{"id":1407,"date":"2024-04-25T17:11:03","date_gmt":"2024-04-25T21:11:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1407"},"modified":"2024-04-25T17:11:03","modified_gmt":"2024-04-25T21:11:03","slug":"sb-2979-illinois-biometric-privacy-act-legislation-passes-the-illinois-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/04\/25\/sb-2979-illinois-biometric-privacy-act-legislation-passes-the-illinois-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"SB 2979 \u2013 Illinois Biometric Privacy Act Legislation Passes The Illinois Senate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W, Karasik, and George J. Schaller<\/b><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/i>: <\/b>On April 11, 2024, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2979<\/a> (the \u201cBill\u201d) by vote of 46 to 13. The Bill introduces legislation that would amend the Biometric Information Privacy Act (\u201cBIPA\u201d) to limit claims accrued to one violation of the BIPA in stark contrast to the statute\u2019s current \u201cper-collection basis.\u201d<\/i> The Bill\u2019s proposed revisions are accessible <\/i>here<\/i><\/a> and the status of the Bill can be tracked <\/i>here<\/i><\/a>. For any companies involved in privacy class action litigation, the proposed legislations is exceedingly important.<\/i><\/p>\n

Background On The BIPA<\/b><\/p>\n

The BIPA currently provides for \u201ca violation for every scan,\u201d based on the Illinois Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Cothron v. White Castle Sys.<\/i>, 2023 IL 128004 (Feb. 17, 2023).\u00a0 In Cothron<\/i>, the Illinois Supreme Court held that \u201cthe plain language of \u00a7\u00a7 15(b) and 15(d) shows that a claim accrues under the Act with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent.\u201d Id. <\/i>at \u00b6 45.<\/p>\n

The majority of the Illinois Supreme Court opined that any policy-based concerns \u201cabout potentially excessive damage awards under the Act are best addressed by the legislature.\u201d Id.<\/i> at \u00b6 43.<\/p>\n

On January 31, 2024, Senator Bill Cunningham introduced SB 2979 to the Illinois Senate.<\/p>\n

The Proposed Revisions To The BIPA Under SB 2979<\/b><\/p>\n

The Bill\u2019s proposed revisions articulate two key amendments regarding: (1) the \u201cevery scan\u201d violation under \u00a7\u00a7 15(b) and 15(d); and (2) an additional definition for \u201celectronic signature\u201d that augments the BIPA\u2019s current \u201cWritten release\u201d definition.<\/p>\n

For violations under \u00a7\u00a7 15(b) and 15(d), the Bill endeavors to limit alleged violations of the BIPA to a \u201csingle violation\u201d for these respective sections.<\/p>\n

The Bill narrows an aggrieved person\u2019s entitled recovery to \u201cat most, one recovery under this section,\u201d provided that biometric identifier or biometric information was obtained from the same person using the same method of collection.\u00a0 See <\/i>SB 2979, 740 ILCS 14\/20(b).\u00a0 Similar single violation language is proposed under sub-section (d) of \u00a7 15 on the BIPA\u2019s dissemination provision.\u00a0 See<\/i> SB 2979, 740 ILCS 14\/20(c).<\/p>\n

Also included in the Bill is a new definition for \u2018electronic signature\u2019 as \u201can electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.\u201d See <\/i>SB 2979, 740 ILCS 14\/10.\u00a0 This definition is then incorporated to the BIPA\u2019s already defined \u201cWritten release.\u201d\u00a0 See id.<\/i><\/p>\n

As of April 25, 2024, the Bill advanced to Illinois General Assembly\u2019s House of Representatives and is assigned to the Judiciary \u2013 Civil Committee.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

Employers should monitor SB 2979 closely as it progresses through the Illinois House of Representatives.\u00a0 The unfettered potential damages from BIPA claims may be limited to a single scan if the Bill passes.\u00a0 This would be a major and much-needed legislative coup for businesses with operations in Illinois who utilize biometric technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W, Karasik, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 11, 2024, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2979 (the \u201cBill\u201d) by vote of 46 to 13. The Bill introduces legislation that would amend the Biometric Information Privacy Act (\u201cBIPA\u201d) to limit claims accrued to one violation of … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “SB 2979 \u2013 Illinois Biometric Privacy Act Legislation Passes The Illinois Senate”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1407","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1407"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}