* Seyfarth Shaw analysis last September of Tims v. Black Horse Carriers…

 Following an Illinois appellate court’s decision that a one-year limitations period applies to certain sections of the [Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act] while a five-year period applies to other sections, the sole issue on appeal for the Supreme Court is to identify the proper statute of limitations for claims under the BIPA. […]

This case originated in March 2019, when plaintiffs Jerome Tims and Isaac Watson filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, logistics company Black Horse Carriers, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that the company unlawfully collected, possessed, and disclosed their fingerprints in violation of BIPA when the employees clocked in and out of work using a finger scanning timeclock. The company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims as untimely, arguing that, because the BIPA does not contain its own statute of limitations, the court should apply the one-year limitations period for privacy actions set forth in § 5/13-201. The plaintiffs countered that the five-year “catch-all” limitations period contained in § 5/13-205 was more appropriate for actions under the BIPA.

In a somewhat unique ruling on interlocutory appeal, the Illinois First District Appellate Court effectively “split the baby” by holding that both the one-year and five-year limitations periods applied to different sections of the Act. Specifically, the Appellate Court reasoned that the one-year period from § 201 applies to BIPA Sections 15(c) and 15(d) because these sections involve “publication” of biometric data, which is a term explicitly used in § 201. Conversely, since the Appellate Court found that Sections 15(a), (b), and (e) of the BIPA do not involve publication of an individual’s biometric data, it applied the five-year limitations period from § 205 to these sections. The defendant subsequently appealed this decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. […]

Given the flood of BIPA class action lawsuits filed against Illinois businesses after the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019), employers should pay special attention to the decision in Tims. The Illinois Supreme Court Justices did not suggest that they would rule in a certain way during oral arguments, but one takeaway was evident: the Supreme Court may not uphold the Appellate Court’s decision in its entirety. Nevertheless, while a decision in Black Horse’s favor would not fully curtail this recent wave of BIPA filings, it would certainly help limit the number of plaintiffs eligible to sue under the BIPA, as well as the potential amount of damages owed to these plaintiffs. [Emphasis added]

* Bad news for the defendants today at the Illinois Supreme Court…

(W)e find that, because the Act does not have its own limitations period; because the subsections are causes of action “not otherwise provided for”; and because we must ensure certainty, predictability, and uniformity as to when the limitations period expires in each subsection, the Act is subject to the default five-year limitations period found in section 13-205 of the Code. […]

In light of the extensive consideration the General Assembly gave to the fears of and risks to the public surrounding the disclosure of highly sensitive biometric information, it would thwart legislative intent to (1) shorten the amount of time an aggrieved party would have to seek redress for a private entity’s noncompliance with the Act and (2) shorten the amount of time a private entity would be held liable for noncompliance with the Act. […]

(T)he full ramifications of the harms associated with biometric technology is unknown, and absent the Act’s protections, it is unclear when or if an individual would discover evidence of the disclosure of his or her biometrics in violation of the Act. Moreover, a shorter limitations period would prejudice those whom the Act is intended to protect. Therefore, we find that a longer limitations period would comport with the public welfare and safety aims of the General Assembly by allowing an aggrieved party sufficient time to discover the violation and take action.

For the aforementioned reasons, we find that the five-year limitations period contained in section 13-205 of the Code controls claims under the Act. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the appellate court and remand the cause to the circuit court for further proceedings.

…Adding… ATRA…

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) is disappointed in today’s decision out of the Illinois Supreme Court to expand the statute of limitations to five years for Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) claims, reversing an intermediate appellate court that put a one-year limit on claims.

This decision will have far-reaching consequences for businesses in Illinois and across the country, and will only exacerbate Cook County’s status as a “Judicial Hellhole®.”

“This decision is a setback for any businesses that operate in Illinois,” ATRA President Tiger Joyce said. “Expanding the statute of limitations for BIPA claims will only encourage more lawsuits and create an environment of legal uncertainty for businesses which will be exposed to an undue risk of litigation for an extended period of time.”

Trial lawyers have cashed in on the existing ambiguity in BIPA by targeting businesses that use this technology. They’ll often find a business that didn’t follow a small, technical portion of the law, then use that as a basis for a class action lawsuit, even though their clients didn’t suffer any harm or injury.

The large monetary penalties associated with BIPA have led to a surge in lawsuit filings under BIPA in recent years, and the expansion of the statute of limitations will only add fuel to the fire.

The climate for lawsuit abuse in Illinois is already bad, as demonstrated by the $228 million verdict delivered in the first-ever BIPA case that went to trial last year. The case was originally filed in Cook County and ended with a federal jury delivering the massive verdict, even though the plaintiffs didn’t claim any actual injury.

“The decision by the Illinois Supreme Court to expand the statute of limitations for BIPA claims will only increase the number of frivolous lawsuits and make it even harder for businesses to defend themselves,” Joyce said. “It’s time for the state to rein in these excessive penalties and put a stop to the endless cycle of lawsuit abuse that is driving up costs for consumers and businesses alike.”

In the recent annual report from the American Tort Reform Foundation, Cook County, Illinois was named the fifth-worst “Judicial Hellhole®” in the nation. The report cites the prevalence of no-injury lawsuits filed under BIPA.