Privacy & Publicity/Consumer Protection

The appellate court found that the district court's summary judgment grant misconstrued the Illinois statute, but upheld the summary judgment on separate grounds. The appeals court, reviewing the dismissal de novo, noted that the statute specifically applied to "a person's or a custom...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBusiness Torts Reporter Vol. 36; no. 10; pp. 228 - 230
Format Trade Publication Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York Aspen Publishers, Inc 01.08.2024
Subjects
Biometrics
Class action lawsuits
District courts
Privacy
Social networks
United States > US
Illinois
California
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1520-7064

Cover

More Information
Summary:The appellate court found that the district court's summary judgment grant misconstrued the Illinois statute, but upheld the summary judgment on separate grounds. The appeals court, reviewing the dismissal de novo, noted that the statute specifically applied to "a person's or a customer's biometric identifier or biometric information [emphasis by court]," thereby distinguishing between Facebook users and nonusers, and applying it to both, regardless of whether Meta does or does not stand in privity with the subject of the collected data. Standing The circuit court affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of standing of Zellmer's claim that Meta/Facebook violated BIPA by not having publicly available retention policies regarding the face signature data it collects.
ISSN:1520-7064