Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`Case No.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`JACINDA DORIAN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Plaintiff Jacinda Dorian brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
`
`against Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) to put a stop to its surreptitious
`
`collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff’s and the proposed Class’s biometric data. Plaintiff
`
`alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences, and,
`
`as to all other matters, upon information and belief.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”) is the world’s largest online retailer and one
`
`of the largest providers of cloud computing services, called Amazon Web Services (“AWS”).
`
`2.
`
`According to Amazon.com, AWS is the world’s most comprehensive and broadly
`
`adopted cloud platform, offering its customers over 200 cloud-based services from data centers
`
`globally. Millions of customers—from startups to the largest enterprises—use AWS every day.
`
`3.
`
`One of AWS’s services is a facial recognition program called Amazon
`
`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
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 1 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Rekognition. Rekognition uses machine vision and algorithmic classification techniques to map
`
`human facial geometry and analyze the resulting data to, for example, check whether two
`
`photographs depict the same individual.
`
`4.
`
`Thousands of organizations use Amazon Rekognition to identify individuals using
`
`face recognition. In such circumstances, individuals’ facial geometry is extracted by AWS and is
`
`stored not only by its customers on the cloud, but also by AWS on AWS’s own servers.
`
`5.
`
`However, because Rekognition is a behind-the-scenes service for businesses,
`
`consumers are largely unaware that when they use their favorite mobile app or online service to
`
`verify their identities, AWS is actually collecting and storing their biometric data.
`
`10
`
`6.
`
`Through these practices, AWS not only disregards individuals’ privacy rights; it
`
`11
`
`also violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), which
`
`12
`
`was specifically designed to protect Illinois residents from practices like Amazon’s.
`
`13
`
`7.
`
`Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an order (i) declaring that AWS’s conduct
`
`14
`
`violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring AWS to cease the unlawful activities discussed herein; and
`
`15
`
`(iii) awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff and the proposed Class (defined below).
`
`16
`
`17
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Jacinda Dorian is a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois and has an
`
`PARTIES
`
`18
`
`intent to remain there, and is therefore a domiciliary of Illinois.
`
`19
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`20
`
`headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Amazon Web Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of
`
`21
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon Web Services, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc. are collectively referred
`
`22
`
`to as “Amazon,” unless otherwise specified).
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because
`
`25
`
`(a) at least one member of the Class is a citizen of a state different from Defendant, (b) the
`
`26
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and (c) none of the
`
`27
`
`exceptions under that subsection apply to this action.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 2 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is licensed
`
`to conduct business in this District and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business
`
`in this District.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant is
`
`licensed to conduct business in this District and its headquarters and principal place of business
`
`are maintained in this District.
`
`I.
`
`The Use of Biometrics and Consumer Privacy.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`13.
`
`“Biometrics” refer to technologies used to identify an individual based on unique
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`physical characteristics. Common biometric identifiers include retina or iris scans, fingerprints,
`
`11
`
`voiceprints, or hand or face geometry scans.
`
`12
`
`14.
`
`One of the most prevalent uses of biometrics is facial recognition technology,
`
`13
`
`which works by scanning an image for human faces, extracting facial feature data from a
`
`14
`
`photograph or image of a human face, generating a “faceprint” from the image through the use of
`
`15
`
`facial recognition algorithms, and then comparing the resultant faceprint to other faceprints
`
`16
`
`stored in a faceprint database. If a database match is found, a person may be identified.
`
`17
`
`15.
`
`Unlike other identifiers such as Social Security or credit card numbers, which can
`
`18
`
`be changed if compromised or stolen, biometric identifiers linked to a specific voice or face
`
`19
`
`cannot. These unique and permanent biometric identifiers, once exposed, leave victims with no
`
`20
`
`means to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. See also 740 ILCS 14/5(c).
`
`21
`
`II.
`
`Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act.
`
`22
`
`16.
`
`Recognizing the “very serious need [for] protections for the citizens of Illinois
`
`23
`
`when it [came to their] biometric information,” the Illinois Legislature enacted BIPA in 2008.
`
`24
`
`See Illinois House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276; 740 ILCS 14/5.
`
`25
`
`17.
`
`The BIPA is an informed consent statute which achieves its goal by making it
`
`26
`
`unlawful for a company to, among other things, “collect, capture, purchase, receive through
`
`27
`
`trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 3 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`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.”
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(b).
`
`18.
`
`The BIPA also establishes standards for how companies must handle Illinois
`
`consumers’ biometric identifiers and biometric information. See, e.g., 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (c)–
`
`(d). For instance, the BIPA requires companies to develop and comply with a written policy—
`
`made available to the public—establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
`
`destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting
`
`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).
`
`19.
`
`The BIPA also prohibits private entities from disclosing a person’s or customer’s
`
`biometric identifier or biometric information to third parties without first obtaining consent for
`
`that disclosure, 740 ILCS 14/15(d)(1), and further prohibits selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise
`
`profiting from a person’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, 740 ILCS 14/15(c).
`
`20.
`
`“Biometric identifiers” include retina and iris scans, voiceprints, scans of hand
`
`and fingerprints, and—most importantly here—face geometry. 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. See id.
`
`21.
`
`The BIPA’s narrowly tailored provisions place no absolute bar on the collection,
`
`sending, transmitting, or storing of biometric data. For example, the BIPA does not limit what
`
`kinds of biometric data may be collected, sent, transmitted, or stored. Nor does the BIPA limit to
`
`whom biometric data may be sent or transmitted, or by whom it may be stored. The BIPA simply
`
`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
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 4 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`mandates that entities wishing to engage in that conduct must make proper disclosures,
`
`implement certain reasonable safeguards, and procure a user’s consent before collecting
`
`biometric data.
`
`III. AWS Violates the BIPA.
`
`22.
`
` Despite the BIPA being in force for over a decade, AWS operates a major
`
`biometric-based facial recognition platform in violation of the BIPA’s simple requirements.
`
`23.
`
`Amazon Rekognition is a cloud-based service that, according to Amazon, makes
`
`it easy for its customers—from startups to leading corporations—to add image and video
`
`analysis, all performed by AWS through its Rekognition platform, to their applications, products,
`
`10
`
`and services. To use its service, an AWS customer just needs to provide AWS an image or video,
`
`11
`
`and then Rekognition can identify objects, people, text, scenes, and activities within the images
`
`12
`
`or video. Amazon even boasts that Rekognition provides facial analysis, face comparison, and
`
`13
`
`face search capabilities, including detecting, analyzing, and comparing faces for a wide variety
`
`14
`
`of use cases, including user verification, cataloging, and people counting. See Figures 1 and 2
`
`15
`
`below, showing screenshots from Amazon’s AWS marketing materials.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 1.)
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 5 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 2.)
`
`24.
`
`Using Amazon Rekognition to perform facial recognition is simple. Anyone
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`seeking to perform facial recognition using Rekognition will first need to sign up for an AWS
`
`26
`
`account. See Figure 3, showing a screenshot of Amazon’s AWS website.
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 6 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`(Figure 3.)
`
`25.
`
`An AWS customer could then register for and use Rekognition. See Figure 4,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`showing a screenshot of the Rekognition homepage.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 4.)
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 7 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`26.
`
`After getting “started” with an Amazon Rekognition account, an AWS customer
`
`will need to install and configure AWS’s Command Line Interface (“CLI”) and Software
`
`Development Kit (“SDK”), which are programming toolkits that allow customers to manage and
`
`use their AWS services.
`
`27.
`
`Once the AWS CLI and SDKs are set up and configured, an AWS customer can
`
`start interacting with and using Rekognition.
`
`28.
`
`To start, a typical AWS customer will configure their applications or services to
`
`upload images to AWS’s cloud-based storage solution, called “S3” or “S3 buckets” (a “bucket”
`
`typically refers to a discrete instance of an S3 cloud storage container).
`
`10
`
`29.
`
`Next, the AWS customer would run a command within the Amazon API (or
`
`11
`
`Application Programming Interface) interface called “index-faces” on the images it wishes to
`
`12
`
`compare. This command instructs Rekognition to detect and scan faces in images. Rekognition
`
`13
`
`then accesses the relevant images and uses its machine vision algorithms to extract the facial
`
`14
`
`geometry of the individuals pictured into a feature vector. These feature vectors include precise
`
`15
`
`coordinates describing essential facial landmarks such as the nose, corners of the mouth, eyes,
`
`16
`
`chin, pupils, and jawline, among others.
`
`17
`
`30.
`
`The feature vectors of facial geometry, as well as higher-order details such as
`
`18
`
`whether a person is smiling, sad, or disgusted, or is wearing eyeglasses or sunglasses, are then
`
`19
`
`stored in an AWS backend database called a Rekognition “collection.” See Figure 5 below,
`
`20
`
`showing a screenshot of the Rekognition CLI listing a stored face from a “collection.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 8 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 5.)
`
`31.
`
`Finally, the AWS customer would then use Rekognition to run a face matching
`
`API command. For example, the customer could take the unique “FaceId” that index-faces
`
`assigned to a photo of a government identification card and search a collection to see if a
`
`matching self-portrait exists. If a match is found, the unique ID of that image is returned along
`
`with some data about the face, as well as a “Similarity” score, which is a confidence
`
`measurement to indicate how strongly Rekognition believes these faces match. See Figure 6,
`
`showing a screenshot of the Rekognition CLI.
`
`
`
`
`(Figure 6.)
`
`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
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 9 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`32.
`
`All of this time, the AWS customer would be communicating with AWS’s
`
`servers, where this information is stored and processed.
`
`33.
`
`One such company that uses Rekognition is ProctorU Inc., which develops and
`
`licenses online test proctoring software for use by students and educational facilities.
`
`34. When a student takes a test using ProctorU’s proctoring software, ProctorU
`
`requires students to show their faces and their photo IDs on camera to help verify their identities.
`
`See Figure 7, showing a screenshot of ProctorU’s software.
`
`
`
`(Figure 7.)
`
`35.
`
`Unbeknownst to students in this example, when they upload their images to
`
`ProctorU, they are also uploading their photos to ProctorU’s cloud-service provider, AWS. AWS
`
`then uses Rekognition to perform facial recognition on the student’s face and provided
`
`identification card to identify the student. In other words, when students sign in to ProctorU to
`
`take a test, their biometric data is also collected by AWS in order to identify the student for
`
`ProctorU.
`
`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
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 10 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`36.
`
`By and through the actions detailed above, AWS not only disregards consumers’
`
`privacy rights, but it also violates their statutorily protected rights to control the collection, use,
`
`and storage of their sensitive biometric data.
`
`IV.
`
`Plaintiff Dorian’s Experience.
`
`37.
`
`In 2020, Plaintiff Jacinda Dorian was a student at Columbia College and Harold
`
`Washington College, both located in Chicago, Illinois.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Dorian took multiple tests at both institutions between 2017 and 2019,
`
`each requiring the use of ProctorU’s software.
`
`39.
`
`During that time, Plaintiff Dorian was required to submit her image as well as an
`
`10
`
`image of a valid identification document in order to be identified.
`
`11
`
`40.
`
`Unbeknownst to Dorian, ProctorU used Amazon Rekognition to perform facial
`
`12
`
`recognition on her.
`
`13
`
`41.
`
`At no time did Plaintiff Dorian receive notice from AWS, whether through
`
`14
`
`ProctorU or otherwise, that AWS was collecting, storing, and using her biometric data.
`
`15
`
`42.
`
`At no time was Plaintiff Dorian asked for, nor at any time did she provide consent
`
`16
`
`for AWS to collect, store, or use her biometric data.
`
`17
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, at no time while possessing Plaintiff Dorain’s
`
`18
`
`biometric data did Amazon maintain a publicly-available retention and deletion schedule for
`
`19
`
`biometric data.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`44.
`
`Class Definition: Plaintiff Dorian brings this on behalf of herself and a class
`
`22
`
`defined as follows:
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`All Illinois residents who had their biometric information or biometric
`identifiers collected, captured, received, possessed, or otherwise obtained
`by Amazon’s Rekognition service and stored in AWS’s servers.
`
`The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over
`
`this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,
`
`successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 11 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly
`
`execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this
`
`matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel
`
`and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such
`
`excluded persons.
`
`45.
`
`Numerosity: On information and belief, tens of thousands of consumers fall into
`
`the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendant’s records,
`
`discovery, and other third-party sources.
`
`46.
`
`Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact
`
`10
`
`common to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s claims, and those questions predominate over any
`
`11
`
`questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class
`
`12
`
`include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
`
`a) whether Defendant collected, captured, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s and
`the Class’s biometric identifiers or biometric information;
`
`b) whether Defendant properly informed Plaintiff and the Class of its purposes
`for collecting, using, and storing their biometric identifiers or biometric
`information;
`
`c) whether Defendant obtained a written release (as defined in 740 ILCS 14/10)
`to collect, use, and store Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers or
`biometric information;
`
`d) whether Defendant has sold, leased, traded, or otherwise profited from
`Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers or biometric information;
`
`e) whether Defendant used Plaintiff’s and the Class’s faceprints or facial
`geometry to identify them; and
`
`
`
`
`
`f) whether Defendant’s violations of BIPA were committed intentionally,
`recklessly, or negligently.
`
`47.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the
`
`Class in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s
`
`wrongful conduct.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 12 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`48.
`
`Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and
`
`protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex
`
`litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and
`
`Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to
`
`vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class and have the financial
`
`resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to those of the other
`
`members of the Class.
`
`49.
`
`Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for
`
`certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
`
`10
`
`Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible
`
`11
`
`standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final injunctive relief
`
`12
`
`appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s policies that Plaintiff challenges
`
`13
`
`apply and affect members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies
`
`14
`
`hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law
`
`15
`
`applicable only to Plaintiff. The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and to
`
`16
`
`the other members of the Class are the same.
`
`17
`
`50.
`
`Superiority: This case is also appropriate for certification because class
`
`18
`
`proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
`
`19
`
`this controversy. The harm suffered by the individual members of the Class is likely to have been
`
`20
`
`relatively small compared to the burden and expense of prosecuting individual actions to redress
`
`21
`
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Absent a class action, it would be difficult if not impossible for
`
`22
`
`the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant. Even if members
`
`23
`
`of the Class themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a
`
`24
`
`class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties and
`
`25
`
`the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues presented. By
`
`26
`
`contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of
`
`27
`
`single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single Court.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 13 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be
`
`ensured.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the “Class Allegations” and “Class
`
`Definition” based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a)
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Section 15(a) of the BIPA requires that any “private entity in possession of
`
`biometric identifiers . . . must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing
`
`a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers . . . when the
`
`initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers . . . has been satisfied or within 3 years
`
`of the individual’s last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS
`
`14/15(a).
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`AWS fails to comply with these BIPA mandates.
`
`AWS is a corporation and thus qualifies as a “private entity” under the BIPA. See
`
`740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class are individuals who had their “biometric identifiers”
`
`collected by AWS (in the form of their facial scans), as explained in detail in Section III. See 740
`
`ILCS 14/10.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers or information based on those
`
`biometric identifiers were used to identify them, constituting “biometric information” as defined
`
`by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, AWS failed to publicly provide a retention schedule or
`
`guideline for permanently destroying Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers and
`
`biometric information, in violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a).
`
`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
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 14 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`59.
`
`By collecting, storing, and possessing Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric
`
`identifiers and biometric information as described herein, AWS violated Plaintiff’s and the
`
`Class’s rights to privacy in their biometric identifiers or biometric information as set forth in
`
`BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.
`
`60.
`
`Accordingly, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff seeks: (i) injunctive and
`
`equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class by requiring
`
`AWS to establish and make publicly available a policy for the permanent destruction of
`
`biometric identifiers compliant with 740 ILCS 14/15(a); (ii) statutory damages of $5,000 per
`
`intentional and/or reckless violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the
`
`10
`
`alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740
`
`11
`
`ILCS 14/20(1); and (iii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and other litigation expenses
`
`12
`
`pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b)
`(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent from
`
`individuals before acquiring their biometric data. Specifically, BIPA makes it unlawful for any
`
`private entity to “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s
`
`or a customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, unless [the entity] first: (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….” 740 ILCS 14/15(b) (emphasis added).
`
`63.
`
`Unfortunately, AWS fails to comply with these BIPA mandates.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 15 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`64.
`
`AWS is a corporation and thus qualifies as a “private entity” under the BIPA. See
`
`740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class are individuals who had their “biometric identifiers”
`
`collected by AWS (in the form of their facial scans), as explained in detail in Section III. See 740
`
`ILCS 14/10.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers or information based on those
`
`biometric identifiers were used to identify them, constituting “biometric information” as defined
`
`by BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.
`
`67.
`
`AWS violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3) by failing to obtain written releases from
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff and the Class before it collected, used, and stored their biometric identifiers and
`
`11
`
`biometric information.
`
`12
`
`68.
`
`AWS violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1) by failing to inform Plaintiff and the Class in
`
`13
`
`writing that their biometric identifiers and biometric information were being collected and
`
`14
`
`stored.
`
`15
`
`69.
`
`AWS violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2) by failing to inform Plaintiff and the Class in
`
`16
`
`writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or
`
`17
`
`biometric information was were being collected, stored, and used.
`
`18
`
`70.
`
`By collecting, storing, and using Plaintiff’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers
`
`19
`
`and biometric information as described herein, AWS violated Plaintiff’s and the Class’s rights to
`
`20
`
`privacy in their biometric identifiers or biometric information as set forth in BIPA, 740 ILCS
`
`21
`
`14/1, et seq.
`
`22
`
`71.
`
`On behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff seeks: (1) injunctive and equitable
`
`23
`
`relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class by requiring Defendant to
`
`24
`
`comply with BIPA’s requirements for the collection, storage, and use of biometric identifiers and
`
`25
`
`biometric information as described herein; (2) liquidated damages of $5,000 for each intentional
`
`26
`
`and/or reckless violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, liquidated
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Case No.
`
`- 16 -
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, Washington 98027
`Tel: (425) 837-4717 • Fax: (425) 837-5396
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00269 Document 1 Filed 03/07/22 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3)
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(3).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff Jacinda Dorian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order:
`
`a)
`
`Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above,
`
`appointing Jacinda Dorian as representative of the Class, and appointing her counsel as class
`
`counsel;
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Declaring that Defendant’s conduct, as set out above, violates the BIPA;
`
`Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation
`
`11
`
`of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 for
`
`12
`
`each negligent violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1);
`
`13
`
`d)
`
`Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the
`
`14
`
`interests of the Class, including an Order requiring Defendant to comply with BIPA;
`
`15
`
`e)
`
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and
`
`16
`
`attorneys’ fees;
`
`17
`
`f)
`
`Awarding Plaintiff and the Class pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent
`
`