* Bloomberg…

Recent changes to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act aimed at limiting damages awards apply to lawsuits that were filed before the amendments were enacted, a federal judge ruled.

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Wednesday tossed out a BIPA lawsuit against Michigan-based trucking company Central Transport LLC after finding that the maximum amount of damages available to plaintiff John Gregg under the new provisions didn’t meet the threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.

The decision is here.

* More…

The Court recognized there is a general presumption that the legislature intends to change existing law when it passes a statutory amendment. Under such circumstances, courts must determine whether that change should be applied retroactively. However, where circumstances surrounding the amendment’s enactment show the legislature only intended to clarify (rather than change) the original law, the amendment should be applied as though it existed at the time the legislature passed the original statute. That, the Court held, is what happened when the legislature passed its recent amendment to BIPA.

* Another judge appeared to concur…

Similarly, in Ulysses Ballard v. Freedman Seating Company, Judge Catherine A. Schneider recently transferred a BIPA case out of the Law Division and to the First Municipal District for its failure to meet the $30,000 minimum damages threshold required for jurisdiction in the Law Division following the enactment of the Bill. Defendant, in that case, argued that the Bill clarifies and explains the Illinois General Assembly’s intent regarding the assessment of damages under BIPA and, therefore, is properly applied to all cases pending on the date of the enactment. Judge Schneider’s Order granting defendant’s motion to transfer the case appears to adopt this reasoning.

* Capitol News Illinois…

Gov. JB Pritzker signed a bill in August that clarified when a business improperly obtains biometric information of an employee or customer, the violation happens just one time, instead of each time the biometric data is obtained. For example, if an employee signs into their job with a fingerprint timeclock each day without giving their employer written consent to collect their biometric data, the company would be in violation of the law one time rather than each time the timeclock is used.

A prior interpretation of the law by the courts caused many businesses to pay out enormous settlements to employees or customers for violations of Illinois’ law, which is the only of its kind in the country. The Illinois Supreme Court invited the General Assembly to clarify the law after a case against White Castle wound up with the fast food chain potentially on the hook for $17 billion in damages, though it was ultimately settled for $9.4 million. State law stipulates damages are awarded for $1,000 for each “negligent” violation and $5,000 for each “reckless” or “intentional” violation.

“Because in this context employees are often required to scan each workday, sometimes multiple times per day, an important question arose: do BIPA claims accrue each time there is a biometric scan and each time that scan is transmitted to a third party, or do those claims only accrue upon the first scan and transmission?” Bucklo wrote in her opinion.

State lawmakers ultimately voted earlier this year to amend BIPA to show they intend for violations to occur once per person rather than each time data is obtained from a person.