Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 1 of 136
`
`THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`OCTOBER 9, 2020
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`v.
`
`
`STEVEN VANCE, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 2 of 136
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. ................................................... 3
`
`The IBM DiF Dataset............................................................................................. 4
`
`Microsoft’s Alleged Conduct. ................................................................................ 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 6
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ BIPA CLAIMS. ............................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`BIPA Does Not Apply Extraterritorially to Microsoft’s Alleged Conduct. .......... 6
`
`Plaintiffs’ BIPA Claims Violate the Dormant Commerce Clause. ........................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Claims Impermissibly Attempt to Regulate Conduct
`Occurring Entirely Outside Illinois’s Borders. .......................................... 9
`
`Plaintiffs’ BIPA Claims Impermissibly Displace the Legislation
`and Policy Decisions Made by States Other Than Illinois. ..................... 12
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under BIPA Sections 15(b) or 15(c). ................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`BIPA Does Not Apply to the Use of Photographs. .................................. 16
`
`Section 15(b) Does Not Apply to the Passive Possession of Data
`by Third Parties Like Microsoft. .............................................................. 19
`
`Plaintiffs Fail to Plausibly Allege That Microsoft “Profited” From
`Their Biometrics and Thus Fail to Plead a Section 15(c) Claim. ............ 21
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`CLAIM. ............................................................................................................................ 22
`
`III.
`
`PLAINTIFFS HAVE NO SEPARATE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLAIM. ..................... 24
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - i
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 3 of 136
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACLU v. Johnson,
`194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................15
`
`Am. Libraries Ass’n v. Pataki,
`969 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet Entm’t Grp., Inc.,
`1999 WL 66022 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 1999) ..............................................................................16
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. 2005) .....................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Bernal v. ADP, LLC,
`No. 2017-CH-12364, Order (Cook Cty. Ill. Cir. Ct. Aug. 23, 2019) .................................21, 22
`
`Cameron v. Polar Tech Indus., Inc. & ADP, LLC,
`No. 2019-CH-000013, Tr. (DeKalb Cty. Ill. Cir. Ct. Aug. 23, 2019) ...................................21
`
`Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris,
`794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................10
`
`Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................23
`
`Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (W.D. Wash. 2012) .....................................................................8, 23, 24
`
`In re D.W.,
`827 N.E.2d 466 (Ill. 2005) .......................................................................................................21
`
`Dana Tank Container, Inc. v. Human Rights Comm’n,
`687 N.E.2d 102 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) ........................................................................................21
`
`Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith,
`889 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................10
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - ii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 4 of 136
`
`
`
`Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n,
`629 F.3d 629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................8
`
`Edifecs Inc., v. TIBCO Software Inc.,
`2011 WL 1045645 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2011) ....................................................................25
`
`Edwards v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2011 WL 3516155 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 11, 2011) ....................................................................25
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation,
`185 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................................................18
`
`Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc.,
`458 U.S. 564 (1982) .................................................................................................................19
`
`Harbers v. Eddie Bauer, LLC,
`415 F. Supp. 3d 999 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ................................................................................17
`
`Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) .......................................................................................................2, 10, 12
`
`Kelley v. Microsoft Corp.,
`251 F.R.D. 544 (W.D. Wash. 2008) ........................................................................................23
`
`L’Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space & Airborne Sys.,
`805 F. Supp. 2d 932 (C.D. Cal. 2011) .......................................................................................4
`
`Landau v. CNA Fin. Corp.,
`886 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. 2008) ................................................................................................7
`
`Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`2017 WL 4099846 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017) .................................................................. passim
`
`Mount v. PulsePoint, Inc.,
`684 Fed. App’x 32 (2d Cir. 2017)............................................................................................24
`
`Namuwonge v. Kronos, Inc.,
`418 F. Supp. 3d 279 (N.D. Ill. 2019) .......................................................................................21
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Miller,
`10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993) ...............................................................................................14, 15
`
`
`
`Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n v. Meyer,
`63 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................14
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 5 of 136
`
`
`
`Neals v. PAR Tech. Corp.,
`419 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2019) .......................................................................................9
`
`Patel v. Facebook, Inc.,
`932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................7, 9, 19, 20
`
`People v. Hanna,
`800 N.E.2d 1201 (Ill. 2003) .....................................................................................................19
`
`Pooh-Bah Enter., Inc. v. Cnty. of Cook,
`905 N.E.2d 781 (Ill. 2009) .......................................................................................................23
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Rivera v. Google, Inc.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .......................................................................7, 9, 19, 20
`
`Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp.,
`129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019) .....................................................................................................19
`
`Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc.,
`784 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................11
`
`Seattle Prof’l Eng’g Employees Ass’n v. Boeing Co.,
`139 Wn.2d 824 (2000) .............................................................................................................24
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma Cty.,
`708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................17
`
`Tarzian v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co.,
`2019 WL 5064732 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2019)................................................................................9
`
`Vance et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cv-01084-RAJ ........................................................................................1
`
`Welborn v. Internal Revenue Serv.,
`218 F. Supp. 3d 64, 78 (D.D.C. 2016) .....................................................................................24
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`740 ILCS 14/5 ............................................................................................................................3, 19
`
`740 ILCS 14/10 ..........................................................................................................................3, 17
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - iv
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 6 of 136
`
`
`
`740 ILCS 14/15 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`740 ILCS 14/20 ................................................................................................................................4
`
`RCW 19.375.010 .....................................................................................................................13, 14
`
`RCW 19.375.020 .....................................................................................................................12, 13
`
`RCW 19.375.020(1) .......................................................................................................................12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 .................................................................................................7
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ..............................................................................2, 6, 11
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - v
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 7 of 136
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Illinois residents Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk allege Microsoft violated the Illinois
`
`Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) when it downloaded an IBM-created dataset
`
`consisting of one million facial images, known as the Diversity in Faces Dataset (“DiF
`
`Dataset”).1 IBM allegedly created this dataset in 2019 “for the purpose of improving the
`
`ability of facial recognition systems to fairly and accurately identify all individuals.” Dkt. 1,
`
`Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 40. Plaintiffs seek to hold Microsoft liable for penalties under BIPA
`
`even though they allege IBM—not Microsoft—included their images and biometric
`
`information in the dataset.
`
`Plaintiffs do so by alleging they voluntarily uploaded their photographs many years
`
`ago to Flickr, a photo-sharing website. They allege Flickr then made their images publicly
`
`available in a collection of 100 million photographs, from which IBM culled one million
`
`images to create the DiF Dataset. Plaintiffs do not allege Microsoft (i) interacted with them
`
`or any other Illinois Flickr users; (ii) conducted any activity relevant to this lawsuit in Illinois;
`
`(iii) ever linked Plaintiffs’ identities with their individual biometric information; or (iv) ever
`
`engaged in any transactions to profit from Plaintiffs’ data. They nevertheless contend BIPA
`
`governs Microsoft’s out-of-state (i.e., Washington) conduct. And they assert Microsoft
`
`violated BIPA by “collecting and obtaining individuals’ biometric identifiers and information
`
`... without providing the requisite written information and without obtaining the requisite
`
`written releases.” Id. ¶ 94. They seek to bring these claims on behalf of a class of any other
`
`Illinois residents whose images appear in the IBM DiF Dataset.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Plaintiffs Vance and Janecyk, represented by the same counsel, are pursuing a substantially
`identical putative class action against Amazon, claiming BIPA violations based on allegations
`that, like Microsoft, Amazon downloaded the DiF Dataset from IBM. See Vance et al. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cv-01084-RAJ. Microsoft understands Amazon is
`likewise filing a motion to dismiss the claims against it, asserting the same dismissal
`arguments Microsoft asserts in this motion.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 1
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 8 of 136
`
`Plaintiffs fail to state a claim, and the Court should dismiss the Complaint with
`
`prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), for the following reasons:
`
`First, the BIPA claims (Counts I and II) fail because BIPA does not express clear
`
`intent to apply extraterritorially, as required for Illinois statutes to have such effect. Thus, the
`
`statute could regulate Microsoft only if its BIPA-related conduct occurred primarily and
`
`substantially in Illinois. But Plaintiffs fail to allege Microsoft engaged in any conduct in
`
`Illinois giving rise to BIPA liability. Plaintiffs allege only that the IBM DiF Dataset, which
`
`Microsoft allegedly downloaded, included publicly-available online photographs of Vance
`
`and Janecyk, and that Microsoft conducts business in Illinois related to facial-recognition
`
`technology more generally. This is plainly insufficient. BIPA does not reach Microsoft’s
`
`alleged conduct.
`
`Second, applying BIPA to Microsoft’s out-of-state conduct would violate the dormant
`
`Commerce Clause, which “precludes the application of a state statute” that has “the practical
`
`effect of ... control[ling] conduct beyond the boundaries of the State,” “whether or not the
`
`commerce has effects within the State.” Healy v. Beer Inst., Inc., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989).
`
`If Plaintiffs could state a BIPA claim against Microsoft, that would mean a business in
`
`Washington could not engage in an online transaction with a business in New York without
`
`subjecting itself to penalties in Illinois—even if the Washington business does nothing in
`
`Illinois relating to the transaction and the transaction complies with Washington law. The
`
`dormant Commerce Clause bars such an outcome.
`
`Third, even if BIPA applied (and it should not), Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under its
`
`plain language. Neither Section 15(b) nor Section 15(c) of BIPA applies to biometric
`
`information derived from “photographs.” Section 15(b) also does not afford an action for
`
`mere passive possession of biometric identifiers or information. And Plaintiffs fail to
`
`plausibly plead that Microsoft “profited” from their biometric identifiers or information and
`
`thus fail to state a Section 15(c) claim.
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 2
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 9 of 136
`
`Fourth, Plaintiffs fail to state an unjust enrichment claim (Count III) because they do
`
`not plausibly allege (i) Microsoft was enriched by their biometric identifiers or biometric
`
`information; (ii) they suffered any expense or loss; or (iii) they lack an adequate remedy at
`
`law, given the alleged BIPA violation serves as the only basis for the unjust enrichment claim.
`
`Fifth, Plaintiffs’ “injunctive relief” claim (Count IV) amounts to nothing more than a
`
`prayer for relief, not a claim, and should therefore be dismissed.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`The Illinois General Assembly enacted BIPA in 2008 to address the growing use of
`
`biometric technology “in the business and security screening sectors” in Illinois. 740 ILCS
`
`14/5(a). The General Assembly found “[m]ajor national corporations ha[d] selected the City
`
`of Chicago and other locations in [Illinois] as pilot testing sites for new applications of
`
`biometric-facilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery
`
`stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias.” 740 ILCS 14/5(b). The Illinois legislature also
`
`found that consumers had concerns about “use of biometrics when such information is tied to
`
`finances” and were “deterred from partaking in biometric identifier-facilitated transactions,”
`
`in part because of the “limited State law regulating the collection, use, safeguarding, and
`
`storage of biometrics.” 740 ILCS 14/5(d), (e).
`
`BIPA addresses these concerns by regulating the collection, possession, and storage of
`
`certain biometric identifiers and information, while expressly excluding coverage of other
`
`data. The statute defines “biometric identifier” using a short, exclusive list of personal data:
`
`“‘[b]iometric identifier’ means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or
`
`face geometry.” 740 ILCS 14/10. Section 15(b) requires private entities that “collect,
`
`capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s ... biometric identifier
`
`or biometric information” to first (1) inform the person of that collection “in writing”; (2)
`
`inform the person “in writing of the specific purpose and length of term” regarding the
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 3
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 10 of 136
`
`collection; and (3) obtain a “written release” from the person. 740 ILCS 14/15(b). Section
`
`15(c) further prohibits any private entity “in possession of a biometric identifier or biometric
`
`information” from “sell[ing], leas[ing], trad[ing], or otherwise profit[ing] from a person’s ...
`
`biometric identifier or biometric information.” 740 ILCS 14/15(c).
`
`For negligent violations of BIPA, a plaintiff may obtain “liquidated damages of
`
`$1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater,” and for intentional or reckless violations of
`
`BIPA, a plaintiff may collect “liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is
`
`greater.” 740 ILCS 14/20(2).
`
`B.
`
`The IBM DiF Dataset.
`
`Plaintiffs Vance and Janecyk allege that, in 2008 and 2011, respectively, they uploaded
`
`photos of themselves to the photo-sharing website Flickr. Compl. ¶¶ 60, 69. Each alleges he
`
`uploaded his photos using a device in Illinois. Id.
`
`Plaintiffs contend that, in 2014, Yahoo!—Flickr’s parent company at the time—
`
`released to the public approximately 100 million photos uploaded by Flickr users (the “Flickr
`
`Dataset”). Id. ¶ 29. Oath Inc.—the current name of the entity formerly known as Yahoo!—is
`
`a Delaware corporation headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.2 Plaintiffs do not allege any
`
`interaction or relationship between Flickr and Microsoft.
`
`Plaintiffs next assert IBM in 2019 created the DiF Dataset “consisting of one million
`
`images culled from the Flickr Dataset ... for the purpose of improving the ability of facial
`
`recognition systems to fairly and accurately identify all individuals.” Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiffs
`
`
`
` 2
`
` See State of Delaware, Department of State: Division of Corporations, Business Search
`Results for Oath Inc., https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/ecorp/entitysearch/NameSearch.aspx (last
`accessed Sept. 10, 2020). The Court may take judicial notice of information posted on a state
`government website because it is “readily verifiable and, therefore, the proper subject of
`judicial notice.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746, n.6 (9th Cir.
`2006); see also L’Garde, Inc. v. Raytheon Space & Airborne Sys., 805 F. Supp. 2d 932, 938
`(C.D. Cal. 2011) (taking judicial notice of “Business Entity Detail” search result from
`Secretary of State website submitted in support of motion to dismiss).
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 4
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 11 of 136
`
`contend IBM included their publicly available Flickr photos in the DiF Dataset, and in
`
`creating the dataset, IBM “scanned the facial geometry of each image contained in the
`
`dataset” and created “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” from the
`
`photographs. Id. ¶ 41. According to Plaintiffs, the IBM DiF Dataset included a
`
`“‘comprehensive set of annotations of intrinsic facial features that includes craniofacial
`
`distances, areas and ratios, facial symmetry and contrast, skin color, age and gender
`
`predictions, subjective annotations, and pose and resolution.’” See id. ¶¶ 39–41.
`
`IBM is a New York corporation with its headquarters in New York, New York.3
`
`Plaintiffs do not allege IBM created the DiF Dataset in Illinois, or even that IBM knew the
`
`culled images included photographs of Illinois residents. Nevertheless, they allege BIPA
`
`regulates the purported “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” IBM allegedly
`
`created from the Flickr photographs. Id. ¶¶ 41–44. Plaintiffs further allege IBM made the
`
`DiF Dataset available to other companies. Id. ¶¶ 44, 47.
`
`C. Microsoft’s Alleged Conduct.
`
`Plaintiffs assert Microsoft “applied for and obtained the Diversity in Faces Dataset
`
`from IBM.” Id. ¶ 55. Plaintiffs do not plead facts showing Microsoft’s alleged acquisition of
`
`the IBM DiF Dataset had any connection whatsoever with Illinois. Plaintiffs do not claim
`
`they personally uploaded photos to Microsoft servers, used Microsoft software, services, or
`
`technology, or ever communicated or interacted with Microsoft. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any
`
`of Microsoft’s actions in purported violation of BIPA—e.g., “collecting, capturing and
`
`otherwise obtaining the[ir] biometric identifiers and information” and/or “profit[ing]” from
`
`that data, id. ¶¶ 58, 65–66, 73–74, 101—occurred in Illinois. Microsoft’s only alleged
`
`connections to Illinois are: (1) allegedly possessing IBM’s DiF Dataset of publicly-available
`
`
`
` 3
`
` See New York State, Department of State, Division of Corporations, State Records & UCC,
`Search The Corporation and Business Entity Database Results for International Business
`Machines Corporation, https://www.dos.ny.gov/corps/bus_entity_search.html (last accessed
`Sept. 10, 2020).
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 5
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 12 of 136
`
`photos of approximately one million individuals, some undetermined number of which
`
`purportedly include Illinois residents, id. ¶¶ 63, 71; and (2) allegedly conducting “extensive
`
`business within Illinois related to the facial recognition products it unlawfully developed”—in
`
`some unspecified way—“using Plaintiffs’ ... biometric identifiers and information.” Id. ¶ 59.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) requires dismissal when a plaintiff “fail[s] to state a claim upon which
`
`relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To plead a viable cause of action, the
`
`allegations must transcend the “speculative,” “conceivable,” and “possible,” and must “state a
`
`claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–57, 566–
`
`67, 570 (2007). The Court must disregard “legal conclusions” and “conclusory statements,”
`
`and scrutinize factual allegations to ensure they are more than “merely consistent with a
`
`defendant’s liability.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–79 (2009).
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ BIPA CLAIMS.
`
`The Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims because the claims violate Illinois’s
`
`extraterritoriality doctrine and the dormant Commerce Clause, and fail to state a claim under
`
`BIPA’s plain language.
`
`A.
`
`BIPA Does Not Apply Extraterritorially to Microsoft’s Alleged Conduct.
`
`Under Illinois law, “a statute is without extraterritorial effect unless a clear intent in
`
`this respect appears from the express provisions of the statute.” Avery v. State Farm Mut.
`
`Auto. Ins. Co., 835 N.E.2d 801, 852 (Ill. 2005) (citation omitted). “[N]one of BIPA’s express
`
`provisions indicates that the statute was intended to have extraterritorial effect.” Monroy v.
`
`Shutterfly, Inc., 2017 WL 4099846, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2017). Because BIPA “was not
`
`intended to and does not have extraterritorial application,” “asserted violations of [BIPA]
`
`must have taken place in Illinois” to fall within the statute. Rivera v. Google, Inc., 238 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 1088, 1100, 1104 (N.D. Ill. 2017). The statute requires an assessment “as to where
`
`the essential elements of a BIPA violation take place.” Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 6
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT Document 25 Filed 09/14/20 Page 13 of 136
`
`1264, 1276 (9th Cir. 2019).
`
`Microsoft thus could be subject to BIPA only if “the majority of circumstances
`
`relating to the alleged violation of the [statute]” occurred in Illinois. Landau v. CNA Fin.
`
`Corp., 886 N.E.2d 405, 409 (Ill. App. 2008). Put another way, for BIPA to apply to
`
`Microsoft, “the circumstances relating to the claim [must have] occur[ed] primarily and
`
`substantially” in Illinois. Avery, 835 N.E.2d at 853; see also Patel, 932 F.3d at 1275–76
`
`(applying “primarily and substantially” test to BIPA claim). Plaintiffs’ claims fail this test.
`
`The primary and substantial elements of the Section 15(b) claim would involve
`
`Microsoft’s alleged “collection” of Plaintiffs’ biometric data from IBM without prior notice to
`
`them and without their written consent. See Compl. ¶ 94; 740 ILCS 14/15(b). The elements
`
`of Plaintiffs’ Section 15(c) claim would involve Microsoft’s alleged “profit[ing]” from their
`
`biometric data. See Compl. ¶ 101; 740 ILCS 14/15(c). But Plaintiffs do not allege Microsoft
`
`engaged in any of this conduct in Illinois—and they could not so allege consistent with their
`
`obligations under Rule 11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
`
`Microsoft’s alleged possession of photographs of Illinois residents, Compl. ¶¶ 63, 71,
`
`even if true, would not show it collected biometric information or profited from that
`
`information in Illinois. On the contrary, Plaintiffs allege Microsoft obtained the DiF Dataset
`
`online from IBM, a New York corporation, for free. Compl. ¶¶ 49, 55, 56. And Plaintiffs fail
`
`to allege this non-commercial transaction occurred “primarily and substantially” in Illinois—
`
`something, again, they would have no good faith basis to allege.
`
`Plaintiffs also allege Microsoft “(i) sell[s] its facial recognition products to third-party
`
`clients through an Illinois-based vendor; (ii) work[s] closely with an Illinois-based business to
`
`build new applications for its facial recognition technology; and (iii) work[s] with the
`
`University of Illinois, among others, to build and promote a ‘digital transformation institute’
`
`aimed at ‘accelerating the application of artificial intelligence’ throughout business and
`
`society.” Compl. ¶ 59. But Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations do not plausibly explain how
`
`MICROSOFT’S MOTION TO DISMISS - 7
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JCC-MAT)
`
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW O FFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
``
`
`Ca