throbber

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-02409 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 05/06/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:10
`
`Hearina Date: N`Ehj6~Ast(pdaWlarqyed by the Illinois Su reme Court and is re uired to be acce ted in all Illinois Circuit Courts.
`
`For Court Use Gnty
`rBNOIS,
`Locati n: «Cou§%"~
`Judge Calendar, 1
`CIRCUIT COURT
`
`SUMMONS
`
`FILED
`3/25/2022 4:35 PM
`IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
`CIRCUIT CLERK
`COOK COUNTY, IL
`2022CH02683
`Calendar, 1
`17250212
`
`Cook
`
`n COUNTY
`
`MAETEAN JOHNSON
`Plaintiff / Petitioner (First, midd/e, last name)
`
`~
`=
`~
`:V
`:V
`
`g
`n
`;i
`~
`~
`n
`y
`
`"
`?
`~
`w
`J
`LL
`
`Instructions
`Enter above the county
`name where the case
`was filed.
`
`Enter your name as
`Plaintiff/Petitioner.
`Enter the names of all
`people you are suing as
`Defendants/
`Respondents.
`
`Enter the Case Number
`given by the Circuit
`Clerk.
`
`IlVIPORTANT(cid:9)
`INFORMATION:
`
`V.
`RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY .,
`d/b/a FOOD 4 LESS MIDWEST, and THE KROGER CO.
`Defendant / Respondent (First, middle, last name)
`
`2022CH02683
`Case Number
`
`q Alias Summons (Check this box if this is not the 91
`Summons issued for this Defendant.)
`
`There may be court fees to start or respond to a case. If you are unable to pay your court fees, you can apply
`for a fee waiver. You can fmd the fee waiver application at: illinoiscourts.gov/documents-and-
`fonns/approved-fonns .
`
`E-filing is now mandatory with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first create an account with an e-
`filing service provider. Visit efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm to leam more and to select a
`service provider. If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit illinoiscourts. og v/fa /cfgethelp.ast)
`or talk with your local circuit clerk's office. If you cannot e-file, you may be able to get an exemption that
`allows you to file in-person or by mail. Ask your circuit clerk for more information or visit
`illinoisle alg aid.org.
`
`Call or text Illinois Court Help at 833-411-1121 for information about how to go to court including how to
`fill out and file forms. You can also get free legal information and legal referrals at illinoislesalaid.orQ.
`
`Plaintiff/Petitioner:
`
`Do not use this form in an eviction, small claims, detinue, divorce, or replevin case. Use the Eviction
`Summons, Small Claims Summons, or Summons Petition for Dissolution of Marriage / Civil Union available
`at illinoiscourts.gov/documents-and-forms/approved-forms. If your case is a detinue or replevin, visit
`illinoisle,galaid.org for help.
`
`If you are suing more than 1 Defendant/Respondent, fill out a Summons form for each
`Defendant/Respondent.
`
`In la, enter the name
`and address of a
`Defendant/
`Respondent. If you are
`serving a Registered
`Agent, include the
`Registered Agent's
`name and address here.
`
`In lb, enter a second
`address for Defendant/
`Respondent, if you
`have one.
`
`In lc, check how you
`are sending your
`documents to
`Defendant/
`Respondent.
`
`1. Defendant/Respondent's address and service information:
`a. Defendant/Respondent's prima address/information for a,ervice: Ralphs Grocery Company
`Name (First, Middle, Last): d/b/ FOOD 4 LESS MIDWEST, and THE KROGER CO.,
`Registered Agent's name, if any: ILLINOIS CORPORATI N SERVICE COMPANY
`Street Address, Unit #: 801 ADLAI STEVENSON DRIVE
`City, State, ZIP: SPRINGFIELD , IL 62703
`Email:
`Telephone:
`If you have more than one address where Defendant/Respondent might be found,
`list that here:
`Name (First Midd/e, Last):
`Street Address, Unit #:
`City, State, ZIP:
`Email:
`Telephone:
`c. Method of service on Defendant/Respondent:
`q 3 Sheriff
`q Sheriff outside Illinois:
`
`b.
`
`0 Special process server
`
`County & State
`q Licensed private detective
`
`

`

`In 2, enter the amount
`of money owed to you.
`
`In 3, enter your
`
`—complete address,--
`telephone number, and
`email address, if you
`have one.
`
`Enter the Case Number given by the Cin:uit Clerk: 2022CH02683
`
`2.
`
`Information about the lawsuit:
`Amount claimed: $
`
`— 3.- —Gontact infonnation forthe-Plaintiff/Petitioner:
`— — — --
`Name (First, Middle, Last): Stephan Zouras LLP - Haley R. Jenkins
`Street Address, Unit #: 100 N. Riverside Plaza Suite 2150
`City, State, ZIP: Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 233-1550
`
`Email: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com
`
`—
`
`--
`
`GETTING COURT DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL: You should use an email account that you do not share with anyone else and that you check
`every day. If you do not check your email every day, you may miss important infonnation, notice of court dates, or documents from other parties.
`
`Important
`You have been sued. Read all of the documents attached to this Summons.
`information for the To participate in the case, you must follow the instructions listed below. If you do not, the court may decide
`person getting this {he case without hearing from you and you could lose the case. Appearance and Answer/Response forms can
`form
`be found at: illinoiscourts.gov/documents-and-forms/aMLoved-forms/.
`
`Instructions for person receiving this Summons (Defendant):
`4.
`q 3 a. To respond to this Summons, you must file Appearance and Answer/Response
`forms with the court within 30 days after you have been served (not counting the day
`of service) by e-filing or at:
`Address: 50 W. Washington Street
`City, State, ZIP: Chicago, IL 60602
`
`b. Attend court:
`On:
`
`Date
`In-person at:
`
`at
`
`Time
`
`q a.m. q p.m. in
`
`Courtroom
`
`Check 4a or 4b. If
`Defendant/Respondent
`only needs to file an
`Appearance and
`Answer/Response
`within 30 days, check
`box 4a. Otherwise, if
`the clerk gives you a
`court date, check box
`4b.
`
`In 4a, fill out the
`address of the court
`building where the
`Defendant may file or
`e-file their
`Appearance and
`Answer/Response.
`In 4b, fill out:
`• The court date and
`time the clerk gave
`you.
`• The courtroom and
`address of the court
`building.
`• The call-in or video
`information for
`remote appearances
`(if applicable).
`• The clerk's phone
`number and website.
`AIl of this information
`is available from the
`Circuit Clerk.
`
`STOP!
`The Circuit Clerk will
`fill in this section.
`
`STOP!
`The officer or process
`server will fill in the
`Date of Service.
`
`City
`
`Courfhouse Address
`OR
`Remotely (You may be able to attend this court date by phone or video conference.
`This is called a"Remote Appearance"):
`By telephone:
`
`State
`
`ZIP
`
`Call-in number for telephone remote appearance
`By video conference:
`
`Video conference website
`
`Video conference log-in information (meeting ID, password, etc.)
`
`Call the Circuit Clerk at:
`
`or visit their website
`
`at:
`
`Website
`
`Circuit Clerk's phone number
`to find out more about how to do this.
`
`Witness this ®ate:
`
`Clerk of the Court:
`
`3/25/2022 4:35 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
`
`'
`
`c~`ar
`
`.~
`k rvuKs'~~~
`
`This Summons must be served within 30 days of the witness date.
`
`Date of Service:
`
`(Date to be entered by an offcer or process server on the copy of this Summons left
`with the Defendant or otherperson.)
`
`q
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This form Is approved by the Illinois Supreme Court and Is required to be accepted In all Illinois Circuit Courts.
`
`STATE OF ILLINOIS,
`CIRCUIT COURT
`
`Cook
`
`_ S_ COUNTY __ _
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE OF
`SUMMONS AND
`COMPLAINT/PET-ITION— -
`
`For Court Use Only
`
`cn
`co
`co N
`_ U
`N
`O N
`~
`a
`u,
`co
`v~
`N
`N
`O N
`~
`N
`CO
`ui
`¢ 0
`0 w
`
`J
`LL
`
`Instructions
`Enter above the
`county name where
`the case was filed.
`Enter your name as
`Plaintiff/Petitioner.
`Enter the names of all
`people you are suing
`as Defendants/
`Respondents.
`
`Enter the Case
`Number given by the
`Circuit Clerk.
`
`MAETEAN JOHNSON
`Plaintiff / Petitioner (First, midd/e, last name)
`
`V.
`
`d/b/a FOOD 4 LESS MIDWEST, and THE KROGER CO.
`Defendant / Respondent (First, middle, last name)
`
`q Alias Summons (Check this box if this is not the 1sr
`Summons issued for this Defendant.)
`
`2022CH02683
`Case Number
`
`**Stop. Do not complete the form. The sheriff or special process server will fill in the form: `*
`
`My name is(cid:9)
`
`and I state
`
`First, Middle, Last
`I served the Summons and Complaint/Petition on the Defendant/Respondent
`as follows:
`
`First, Middle, Last
`
`Personally on the Defendant/Respondent:
`q Female
`q Non-Binary
`q Approx. Age:
`Male
`On this date:
`at this time:
`Address, Unit#:
`City, State, ZIP:
`
`Race:
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`On someone else at the Defendant/Respondent's home who is at least 13 years old and is a family
`member or lives there:
`On this date:
`Address, Unit#:
`City, State, ZIP:
`And left it with:
`
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`at this time:
`
`First, Middle, Last
`q Female
`q Non-Binary
`Male
`q
`Race:
`Approx. Age:
`and by sending a copy to this defendant in a postage-paid, sealed envelope to the
`above address on
`, 20
`On the Corporation's agent,
`
`First; Middle, Last
`
`Female
`
`q
`
`Male
`On this date:
`Address:
`City, State, ZIP:
`
`q
`
`Approx. Age:
`Non-Binary
`at this time:
`
`q
`
`Race:
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`q
`q
`q
`q
`

`

`Enter the Case Number given by the Circuit Clerk:2022CH02683
`I was not able to serve the Summons and Complaint/Petition on Defendant/Respondent:
`
`First, Middle, Last
`
`—-—
`
`I -made -the-following attempts to- serve the Summons and Complaint/Petition on the Defendant/Respondent:
`
`On this date:
`Address:
`City, State, ZIP:
`Other information about service attempt:
`
`at this time:
`
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`2.
`
`On this date:
`Address:
`City, State, ZIP:
`Other information about service attempt:
`
`at this time:
`
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`3. On this date:
`Address:
`City, State, ZIP:
`Other information about service attempt:
`
`at this time:
`
`q a.m. q p.m.
`
`DO NOT complete
`this section. The
`sheriff or private
`process server will
`complete it
`
`If you are a special process server, sheriff outside Illinois, or licensed private detective,
`your signature certifies that everything on the Proof of Service of Summons is true and
`correct to the best of your knowledge. You understand that making a false statement on
`this fonn could be perjury.
`
`Under the Code of
`Civil Procedure, 735
`ILCS 5/1-109,
`making a statement
`on this form that you
`lmow to be false is
`perjury, a Class 3
`Felony.
`
`By:
`
`Signature by:
`
`q Sheriff
`Sheriff outside Illinois:
`
`FEES
`Service and Return:
`Miles
`Total
`
`$
`$
`$ 0.00
`
`County and State
`Special process server
`Licensed private
`detective
`
`Print Name
`
`If Summons is served by licensed private detective or private detective agency:
`License Number:
`
`q
`q
`q
`q
`

`

`Hearing Date: 7/25/2022 10:00 AM
`Location: Richard J Daley Center
`Judge: Wilson, Thaddeus L
`
`---
`
`---IN THE CIRCIJIT COURT OF COOK COiJNTY, ILLINOIS
`COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIYISION
`
`FILED
`3/25/2022 2:22 PM
`IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
`CIRCUIT CLERK
`COOK COUNTY, IL
`2022CH02683
`Calendar, 1
`17245929
`
`MAETEAN JOHNSON, individually, and
`on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY d/b/a
`FOOD 4 LESS MIDWEST, and THE
`KROGER CO.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`2022CH02683
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Maetean Johnson ("Plaintiff'), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated (the "Class"), by and through her attorneys, brings the following Class Action Complaint
`
`("Complaint") pursuant to the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, 735 ILCS §§ 5/2-801 and 2-802,
`
`against Defendants Ralphs Grocery Company d/b/a Food 4 Less Midwest ("Food 4 Less") and
`
`The Kroger Co. ("Kroger") (collectively, "Defendants"), their subsidiaries and affiliates, to redress
`
`and curtail each Defendants' unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffls
`
`sensitive and proprietary biometric data. Plaintiff alleges as follows upon personal laiowledge as
`
`to herself, her own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief,
`
`including investigation conducted by her attorneys.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Defendant Food 4 Less is a grocery store chain in the "Kroger Family of
`
`Companies" and is a subsidiary of Kroger.l
`
`1 See https://www.food4less.com/i/luoger-famity-of-companies.
`
`

`

`r
`
`I
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Kroger operates supermarkets, grocery retail stores, and multi-
`
`department stores throughout the United States.
`
`3.
`
`When Food 4 Less brings on a new worker, including Plaintiff, they are enrolled in
`
`a biometric timeclock and timekeeping database(s) ("timekeeping system") using a scan of their
`
`fmgerprint. Food 4 Less uses the timekeeping system to monitor the hours worked by workers at
`
`its facilities.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, data collected in the timekeeping system by Food 4
`
`Less are disclosed to at least one third-party for payroll purposes.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, data collected in the timekeeping system by Food 4
`
`Less are disclosed to Kroger.
`
`6.
`
`While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time worked (such
`
`as ID badges or punch clocks), Defendants require workers to have their fingerprints scanned by
`
`a biometric timekeeping device.
`
`7.
`
`Biometrics are not relegated to esoteric corners of commerce. Many businesses —
`
`such as Defendants'— and financial institutions have incorporated biometric applications into their
`
`workplace in the form of biometric timeclocks or authenticators, and into consumer products,
`
`including such ubiquitous consumer products as checking accounts and cell phones.
`
`8.
`
`Unlike ID badges or time cards — which can be changed or replaced if stolen or
`
`compromised — a fingerprint is a unique, permanent biometric identifier associated with each
`
`worker. This exposes Defendants' workers to serious and irreversible privacy risks. For example,
`
`if a database containing fingerprints or other sensitive, proprietary biometric data is hacked,
`
`breached, or otherwise exposed — like in the Equifax, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
`
`Suprema data breaches — employees have no means by which to prevent identity the$,
`
`~
`
`

`

`unauthorized tracking, or other unlawful or improper use of this highly personal and private
`
`information.
`
`9.
`
`In 2015, a data breach at the United States Office of Personnel Management
`
`exposed the personal identification information, including biometric data, of over 21.5 million
`
`federal employees, contractors, and job applicants.Z
`
`10.
`
`An illegal market already exists for biometric data. Hackers and identity thieves
`
`have targeted Aadhaar, the largest biometric database in the world, which contains the personal
`
`and biometric data — including fingerprints, iris scans, and facial geometries — of over a billion
`
`Indian citizens.3
`
`11.
`
`In January 2018, an Indian newspaper reported that the information housed in
`
`Aadhaar was available for purchase for less than $8 and in as little as 10 minutes.4
`
`12.
`
`In August 2019 it was widely reported that Suprema, a security company
`
`responsible for a web-based biometrics lock system that uses fmgerprints and facial geometry
`
`scans in 1.5 million locations around the world, maintained biometric data and other personal
`
`information on a publicly accessible, unencrypted database.5
`
` See U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., Cybersecurity
`Z
`www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents.
`
`Incidents
`
`(2018), available at
`
`3 See Vidhi Doshi, A Security Breach in India Has Left a Billion People at Risk of Identity Theft, The
`Washington Post (Jan. 4, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/
`2018/O 1 /04/a-security-breach-in-india-has-left-a-billion-people-at-risk-of-identity-
`theft/?utm term=.b3c70259fl38.
`
`4 Rachna Khaira, Rs 500, 10 Minutes, and You Have Access to Billion Aadhaar Details, The Tribune (Jan.
`4, 2018), available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/rs-500-10-minutes-and-you-have-access-
`to-billion-aadhaar-details/523361.htm1.
`
`5 Major Breach Found in Biometrics System Used by Banks, UK police and Defence Firms, The Guardian
`(Aug. 14, 2019), available at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/14/major-breach-found-
`in-biometrics-system-used-by-banks-uk-police-and-defence-firms.
`
`I
`
`

`

`13.
`
`In the United States, law enforcement, including the Federal Bureau of
`
`Investigation and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have attempted to turn states'
`
`Deparhnent of Motor Vehicles databases into biometric data goldmines, using facial recognition
`
`technology to scan the faces of thousands of citizens, all without their notice or consent.6
`
`14.
`
`This practice has been criticized by lawmakers. Some states, including Illinois,
`
`have refused to comply with law enforcement's invasive requests.'
`
`15.
`
`Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois
`
`enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 ILCS § 14/1, et seq., specifically to
`
`regulate companies that collect, store and use Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.
`
`16.
`
`Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law, each
`
`Defendant disregards Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated workers' statutorily protected privacy
`
`rights and unlawfully collects, stores, otherwise obtains, disseminates, and uses Plaintiff s and
`
`other similarly-situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information (collectively
`
`referred to herein as "biometric data") in violation of BIPA. Specifically, each Defendant violated
`
`and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in writing of the
`specific purpose and length of time for which their fmgerprints were being
`collected, stored, and used, as required by BIPA;
`
`Develop and adhere to a publicly-available retention schedule and
`guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff s and other similarly-
`situated individuals' fingerprints, as required by BIPA;
`
`6 Drew Harwell, FBI, ICE Find State Driver's License Photos Are a Gold Mine for Facial-Recognition
`Searches, The Washington Post (July 7, 2019), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
`technology/2019/07/07/fbi-ice-find-state-drivers-license-photos-are-gold-mine-facial-recognition-
`searches/?noredirect=on&utm term=.da9atb2472a9.
`
`' State Denying Facfal Recognition Requests, Jacksonville Joumal-Courier (July 9, 2019), available at
`https://www.myj oumalcourier.com/news/article/State-denying-facial-recognition-requests-14081967.php.
`
`d
`
`

`

`C.
`
`d.
`
`Obtain a written release from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to
`collect, store, or otherwise use their fingerprints, as required by BIPA; and
`
`Obtain consent from Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose,
`redisclose, or otherwise disseminate their fingerprints to a third party, as
`required by BIPA.
`
`17.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself as well as the putative Class, seeks an
`
`Order: (1) declaring that each Defendant's conduct violates BIPA; (2) requiring each Defendant
`
`to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and (3) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff
`
`and the proposed Class.
`
`PARTIES
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Maetean Johnson is a natural person and a resident of the State of Illinois.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company d/b/a Food 4 Less is an Ohio corporation that
`
`is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State and conducts business in the State of Illinois.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant The Kroger Company is an Ohio corporation that is registered with the
`
`Illinois Secretary of State and conducts business in the State of Illinois.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2-209
`
`because Defendants conduct business in this State, conducts business transactions in Cook County,
`
`and committed the statutory violations alleged herein in the state of Illinois.
`
`22.
`
`Venue is proper in Cook County because Defendants committed the statutory
`
`violations alleged herein in Cook County, Illinois.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`23.
`
`In the early 2000s, major national corporations started using Chicago and other
`
`locations in Illinois to test "new applications of biometric-facilitated fmancial transactions,
`
`5
`
`

`

`including fmger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias." 740 ILCS
`
`§ 14/5(c). Given its relative infancy, an overwhelming portion of the public became weary of this
`
`then-growing yet unregulated technology. See 740 ILCS § 14/5.
`
`24.
`
`In late 2007, a biometrics company called Pay by Touch, which provided major
`
`retailers throughout the State of Illinois with fingerprint scanners to facilitate consumer
`
`transactions, filed for bankruptcy. That bankruptcy was alarming to the Illinois Legislature because
`
`suddenly there was a serious risk that millions of fingerprint records — which, like other unique
`
`biometric identifiers, can be linked to people's sensitive fmancial and personal data — could now
`
`be sold, distributed, or otherwise shared through the bankruptcy proceedings without adequate
`
`protections for Illinois citizens. The bankruptcy also highlighted the fact that most consumers who
`
`used the company's fingerprint scanners were completely unaware that the scanners were not
`
`actually transmitting fmgerprint data to the retailer who deployed the scanner, but rather to the
`
`now-banlffupt company, and that their unique biometric identifiers could now be sold to unknown
`
`third parties.
`
`25.
`
`Recognizing the "very serious need [for] protections for the citizens of Illinois
`
`when it [came to their] biometric information," Illinois enacted BIPA in 2008. See Illinois House
`
`Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276; 740 ILCS § 14/5.
`
`26.
`
`Additionally, to ensure compliance, BIPA provides that, for each violation, the
`
`prevailing party may recover $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for negligent
`
`violations and $5,000, or actual damages, whichever is greater, for intentional or reckless
`
`violations. 740 ILCS § 14/20.
`
`27.
`
`BIPA is an informed consent statute that achieves its goal by making it unlawful
`
`for a company to, among other things, collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or
`
`r-A
`
`

`

`otherwise obtain a person's or a customer's biometric identifiers or biometric information, unless
`
`it first:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`C.
`
`Informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
`information is being collected, stored and used;
`
`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
`
`Receives a written release executed by the subj ect of the biometric identifier
`or biometric information.
`
`See 740 ILCS § 14/15(b).
`
`28.
`
`BIPA specifically applies to individuals who work in the State of Illinois. BIPA
`
`defines a"written release" specifically "in the context of employment [as] a release executed by
`
`an employee as a condition of employment." 740 ILCS § 14/10.
`
`29.
`
`Biometric identifiers include retina and iris scans, voiceprints, scans of hand and
`
`face geometry, and — most importantly here — fmgerprints. See 740 ILCS § 14/10. Biometric
`
`information is separately defined to include any information based on an individual's biometric
`
`identifier that is used to identify an individual. Id.
`
`30.
`
`BIPA establishes standards for how companies must handle Illinois citizens'
`
`biometric identifiers and biometric information. See, e.g., 740 ILCS § 14/15(c)-(d). For example,
`
`BIPA prohibits private entities from disclosing a person's or customer's biometric identifier or
`
`biometric information without first obtaining consent for such disclosure. See 740 ILCS §
`
`14/15(d)(1).
`
`31.
`
`BIPA also prohibits selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from a person's
`
`biometric identifiers or biometric information (740 ILCS § 14/15(c)) and requires companies to
`
`develop and comply with a written policy — made available to the public — establishing a retention
`
`7
`
`

`

`schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
`
`information when the initial purpose for collecting such identifiers or information has been
`
`satisfied or within three years of the individual's last interaction with the company, whichever
`
`occurs first. 740 ILCS § 14/15(a).
`
`32.
`
`The Illinois legislature enacted BIPA due to the increasing use of biometric data in
`
`financial and security settings, the general public's hesitation to use biometric information, and —
`
`most significantly — the unknown ramifications of biometric technology. Biometrics are
`
`biologically unique to the individual and, once compromised, an individual is at a heightened risk
`
`for identity theft and left without any recourse.
`
`33.
`
`BIPA provides individuals with a private right of action, protecting their right to
`
`privacy regarding their biometrics as well as protecting their rights to know the precise nature for
`
`which their biometrics are used and how they are being stored and ultimately destroyed. Unlike
`
`other statutes that only create a right of action if there is a qualifying data breach, BIPA strictly
`
`regulates the manner in which entities may collect, store, use, and disseminate biometrics and
`
`creates a private right of action for lack of statutory compliance.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff, like the Illinois legislature, recognizes how imperative it is to keep
`
`biometric identifiers and information secure. Biometric data, unlike other personal identifiers such
`
`as a social security number, cannot be changed or replaced if hacked or stolen.
`
`U.
`
`Defendants Violate the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`35.
`
`By the time BIPA passed through the Illinois legislature in mid-2008, most
`
`companies who had experimented with using individuals' biometric data stopped doing so.
`
`36.
`
`However, each Defendant failed to take note of the shift in Illinois law governing
`
`the collection, use, storage, and dissemination of biometric data. As a result, each Defendant
`
`R
`
`

`

`continued to collect, otherwise obtain, store, use, and disseminate individuals' biometric data in
`
`violation of BIPA.
`
`37.
`
`Specifically, when individuals work at Food 4 Less facilities, they are required to
`
`have their fmgerprints scanned to enroll them in their employee database(s).
`
`38.
`
`Kroger family stores, including Food 4 Less, use and have used software that
`
`requires workers to use fmgerprints as a means of authentication. Per Defendants' policies,
`
`workers, including Plaintiff, are required to use their fingerprints to clock-in and clock-out at the
`
`beginning and end of each shift and for meal breaks.
`
`39.
`
`Each Defendant failed and continues to fail (1) to inform Food 4 Less workers that
`
`it discloses or disclosed their fingerprint data to at least one third-party payroll vendor and/or
`
`biometric timekeeping vendor, and likely others; (2) to inform Food 4 Less workers that it discloses
`
`their fmgerprint data to other, currently unknown, third parties, which host the biometric data in
`
`their data centers; (3) to inform Food 4 Less workers of the purposes and duration for which it
`
`collects their sensitive biometric data; and (4) to obtain written releases from workers before
`
`collecting their fingerprints.
`
`40.
`
`Each Defendant failed to develop or adhere to a written, publicly-available policy
`
`identifying their respective retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying
`
`workers' biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining workers' biometrics
`
`is no longer relevant, as required by BIPA.
`
`41.
`
`The Pay by Touch bankruptcy that catalyzed the passage of BIPA, as well as the
`
`recent data breaches, highlights why such conduct — where individuals are aware that they are
`
`providing a fingerprint, but not aware of to whom or for what purposes they are doing so — is
`
`dangerous. That bankruptcy spurred Illinois citizens and legislators into realizing that it is crucial
`
`9
`
`

`

`for individuals to understand when providing biometric identifiers, such as a fingerprint, who
`
`exactly is collecting their biometric data, where it will be transmitted, for what purposes, and for
`
`how long. Defendants disregard these obligations and their workers' statutory rights and instead
`
`unlawfully collect, store, use and disseminate their workers' biometric identifiers and information,
`
`without first receiving the individual's informed written consent required by BIPA.
`
`42.
`
`Each Defendant lacks retention schedules and guidelines for permanently
`
`destroying Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' biometric data and have not and will
`
`not destroy Plaintiff's and other similarly-situated individuals' biometric data when the initial
`
`purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within three years of the
`
`individual's last interaction with the companies.
`
`43.
`
`Neither Defendant told Plaintiff and others similarly situated workers what might
`
`happen to their biometric data if and when Defendants merge with another company, or worse, if
`
`and when Defendants' businesses fold, or when the other third parties that have received workers'
`
`biometric data businesses fold.
`
`44.
`
`Since Defendants neither publish a BIPA-mandated data retention policy nor
`
`disclose the purposes for their collection and use of biometric data, Food 4 Less workers have no
`
`idea at the time of collection whether Defendants sell, disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
`
`disseminate their biometric data. Moreover, Plaintiff and others similarly situated are not told at
`
`the time of collection to whom Defendants disclose their biometric data, or what might happen to
`
`their biometric data in the event of a merger or a bankruptcy.
`
`45.
`
`These violations raise a material risk that Plaintiff s and other similarly-situated
`
`individuals' biometric data will be unlawfully accessed by third parties.
`
`

`

`~ N
`O
`_ U
`N N
`O N
`g
`n.
`N
`N
`N
`N
`N
`O
`N ~
`N
`~
`W
`H
`0
`q
`W
`J
`lL
`
`46.
`
`By and through the actions detailed above, each Defendant disregarded Plaintiffls
`
`and other similarly-situated individuals' legal rights in violation of BIPA.
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiff Maetean Johnson's Experience
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff Maetean Johnson worked as a cashier from June 5, 2016, to August 9,
`
`2020, at Food 4 Less located at 1000 E. Sibley Blvd, Dolton, Illinois.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff was required to scan her fingerprint so Defendants could use it as an
`
`authentication method to track her time worked, including breaks.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants stored Plaintiff's fingerprint data in their timekeeping system.
`
`Plaintiff was required to scan her fmgerprint each time she began and ended her
`
`workday, as well as each time she clocked in and out for breaks.
`
`51.
`
`Neither Defendant informed Plaintiff in writing or otherwise of the purpose(s) and
`
`length of time for which her fingerprint data was being collected; obtained a written release from
`
`Plaintiff to collect, store, or use her fingerprint data; developed and adhered to a publicly available
`
`retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's fingerprint data; or
`
`obtained Plaintiff s consent before disclosing or disseminating her biometric data to third parties.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff has never been informed of the specific limited purposes or length of time
`
`for which each Defendant collects, otherwise obtains, stores, uses, and/or disseminates her
`
`biometric data.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff has never seen, been able to access, or been informed of any biometric data
`
`retention policy developed by either Defendant, nor has she ever seen, been able to access, or been
`
`informed of whether either Defendant would ever permanently delete her biometric data.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has never been provided with nor ever signed a written release allowing
`
`any Defendant to collect, otherwise obtain, store, use, or disseminate her biometric data.
`
`[a
`
`

`

`55.
`
`Plaintiff has continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful
`
`conditions created by Defendants' multiple violations of BIPA alleged herein.
`
`56.
`
`No amount of time or money can compensate Plaintiff if her biometric data has
`
`been compromised by the lax procedures through which each Defendant captured, otherwise
`
`obtained, stored, used, and disseminated her and other similarly-situated individuals' biometrics.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff would not have provided her biometric data to Defendants if she had known
`
`that Defendants would retain such information for an indefinite period of time without her consent.
`
`57.
`
`A showing of actual damages is not necessary in order to

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket