18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

678 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition regarding accrual issues was not necessary. The Court also held that Plaintiff plausibly alleged a claim under § 15(b) by the allegations in the complaint, which were sufficient to survive dismissal. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to stay. Ramos, et al. v. Puma North America, Inc., Case No. 21-CV-3192 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2021). Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by implementing a biometric fingerprint timekeeping system that collected, store, and used employees’ biometric data. Defendant requested that the Court stay Plaintiff’s action pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s future decisions in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville and Tims v. Blackhorse Carriers, and the Seventh Circuit’s future opinion in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc. The Court agreed that the best course of action would be to stay the matter, since central to the lawsuit were questions of preemption and the application of statute of limitations, which were to be addressed by the Illinois Supreme Court. The Court also reasoned that the issue of when certain BIPA claims accrued was before the Seventh Circuit, and the answer to that question would go hand-in-hand with the statute of limitations issue. The Court concluded that any prejudice to Plaintiff was outweighed by judicial economy. For these reasons, the Court found that a stay was warranted, and granted Defendant’s motion. Roberts, et al. v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154541 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2021). Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA" through its use of hand geometry scans. Defendant filed a motion for a stay of all proceedings pending decisions from the Seventh Circuit in In Re White Castle System, Inc., Case No. 20-CV-8029 (N.D. Ill. 2020), and two pending Illinois Appellate Courts’ decisions in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc ., Case No. 1-20-0562, and Marion v. Ring Container Techs., LLC , Case No. 3-20-0184. Defendant contended that the issues raised in the appeals were fundamental to this matter. In White Castle, the Seventh Circuit would decide when BIPA claims accrue, and specifically determine whether a private entity violates the BIPA when it first collects or discloses an individual’s biometric information or identifiers, or whether a private entity violates the BIPA each time it collects or discloses biometric data in violation of § § 15(b) or 15(d). Id . at *2. Likewise, in Tims and Marion , the Illinois Appellate Court could decide the statute of limitations period for BIPA claims. Plaintiff asserted that a stay would greatly prejudice him by restricting his ability to conduct discovery. Further, Plaintiff contended that the Court could resolve Defendant’s statute of limitations arguments without guidance from the Illinois Appellate Court, and that none of the issues currently before the Court implicated the accrual date of Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff further argued that the date of his claims’ accrual was not an issue before the Court, and therefore a decision in White Castle would not assist the Court in streamlining or narrowing any issues. The Court rejected Plaintiff’s position. It opined that a finding on the accrual date was also relevant in this matter. Specifically, should the Seventh Circuit determine in White Castle that BIPA claims only accrued once, it could determine the rights of the parties and guide the litigation here. Id . at *6. Similarly, the Court found that the decisions in Tims and Marion might also advance judicial economy because both cases would address the currently unsettled question of which statute of limitations period applies to BIPA claims. The Court thus held that any prejudice to Plaintiff was not undue and that a stay was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to stay. Siegel, et al. v. Zoominfo Technologies , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180351 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2021). Plaintiff, a consumer, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the Illinois Right to Privacy Act (“IRPA”) by disclosing personal information of users. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied. Section 30(a) of IRPA provides that "A person may not use an individual’s identity for commercial purposes . . . without having obtained previous written consent[.]" Id . at *3. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant used landing pages for each individual found within its database, which included that individual’s name, phone numbers, email addresses, and other personal information. Defendant provided previews of these pages to users in order to encourage sales of monthly membership plans that would reveal all of the personal information. Plaintiff asserted that Defendant’s intent with the landing page previews was to sell the monthly access to the full service, and Defendant thus misappropriated people’s identities for its own commercial benefit without obtaining written consent. Defendant contended that Plaintiff failed to establish that her information was used to sell a product, and that its previews did not “attempt to steer users to purchase a subscription" because when a consumer clicks certain hyperlinks Defendant provided an offer to start free trial access to its database, which