the
`
`company’s last interaction with the individual); and (ii) actually adhere to that retention schedule
`
`and actually delete the biometric information. See 740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant failed to comply with these BIPA mandates.
`
`Defendant is a corporation and does business in Illinois and thus qualifies as a
`
`“private entity” under BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff is an individual who had his “biometric identifiers” captured and/or
`
`collected by Defendant, as explained in detail in above. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff’s biometric identifiers were used to identify Plaintiff and, therefore,
`
`constitute “biometric information” as defined by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:16
`
`
`
`62.
`
`Defendant failed to provide a publicly available retention schedule or guidelines
`
`for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information as specified by BIPA.
`
`See 740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`63.
`
`Defendant lacked retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric data. As such, the only reasonable conclusion is that
`
`Defendant has not, and will not, destroy Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric data when the initial
`
`purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied.
`
`64.
`
`On behalf of himself and the Classes, Plaintiff seeks: (1) declaratory relief; (2)
`
`injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Classes
`
`by requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA’s requirements for the collection, capture, storage,
`
`and use of biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein; (3) statutory
`
`damages of $5,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS
`
`14/20(2) or, in the alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA
`
`pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (4) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other litigation
`
`expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).
`
`COUNT II – FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANT
`VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/15(B)(2)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`proposed Classes against Defendant.
`
`67.
`
`BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent from employees
`
`before acquiring their biometric data. Specifically, BIPA makes it unlawful for any private entity
`
`to “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s
`
`biometric identifiers or biometric information unless [the entity] first … (2) informs the subject …
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:17
`
`
`
`in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
`
`information is being collected, stored, and used.” 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2).
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant failed to comply with these BIPA mandates.
`
`Defendant is a corporation and does business in Illinois and thus qualifies as a
`
`“private entity” under BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff and the Classes are individuals who have had their “biometric identifiers”
`
`collected and/or captured by Defendant, as explained in detail above. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric identifiers were used to identify them and,
`
`therefore, constitute “biometric information” as defined by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant systematically and automatically collected, captured, used, and stored
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without first
`
`obtaining the written release required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3).
`
`73.
`
`Defendant never informed Plaintiff, and never informed any member of the Classes,
`
`in writing of the specific length of term for which their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
`
`information were being collected, stored, used and disseminated as required by 740 ILCS
`
`14/15(b)(1)-(2).
`
`74.
`
`By collecting, capturing, storing, and/or using Plaintiff’s and the Classes’ biometric
`
`identifiers and biometric information as described herein, Defendant violated Plaintiff’s and the
`
`Classes’ rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information as set forth in
`
`BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
`
`75.
`
`On behalf of himself and the Classes, Plaintiff’s seek: (1) declaratory relief; (2)
`
`injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Classes
`
`by requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA’s requirements for the collection, captures, storage,
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:18
`
`
`
`use and dissemination of biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein; (3)
`
`statutory damages of $5,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740
`
`ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of
`
`BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (4) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other
`
`litigation expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seek
`
`judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`For an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiff as representative of the Classes and
`
`Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel to represent the members of the
`
`Classes;
`
`(b)
`
`For an order declaring the Defendant’s conduct violates the statutes
`
`referenced herein;
`
`(c)
`
`For an order finding in favor of Plaintiff and the Classes on all counts
`
`asserted herein;
`
`(d)
`
`For compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`(h)
`
`the Court and/or jury;
`
`An award of statutory penalties to the extent available;
`
`For pre-judgment interest on all amounts awarded;
`
`For an order of restitution and all other forms of monetary relief;
`
`For an order awarding Plaintiff and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’
`
`fees and expenses and costs of suit.
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-02081 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/16/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:19
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b)(1), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so
`
`
`
`triable.
`
`Dated: April 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Carl V. Malmstrom
`WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
`FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
`Carl V. Malmstrom
`111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
`Chicago, IL 60604
`Tel: (312) 984-0000
`Fax: (212) 686-0114
`E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
`Local Counsel for Plaintiff and the
`Putative Classes
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Alec M. Leslie*
`Max S. Roberts*
`888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (646) 837-7150
`Fax: (212) 989-9163
`Email: aleslie@bursor.com
`mroberts@bursor.com
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Christopher R. Reilly*
`701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 330-5512
`Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
`Email: creilly@bursor.com
`
`*Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes
`
`- 19 -
`
`