Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:386
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`NATHANIEL TIMMONS and JAMES
`CAVANAUGH, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`LYTX, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
`GEMINI MOTOR TRANSPORT, L.P, an
`Oklahoma company
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Case No.: 1:21-cv-05427
`
`Honorable Edmond E. Chang
`
`
`
`
`
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Nathaniel Timmons and James Cavanaugh, individually and on behalf of all other
`
`persons similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, bring this Class Action Complaint for
`
`violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.,
`
`against Defendants Lytx, Inc. (“Lytx”) and Gemini Motor Transport, L.P. (“GMT”) and allege on
`
`personal knowledge, due investigation of counsel, and, where indicated, on information and belief
`
`as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Lytx is a technology company that provides facial recognition software and sensors
`
`to monitor and manage drivers of commercial fleets and industrial operations. Its business model
`
`relies on identifying and capturing the actions of its customers’ drivers to monitor their fatigue and
`
`level of distraction by placing a camera on them.
`
`2.
`
`GMT is a nationwide for-hire fuel and specialty products motor carrier
`
`headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. It operates more than 1,050 trucks and employs
`
`2703689.2
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:387
`
`
`
`approximately 1,200 drivers across the United States. It installed driver-facing Lytx cameras to
`
`monitor its employees, including Timmons, as early as in 2020.
`
`3.
`
`One of Lytx’s products is an in-vehicle video camera device that incorporates
`
`machine vision and artificial intelligence (“MV+AI Technology”). https://www.lytx.com/en-
`
`us/about-us/our-technology/machine-vision-artificial-intelligence
`
`(describing
`
`MV+AI
`
`Technology incorporated in all dash cam devices) (unless other indicated, all links last visited
`
`November 8, 2022).
`
`4.
`
`These actions violate BIPA, which forbids Defendants from collecting, storing, and
`
`using Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated individuals’ biometric identifiers1 and biometric
`
`information2 (collectively, “biometrics”) without obtaining informed written consent or providing
`
`the requisite data retention and destruction policies.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs did not provide any consent, let alone informed written consent, and
`
`Defendants do not appear to provide the public-facing data retention and destruction policies
`
`required by BIPA.
`
`6.
`
`The Illinois Legislature codified within BIPA 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.
`
`
`1
`“Biometric identifier” means “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand
`or face geometry.” 740 ILCS 14/10.
`2
`“Biometric information” is “any information regardless of how it is captured, converted,
`stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual.” 740
`ILCS 14/10.
`
`2703689.2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:388
`
`
`
`7.
`
`To protect the public from these risks and serve the “public welfare, security, and
`
`safety,” 740 ILCS 14/5(g), the Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA.
`
`8.
`
`Notwithstanding BIPA’s straightforward requirements, Defendants disregard
`
`Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated individuals’ statutory rights when Defendants obtain and
`
`possess their information without informing them in writing that biometric identifiers or
`
`information will be collected or stored. See 740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`9.
`
`Defendants further violate Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated individuals’ rights
`
`when they fail to inform them in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which they
`
`would collect, store, and use the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information obtained from
`
`Lytx’s devices that were used to recognize their faces. See id.
`
`PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Timmons is, and has been at all relevant times, a resident and citizen of
`
`Illinois.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Cavanaugh is, and has been at all relevant times, a resident and citizen of
`
`Illinois.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Lytx is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware
`
`and headquartered in California.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant GMT is a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of
`
`Oklahoma and headquartered in Oklahoma.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, during the relevant
`
`time period, Defendants did business in Illinois, were registered to do business in Illinois, and
`
`committed the statutory violations alleged in this Complaint against individuals located in Illinois.
`
`2703689.2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:389
`
`
`
`15.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d), because Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states, there are
`
`estimated to be thousands of potential class members, and over $5,000,000 is in controversy.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(a)(2) because the events giving rise to this action took place here.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`17.
`
`In 2008, Illinois 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.
`
`18.
`
`BIPA protects biometric identifiers, which include retina and iris scans, voiceprints,
`
`fingerprints, scans of hand geometry, and—most importantly here—scans of facial geometry. See
`
`740 ILCS 14/10. It also protects biometric information, which is separately defined to include any
`
`information based on an individual’s biometric identifier that is used to identify an individual. See
`
`id.
`
`19.
`
`BIPA makes it unlawful for a company to, inter alia, “collect, capture, purchase,
`
`receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or
`
`biometric information, unless it first:
`
`
`
`(1) informs the subject . . . in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
`
`information is being collected or stored;
`
`(2) informs the subject . . . 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 subject of the biometric
`
`identifier or biometric
`information or
`the subject’s
`legally authorized
`representative.”
`
`2703689.2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:390
`
`
`
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`20.
`
`Altogether, BIPA protects individuals’ biometric identifiers and biometric
`
`information by requiring private entities to follow certain prerequisites to obtain consent before
`
`they collect, send, transmit, or disclose the information.
`
`II. Defendants Violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`21.
`
`Defendants openly and intentionally violate BIPA. Lytx, as part of its business
`
`model, sells to and equips commercial freight truck companies like GMT with a driver
`
`monitoring system that monitors drivers who may be exhibiting signs of distraction.
`
`22.
`
`In 2020, GMT, upon information and belief, installed Lytx cameras that
`
`monitored its drivers’ faces, including Timmons’, in its fleet of trucks.
`
`23.
`
`These cameras are known as “DriveCam” and are a product that Lytx offers
`
`which combines dash cam footage of drivers’ faces and MV+AI Technology to monitor whether
`
`drivers are engaging in distracted driving.
`
`2703689.2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:391
`
`
`
`24.
`
`The following is a picture of Lytx’s in-vehicle camera device called the
`
`DriveCam Event Recorder Unit:
`
`
`
`https://www.lytx.com/en-us/fleet-management/drivecam.
`
`25.
`
`The DriveCam device mounts to the inside of the vehicle windshield and records
`
`video of the road ahead and inside the vehicle. Id.
`
`26. MV+AI Technology monitors drivers to “identify distraction and risk, both inside
`
`and outside of the vehicle, including cell phone use, eating or drinking, smoking, seat belt use,
`
`[and] general inattentiveness . . .”3 Lytx’s application then provides voice alerts to the drivers to
`
`alert them to the perceived issue.
`
`27.
`
`The following screenshot from a video on Lytx’s website illustrates the MV+AI
`
`Technology capturing a face scan and other data to identify distracted driving:4
`
`
`3 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/about-us/our-technology/machine-vision-artificial-intelligence.
`4 This screenshot from Lytx’s website was taken October 7, 2021 and was included in the
`complaint filed by Cavanaugh on October 13, 2021. Dkt. 1, ¶ 9. Lytx has since altered the
`graphic in its promotional video to remove the grid “scanning” pattern from the driver’s face and
`body. Lytx also added the conclusory statement at the bottom of its promotional videos: “Lytx
`MV+AI distraction detection and alerting technology is designed to respect driver privacy
`
`2703689.2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:392
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`To accurately monitor drivers to determine whether they are using their cell
`
`phones, eating or drinking, smoking, wearing their seat belt, or becoming fatigued, the MV+AI
`
`Technology necessarily must “see and recognize” the driver’s face (the machine vision) and
`
`“interpret and decide” (the artificial intelligence) whether they are engaging in distracted
`
`driving.5
`
`29.
`
`In fact, Lytx states that its MV+AI Technology is “backed by a peerless database
`
`of commercial driving behaviors, representing more than 185 billion miles driven in all types of
`
`vehicles and road conditions—validated by professional analysts.”6 Or, put differently, Lytx has
`
`
`because it does not collect, store, or use biometric identifiers or biometric information (i.e. scans
`of facial geometry).” This self-serving legal conclusion does not, upon information and belief,
`reflect the way MV+AI Technology actually functions, which is by collecting drivers’ biometric
`data. See https://www.lytx.com/en-us/about-us/our-technology/machine-vision-artificial-
`intelligence.
`5 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/about-us/our-technology/machine-vision-artificial-intelligence.
`6 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/about-us/our-technology/machine-vision-artificial-intelligence.
`
`2703689.2
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:393
`
`
`
`humans review images of drivers’ faces and behaviors, and who then feed that information into
`
`the artificial intelligence to teach it about what is and is not an action worth triggering an alert.
`
`30.
`
`Thereafter, upon information and belief, when drivers like Plaintiffs get behind
`
`the wheel with a Lytx camera on them, the camera constantly scans their faces to identify
`
`relevant portions of their face, body, arms, etc. Using this information, coupled with its artificial
`
`intelligence, the Lytx camera is able to determine what the driver is actually doing by looking at
`
`their face. It can tell whether a driver is putting food into their mouth, or taking a sip from a
`
`drink, or if their eyes are on a cellular telephone instead of the road.
`
`31.
`
`Each of these actions relies on capturing a driver’s face and recognizing their
`
`facial features—that a mouth is a mouth, a nose is a nose, etc.—using the individual’s unique
`
`facial geometry.
`
`32.
`
`In doing so, Defendants’ facial recognition technology captures, collects, stores,
`
`and uses Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ biometric information.
`
`33.
`
`The scale of Lytx’s collection of biometric data is massive: according to Lytx, the
`
`company contracts with 4,800 clients to monitor “1.6 million drivers across the globe.”7 Its
`
`“devices capture 3 billion miles of driving data each month” which the Company’s artificial
`
`intelligence uses to identify and interpret driving scenarios based on continuous, live scans of
`
`drivers as they work.8
`
`34.
`
`Drivers whose employers require them to use a Lytx DriveCam have their
`
`biometric data harvested every minute they are behind the wheel. Upon information and belief,
`
`
`7 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/our-clients/who-we-serve.
`8 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/about-us/our-technology.
`
`2703689.2
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:394
`
`
`
`the “DriveCam” transmits its footage online and Lytx provides customers like GMT with a log-
`
`in so that they can monitor the video footage.9
`
`III. Defendants Do Not Have Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ Written Consent to Collect
`Biometrics
`
`35.
`
`BIPA protects the rights of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated drivers within
`
`Illinois to know and consent to the collection and storage of biometrics, and a right to know how
`
`long such risks will persist after termination of their employment. 740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`36.
`
`Through the scanning of drivers’ faces with its facial recognition technology, Lytx
`
`collected unique, permanent biometric identifiers and exposed drivers like Plaintiffs to irreversible
`
`privacy risks, such as identity theft resulting from a data breach. Lytx then made that same
`
`information available to its truck driver company clients, including Defendant GMT.
`
`37.
`
`Yet, Defendants never adequately informed Plaintiffs or the Class of their biometric
`
`collection practices and never obtained the requisite written consent from Plaintiffs or the Class
`
`regarding their biometric practices, and never provided any data retention or destruction policies
`
`to Plaintiffs or the Class.
`
`38.
`
`GMT never provided Plaintiff with any consent form when it installed the Lytx
`
`technology in 2020.
`
`IV. Named Plaintiffs’ Allegations
`
`39.
`
`From roughly August 2015 to October 2020, Timmons worked as a driver in Illinois
`
`for GMT.
`
`40.
`
`Timmons is an Illinois resident who drove his truck for GMT within Illinois, a fact
`
`that GMT and Lytx knew through its geolocation tracking of his truck.
`
`
`9 https://www.lytx.com/en-us/fleet-management/dash-
`cam?_ga=2.170096608.1999871576.1640181938-1466546759.1640181938.
`
`2703689.2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:395
`
`
`
`41.
`
`In 2020, GMT installed a Lytx DriveCam inside its fleet of trucks, including
`
`Timmons’ truck. Timmons drove his truck as part of his employment with the Lytx DriveCam
`
`positioned on his face.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`GMT required Timmons to use Lytx’s DriveCam.
`
`Cavanaugh previously worked as a truck driver for non-party Quikrete, a
`
`manufacturer of packaged concrete, in Elburn, Illinois.
`
`44.
`
`Cavanaugh is an Illinois resident and drove his truck for Quikrete within Illinois, a
`
`fact that Lytx knew through its geolocation tracking of his truck.
`
`45.
`
`Quikrete installed Lytx’s DriveCam in its trucks, including the one Cavanaugh
`
`drove. Cavanaugh drove his truck as part of his employment with the Lytx DriveCam positioned
`
`on his face.
`
`46.
`
`During their employment, Lytx, upon information and belief, extracted biometric
`
`identifiers from Plaintiffs’ faces while they drove and stored them online for their employers to
`
`view. Thereafter, the Lytx Camera automatically performed a facial recognition of Plaintiffs to
`
`identify them by extracting biometric identifiers from their faces and comparing those biometric
`
`identifiers against the previously extracted and stored biometric identifiers for a match.
`
`47.
`
`During their employment, Defendants, upon information and belief, extracted
`
`biometric identifiers from Timmons’ face while he drove and stored them online for GMT to view.
`
`Thereafter, the Lytx Camera automatically scanned Timmons’ face to identify him by extracting
`
`biometric identifiers from his face again and comparing those biometric identifiers against the
`
`previously extracted and stored biometric identifiers for a match.
`
`48.
`
`GMT required Timmons to use Lytx’s DriveCam.
`
`2703689.2
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:396
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiffs never consented, agreed or gave permission—written or otherwise—to
`
`Lytx for the collection or storage of their unique biometric identifiers or biometric information.
`
`Nor did Timmons consent, agree or give such permission to GMT.
`
`50.
`
`Further, Lytx never provided Plaintiffs with, nor did they ever sign, a written
`
`release allowing Lytx to collect or store their unique biometric identifiers or biometric information.
`
`Nor did GMT provide Timmons such a release.
`
`51.
`
`Likewise, Lytx never provided Plaintiffs with the requisite statutory disclosures nor
`
`an opportunity to prohibit or prevent the collection, storage, or use of their unique biometric
`
`identifiers or biometric information. Nor did GMT provide Timmons with such a disclosure or
`
`opportunity.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`52.
`
`Class Definition: Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23 on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows (the
`
`“Classes”):
`
`Lytx Class: All individuals who, while present in the State of Illinois, had their
`biometric information and/or biometric identifiers, including their face geometry,
`collected, captured, used, transmitted, disseminated, stored or otherwise obtained
`by Lytx.
`
`GMT Class: All individuals who, while present in the State of Illinois, had their
`biometric information and/or biometric identifiers, including their face geometry,
`collected, captured, used, transmitted, disseminated, stored or otherwise obtained
`by GMT.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs Timmons and Cavanaugh seek to represent the Lytx Class. Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Timmons alone seeks to represent the GMT Class.
`
`54.
`
`Numerosity: Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the number of persons within the Classes
`
`is substantial, believed to amount to hundreds of persons, particularly given the number of drivers
`
`2703689.2
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:397
`
`
`
`that GMT employs and Lytx’s claims that it has 4,800 customers and 1.6 million drivers across
`
`the globe. It is, therefore, impractical to join each Class Member. Further, the size and relatively
`
`modest value of the claims of the individual members of the Classes renders joinder impractical.
`
`Accordingly, the class action mechanism is the most economically feasible means of determining
`
`and adjudicating the merits of this litigation. Moreover, the Classes are ascertainable and
`
`identifiable from Defendants’ records.
`
`55.
`
`Commonality, Predominance, and Typicality: Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2)-(3) and
`
`Rule 23(b)(3), there are well-defined common questions of fact and law that exist as to all Class
`
`Members, and that predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members.
`
`These common legal and factual questions do not vary across Class Members, and which may be
`
`determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any individual. They, include, but
`
`are not limited to:
`
`(a) whether Defendants collected or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ and
`Class Members’ biometric identifiers or biometric information;
`
`(b) whether Defendants properly informed Plaintiffs and Class Members
`that they collected, used, and stored their biometric identifiers or
`biometric information;
`
`(c) whether Defendants obtained a written release (as defined in 740 ILCS
`14/10) to collect, use, and store Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
`biometric identifiers or biometric information;
`
`(d) whether Defendants used Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ biometric
`identifiers or biometric information to identify them;
`
`(e) whether Defendants’ violations of BIPA were committed intentionally,
`recklessly, or negligently.
`
`56.
`
`Adequate Representation: Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), Plaintiffs have retained and
`
`
`
`
`
`are represented by qualified and competent counsel who are highly experienced in complex
`
`consumer class action litigation. Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously
`
`2703689.2
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:398
`
`
`
`prosecuting this class action. Moreover, Plaintiffs are able to fairly and adequately represent and
`
`protect the interests of the Classes. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interest adverse
`
`to, or in conflict with, the interests of the absent members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have raised
`
`viable statutory claims of the type reasonably expected to be raised by members of the Classes,
`
`and will vigorously pursue those claims. If necessary, Plaintiffs may seek leave of this Court to
`
`amend this Class Action Complaint to include additional Class representatives to represent the
`
`Classes, additional claims as may be appropriate, or to amend the Class definitions to address any
`
`steps that Defendants took.
`
`
`
`COUNT I – FOR DAMAGES AGAINST LYTX
`VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/1 ET SEQ. – BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT
`(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASSES)
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Lytx is a “private entity” under BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`Plaintiffs are individuals who have had their “biometric identifiers” captured and/or
`
`collected by Lytx, as explained in detail in above. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs’ biometric identifiers were used to identify Plaintiffs and, therefore,
`
`constitute “biometric information” as defined by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`61.
`
`By collecting, capturing, storing, and/or using Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’
`
`biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein, Lytx violated Plaintiffs’ and
`
`Class Members’ rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information as set
`
`forth in BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
`
`62.
`
`Additionally, Lytx systematically and automatically collected, captured, used, and
`
`stored Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without
`
`first obtaining the written release required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3).
`
`2703689.2
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:399
`
`
`
`63. Moreover, Lytx never informed Plaintiffs and never informed any Class Member
`
`in writing that their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were being collected,
`
`captured, stored, and/or used, nor did Lytx inform Plaintiffs and the Class in writing of the specific
`
`purpose(s) and 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).
`
`64.
`
`Unlike other Illinois companies, Lytx failed to take notice and follow the
`
`requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act even though the law was enacted in 2008
`
`and numerous articles and court filings about the law’s requirements were published before Lytx
`
`committed the legal violations alleged in this Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`On behalf of themselves and the Lytx Class, Plaintiffs seeks: (1) declaratory relief;
`
`(2) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`by requiring Lytx to comply with BIPA’s requirements for the collection, capture, storage, and use
`
`of biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein pursuant to 740 ILCS
`
`14/20(4); (3) liquidated damages of $5,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation of BIPA
`
`pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, liquidated 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 GMT
`VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/1 ET SEQ. – BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT
`(ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF TIMMONS AND THE GMT CLASS)
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`GMT is a “private entity” under BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`Plaintiff Timmons is an individual who has had his “biometric identifiers” captured
`
`and/or collected by GMT, as explained in detail in above. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`2703689.2
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:400
`
`
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff Timmons’ biometric identifiers were used to identify him and, therefore,
`
`constitute “biometric information” as defined by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`70.
`
`By collecting, capturing, storing, and/or using Plaintiff Timmons’ and GMT Class
`
`Members’ biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein, GMT violated
`
`Plaintiff Timmons’ and GMT Class Members’ rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers and/or
`
`biometric information as set forth in BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
`
`71.
`
`Additionally, GMT systematically and automatically collected, captured, used, and
`
`stored Plaintiff Timmons’ and GMT Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric
`
`information without first obtaining the written release required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3).
`
`72. Moreover, GMT never informed Plaintiff Timmons or any GMT Class Member in
`
`writing that their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were being collected, captured,
`
`stored, and/or used, nor did GMT inform Plaintiff Timmons and the GMT Class in writing of the
`
`specific purpose(s) and 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).
`
`73.
`
`Unlike other Illinois companies, GMT failed to take notice and follow the
`
`requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act even though the law was enacted in 2008
`
`and numerous articles and court filings about the law’s requirements were published before GMT
`
`committed the legal violations alleged in this Complaint.
`
`74.
`
`On behalf of himself and the GMT Class, Plaintiff Timmons seeks: (1) declaratory
`
`relief; (2) injunctive and equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff
`
`Timmons and the GMT Class by requiring GMT to comply with BIPA’s requirements for the
`
`collection, capture, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and biometric information as described
`
`2703689.2
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:401
`
`
`
`herein pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(4); (3) liquidated damages of $5,000 for each intentional and/or
`
`reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, liquidated 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, Plaintiffs Nathaniel Timmons and James Cavanaugh, on behalf of
`
`themselves and the proposed Classes, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
`
`A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes defined above,
`
`appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Lytx Class and Timmons as the representative for
`
`the GMT Class, and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel;
`
`B. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above, violate BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1,
`
`et seq.;
`
`C. Awarding liquidated damages of $5,000.00 for each and every intentional and/or
`
`reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2), or alternatively, liquidated damages of
`
`$1,000.00 for each and every violation pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1) if the Court finds that
`
`Defendants’ violations were negligent;
`
`D. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the
`
`interests of the Classes, including, inter alia, an Order requiring Defendants to collect, store, and
`
`use biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in compliance with BIPA;
`
`E. Awarding Plaintiffs and Class Members their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`and other litigation expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3);
`
`F. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent
`
`allowable; and
`
`2703689.2
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-05427 Document #: 49 Filed: 11/10/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:402
`
`
`
`G. Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require.
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs demand a jury trial for all issues so triable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2703689.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/_Jason L. Lichtman__________________
`Douglas M. Werman
`Maureen A. Salas
`
`Sarah J. Arendt
`
`
`
`Michael Tresnowski
`
`
`WERMAN SALAS P.C.
`77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`(312) 419-1008
`
`David Fish
`Mara Baltabols
`FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.
`200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123
`Naperville, Illinois 60563
`(630) 355-7590
`
`Jason L. Lichtman
`Sean A. Petterson
`Muriel J. Kenfield-Kelleher
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
`BERNSTEIN LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, New York 10013
`(212) 355-9500
`
`Gary M. Klinger
`MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
`PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
`227 W. Monroe Street,
`Suite 2100
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`(866) 252-0878
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`17
`
`