Last Thursday, the Seventh Circuit issued its fourth opinion in
two years addressing Article III standing in the context of
Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The court
handed the plaintiff in Thornley v.
Clearview AI, Inc. a "win," concluding she
lacked Article III standing to pursue her BIPA claims in federal
court and, therefore, affirming the district court's decision
to grant her motion to remand the case back to state court. Given
the recurring nature of the topic, the evolving standards and
strategies at issue in BIPA cases, and the potentially broader
implications in consumer protection litigation in the circuit, a
brief recap is in order.
Background
Adopted in 2008, BIPA regulates "the collection, use,
safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of
biometric identifiers and information" (i.e.,fingerprints,
iris scans, voiceprints). BIPA prohibits private parties both from
collecting biometric identifiers and generating
