{"id":475,"date":"2023-05-04T08:38:02","date_gmt":"2023-05-04T12:38:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=475"},"modified":"2023-05-04T08:38:02","modified_gmt":"2023-05-04T12:38:02","slug":"seventh-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-bare-bones-lawsuit-brought-under-illinois-genetic-information-privacy-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/05\/04\/seventh-circuit-affirms-dismissal-of-bare-bones-lawsuit-brought-under-illinois-genetic-information-privacy-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of \u201cBare Bones\u201d Lawsuit Brought Under Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Tyler Z. Zmick<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em><\/strong>:\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>On May 1, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued one<\/a> of only a handful of decisions that have been released regarding the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (\u201cGIPA\u201d).\u00a0 In Bridges v. Blackstone, Inc.,<\/em> No. 22-2486, 2023 WL 3165218 (7th Cir. May 1, 2023), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court\u2019s dismissal of Plaintiffs\u2019 GIPA claims based on Plaintiffs\u2019 failure to allege that Defendant \u201cdisclosed\u201d or was \u201ccompelled to disclose\u201d their statutorily-protected genetic information. Similar to its more well-known counterpart \u2013 the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (\u201cBIPA\u201d) \u2013 liability under the GIPA could potentially result in \u201castronomical\u201d damages awards and may represent an increasingly important Illinois law in the privacy space.<\/p>\n

GIPA Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Enacted in 1998, the GIPA was designed to prevent employers and insurers from using genetic testing data as a means to discriminate for employment or insurance underwriting purposes.<\/p>\n

To further that goal, the statute places restrictions on the ability to release \u201cgenetic testing and information derived from genetic testing.\u201d\u00a0 Specifically, the GIPA provides that \u201cgenetic testing and information derived from genetic testing is confidential and privileged and may be released only to the individual tested and to persons specifically authorized, in writing in accordance with Section 30, by that individual.\u201d\u00a0 410 ILCS 513\/15(a).\u00a0 Section 30, in turn, states that subject to certain exceptions, \u201c[n]o person may disclose or be compelled to disclose the identity of any person upon whom a genetic test is performed or the results of a genetic test in a manner that permits identification of the subject of the test, except to . . . the subject of the test.\u201d\u00a0 410 ILCS 513\/30(a).<\/p>\n

Like the BIPA, the more widely-known privacy statute, the GIPA allows \u201c[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation\u201d of the statute to collect liquidated damages \u201cfor each violation\u201d in the following amounts: (1) for negligent violations, $2,500 or actual damages, whichever is greater; or (2) for intentional or reckless violations, $15,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater.\u00a0 410 ILCS 513\/40.\u00a0 Like the BIPA, prevailing GIPA plaintiffs can also recover reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs.<\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

In Bridges<\/em>, the Plaintiffs sent their DNA samples (obtained through at-home test kits) to Ancestry.com, a genealogy company.\u00a0 Years later, Defendant Blackstone, Inc. purchased Ancestry.com for $4.7 billion in an all-stock acquisition.\u00a0 Plaintiffs subsequently filed a putative class action against Blackstone in July 2021, alleging that its acquisition of Ancestry.com resulted in a violation of the GIPA.<\/p>\n

After removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Blackstone moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a claim for relief under the GIPA.<\/p>\n

The District Court agreed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a GIPA claim because they did not adequately allege that Blackstone \u201ccompelled\u201d Ancestry.com to disclose Plaintiffs\u2019 genetic data under Section 30 of the GIPA.\u00a0 The District Court agreed with Blackstone that \u201ccompel[ing]\u201d the disclosure of genetic information necessarily requires something more than receipt or obtainment, yet Plaintiffs alleged only that Blackstone \u201cmay have been entitled to request or receive information from Ancestry in connection with the[] acquisition.\u201d\u00a0 Bridges v. Blackstone Grp., Inc.<\/em>, No. 21-CV-1091, 2022 WL 2643968, at *4 (S.D. Ill. July 8, 2022).<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit\u2019s Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court\u2019s dismissal of Plaintiffs\u2019 GIPA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).<\/p>\n

Regarding the District Court\u2019s reason for granting Blackstone\u2019s motion to dismiss, the Seventh Circuit held that it need not answer the question \u201cover whether GIPA liability can attach to a company like Blackstone that allegedly receives protected information, rather than discloses that information,\u201d because Plaintiffs \u201chave failed to state a claim regardless.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/em> at *2.<\/p>\n

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that it is not plausible to infer that \u201ca run-of-the-mill corporate acquisition, without more alleged about that transaction, results in a compulsory disclosure within the meaning of Section 30.\u201d\u00a0 Bridges v. Blackstone Grp., Inc.<\/em>, No. 22-2486, Order at 4 (7th Cir. May 1, 2023) (\u201cAll we can say with certainty about Blackstone’s all-stock acquisition of Ancestry is that a change in ownership occurred \u2013 nothing more.\u201d).<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers <\/strong><\/p>\n

One of only a few cases to have interpreted the statute, the Bridges<\/em> decision indicates that a company is not subject to liability under the GIPA based solely on its acquisition of another company that may be in possession of genetic data.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, Bridges<\/em> serves as a reminder to Illinois employers that collect genetic information, medical histories, and\/or conduct \u201chealth screenings\u201d\u00a0as part of their application processes about the importance of complying with the GIPA.<\/p>\n

The GIPA\u2019s statutory text mirrors the BIPA\u2019s text in important (and potentially concerning) ways, including that (i) a plaintiff can likely sue under the GIPA regardless of whether an actual injury is alleged; and (ii) following the Illinois Supreme Court\u2019s logic as applied to the BIPA in Cothron v. White Castle<\/em>, 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023) (see<\/em> here<\/a>), statutory damages may accrue under the GIPA each separate time a company \u201cdisclose[s] or [is] compelled to disclose\u201d genetic data protected by the GIPA.\u00a0 Thus, it is possible that plaintiffs will file increased numbers of GIPA class actions in Illinois courts in the coming months and years.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Tyler Z. Zmick Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0\u00a0On May 1, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued one of only a handful of decisions that have been released regarding the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (\u201cGIPA\u201d).\u00a0 In Bridges v. Blackstone, Inc., No. 22-2486, 2023 … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of \u201cBare Bones\u201d Lawsuit Brought Under Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,12],"class_list":["post-475","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-privacy-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":12,"user_id":578,"is_guest":0,"slug":"tzzmick","display_name":"Tyler Z. Zmick","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/zmicktyler-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475","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\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=475"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=475"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=475"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=475"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=475"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}