Last year, some in state Facebook users invoked the Illinois biometrics privacy law and sued FB, claiming it violated their privacy rights by not obtaining permission from them in advance for its photo tagging system.
For good or ill, Facebook settled, even though users, using the service voluntarily, could set parameters for the viewing of their posts and the tagging of their photos.
The use of biometrics is a legitimate concern, even when optional, and especially when compulsory. Nevertheless, the resistance to it is not always sincere.
Also last year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made it easier for targeted defendants to have cases removed to federal court – beyond the reach of plaintiff-friendly state courts.
The Appeals Court panel overruled a Chicago federal judge who’d decided that class actions over fingerprint scans need not be heard in federal court because they do not represent concrete injuries.
That class action was filed in Cook County court against Compass Group, whose vending machines process transactions using fingerprint scanners.
More recently, a state appeals panel ruled that class action suits filed under the biometrics privacy law can cover claims from five years before the lawsuit was filed, not just one. The decision has alarmed Illinois businessmen whose employees clock in and out with digital scans. The employers, theoretically, could be subject to substantial fines for each and every scan, twice daily for five years, for each and every employee.
The impact could be devastating, leading ultimately to bankruptcy for thousands of businesses and unemployment for tens of thousands of workers.
This more recent decision involved a class action brought in Cook County Circuit Court against Black Horse Carriers, who allegedly required workers to scan their fingerprints without first securing their written consent or informing them why scans were needed, and how data would be stored, shared, etc.
Maybe the courts can sort this out. Maybe, if businesses respected the privacy of their employees, and those employees insisted on that respect, this wouldn’t be an issue for the courts.