Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Is the Appropriate Statute of Limitations Period for BIPA Claims?
Over the past three years, one of the hottest class action litigation trends in the United States has been Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. BIPA requires entities that collect biometric information or identifiers to obtain prior written consent, provide notice of biometric privacy practices, and maintain reasonable security features to protect any collected data. Although BIPA was enacted in 2008, the law went largely unnoticed until 2016, leading many companies to unknowingly operate outside of strict compliance with the law for nearly a decade. Unfortunately, this could be a costly mistake, as BIPA provides a private right of action as well as statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation.
At the same time, in a perfect storm for plaintiffs' attorneys, the use of biometric information grew exponentially. Aside from high-tech uses for biometric information, such as the facial recognition technology at issue in the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Patel v. Facebook Inc., 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir. 2019), employers increasingly implemented biometric finger or hand print scanners to track their employees' attendance and hours. The increased use of biometric information combined with the plaintiffs' bar's discovery of a long-neglected privacy statute with a private right of action has resulted in hundreds class action lawsuits under BIPA in the last three years. The lion's share of these lawsuits have been brought by hourly employees against their employers, or ex-employers.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
How AI Has Affected PR
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.