Search:
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Contributors
Archives
Legal developments in data, privacy, cybersecurity, and other emerging technology issues
On February 17, 2023, the FTC brought its first civil enforcement action under the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 C.F.R. Part 310 (“TSR”), in nearly one year. In U.S. v. Stratics Networks Inc., et al., which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the FTC seeks to stop a group of companies and individuals that it claims are “responsible for delivering tens of millions of unwanted Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and ringless voicemail (RVM) phony debt service robocalls to consumers nationwide.” Because the FTC is seeking civil penalties, the Complaint was filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC.
In an eye-opening 4-3 decision issued on Friday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a separate Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) claim accrues “with every scan or transmission of biometric identifiers or biometric information without prior informed consent.” Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004 ¶ 45. The decision may have staggering consequences on all pending BIPA cases, converting what might have been a single claim, into thousands of separate claims for $1,000 or $5,000 (depending on whether the violation is negligent or willful). The impact of the decision is even more severe in light of the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801, applying a five-year statute of limitations to all BIPA claims.
The Illinois Supreme Court has issued its highly anticipated ruling in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801, which expands the statute of limitations period for certain claims under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) from one year to five years. The Court reversed in part a previous ruling by the appellate court, which held that a one-year limitations period applied to claims under subsections 15(c) and (d) of BIPA, prohibiting the sale and unauthorized disclosure of biometric data, and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment that a five-year period applied to other claims under BIPA.