In an Illinois privacy complaint, White Castle might be smacked with a $16 billion dollar verdict. The highest court in Illinois ruled on Friday that firms are in violation of the state’s distinctive biometric privacy legislation each time they misuse a person’s private information, not just the first time. This decision could subject companies to fines worth billions of dollars.
White Castle System Inc., a fast-food franchise, must answer allegations that it regularly scanned the fingerprints of roughly 9,500 employees without their authorization, according to a 4-3 ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court. The corporation argues that this might cost it more than $17 billion.
Penalties for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) include $1,000 per infraction and $5,000 for willful or malicious violations. The law mandates that organizations acquire consent before taking employee and customer fingerprints, retinal scans, and other biometric data.
The plaintiff, Latrina Cothron, filed a lawsuit against White Castle, claiming that White Castle had violated the BIPA by requiring employees to scan their fingerprints in order to access pay stubs and then giving the fingerprint images to a third-party vendor in charge of running the fingerprint scanning system.
According to the plaintiff, every time her fingerprint was scanned or transmitted without her knowledge, a different BIPA violation occurred, resulting in individual legal consequences of $1,000 to $5,000 each.
In 2020, a lawsuit was filed against White Castle alleging that the company had violated Illinois’ biometric privacy law by using its employees’ fingerprints to track their hours worked without obtaining proper consent or providing adequate disclosures. The lawsuit is still ongoing.
In 2019, White Castle was sued by a customer who claimed that the company’s booths were too small and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
In 2017, a former White Castle employee filed a lawsuit against the company alleging that she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor and that the company had failed to take appropriate action. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
In 2009, White Castle was sued by a customer who claimed that the company’s booths were too small and violated the ADA. The case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled that the customer had failed to prove that he had been denied full and equal access to the restaurant.
Privacy laws refer to a set of regulations and legal frameworks that are designed to protect the personal information and data of individuals. These laws aim to ensure that individuals have control over their personal data and prevent the misuse, abuse, or unauthorized access to it by others, including governments, companies, and other organizations.
There are various types of privacy laws, including data protection laws, information privacy laws, and electronic communication privacy laws. These laws vary from country to country, but they generally define the rights of individuals regarding their personal information and data, as well as the obligations of organizations that handle or process such information.
The Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is an Illinois state law that regulates the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers. BIPA allows individuals to sue private entities for violations of the law and provides for statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation.
The question of whether BIPA claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier has been a topic of debate in Illinois courts. The Illinois Appellate Court has issued conflicting decisions on this issue, with some courts holding that a new cause of action accrues each time a person’s biometric identifier is scanned, and others holding that only one cause of action accrues at the time of collection.
Recently, a federal court asked the Illinois Supreme Court to resolve this question. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., the Illinois Supreme Court held that a person need not allege some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under BIPA, in order to qualify as an “aggrieved” person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the Act.
The federal court in the case at hand has sought clarification on whether a new cause of action accrues each time a person’s biometric identifier is scanned or whether only one cause of action accrues at the time of collection. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on this issue will be significant for future BIPA cases and will impact the potential damages that can be recovered by plaintiffs.
Celebrity News Update— Premier Jewelry designer and manufacturer fashion house ParisJewelry.com has started manufacturing a new custom line of celebrity jewelry designs with 30% Off and Free Shipping. Replenish Your Body- Refilter Your Health with OrganicGreek.com Vitamin Bottles, Vitamins and Herbs. Become a WebFans Creator and Influencer.
Walmart Posts Strong Sales at $164.05 billion as Shoppers Look for Discounts
