Tag: lawsuit

Court Reversed Order Appointing Temporary Administrator Due To A Lack Of A Bond

In In re Robinett, a party filed a petition for writ of mandamus, challenging a trial court’s order appointing a temporary administrator. No. 03-21-00649-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 926 (Tex. App.—Austin February 9, 2022, original proc.). The petitioner complained that the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing and also appointed a temporary administrator without a bond. Regarding the hearing complaint, the court of appeals disagreed:

Under Section 55.001 of the Texas Estates Code, “[a] person interested in an estate may, at any time before the court decides an issue in a proceeding, file written opposition regarding the issue.” Relators are correct that such interested persons are entitled “to process for witness and evidence, and to be heard on the opposition.” Id. But, based on the record before us, they did not file any “written opposition” to the appointment until they filed their motion to reconsider three days after the appointment had already been decided. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by appointing the temporary administrator without first conducting a hearing pursuant to Section 55.001 because there was no requirement for the trial court to hold a hearing under that statute.

Id. The court, however, agreed that the trial court abused its discretion by appointing the temporary administrator without bond:

The Estates Code expressly requires that the order appointing a temporary administrator “set the amount of bond to be given by the appointee.” Moreover, the Estates Code requires that a party must enter into a bond unless they meet one of a limited number of exceptions: (1) a will directs that no bond be required; (2) all the relevant parties consent to not requiring bond; or (3) the appointee is a corporate fiduciary. And other statutory provisions require a hearing and evidence before “setting the amount of a bond.” Based on the record before us, there is no evidence that the temporary administrator met any of the exceptions to the bonding requirement, nor is there any indication that the trial court undertook any evidentiary hearing regarding the bond amount. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the statutory requirements for setting bonds as part of a temporary administrator appointment.

Id.

© 2022 Winstead PC.
For more articles about civil procedures in litigation, visit the NLR Civil Procedure section.

Wisconsin Judge Rules that the WDNR Lacks Authority to Regulate PFAS

On April 12, 2022, a Wisconsin judge ruled in the case of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, Inc. and Leather Rich, Inc. v. WDNR, (Waukesha County Case 2021CV000342) that the WDNR lacks the authority to regulate PFAS chemicals because the Wisconsin Legislature has not established regulatory standards for them. According to the lawsuit, Leather Rich, Inc. entered into a voluntary WDNR environmental cleanup program in 2019, and the following year WDNR indicated that the businesses enrolled in the program were required to test for emerging contaminants, including PFAS. The plaintiffs in the case argued that because the WDNR had created a list of emerging contaminants without any legislative oversight or opportunity for public comment, and had not adopted regulatory standards through administrative rulemaking, the WDNR lacked the authority to require such testing. The judge’s ruling would require the WDNR to wait until legislators have established standards for PFAS through adoption of regulatory limits in state law or through administrative rules. It is estimated that the adoption of standards for PFAS could require 1-2 years. An attorney for the WDNR indicated that the WDNR plans to appeal the decision and file a motion to place the judge’s order on hold.

The WDNR has historically taken the position that the agency has authority under Wisconsin’s “Hazardous Substance Spill Act” (“Spill Act” – Wis. Stats. 292.11) to regulate PFAS even in the absence of established standards, as the Spill Act gives the WDNR broad authority to require testing and remediation of such chemicals. In late February, the WDNR’s Natural Resources Board (NRB)—the entity that sets policy for the WDNR—took steps toward the adoption of statewide standards for two of the most common PFAS compounds, which included an approval to adopt a drinking water standard of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of the most common PFAS compounds; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and polyfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).

PFAS is an acronym for per- and polyfluorolalkyl substances, which are chemicals that were widely used from the 1960s to the early 2000s in the manufacture of a variety of consumer products, such as stain resistant carpets, non-stick cookware (e.g., Teflon), firefighting foam, food packaging (e.g., microwave popcorn bags/pizza boxes), water resistant clothing (e.g., pre-2000 GoreTex), water resistant repellent (e.g., Scotchgard) and dental floss. While the use of PFAS compounds has largely been phased out in the U.S., these compounds are still used in the manufacturing of many products worldwide. These substances, known as “forever chemicals,” have received considerable attention by federal and state environmental regulatory agencies because of their resistance to chemical breakdown due to the chemical bond between carbon and fluorine atoms in the PFAS compounds, which is one of the strongest in nature. Because of this, humans can still be exposed to PFAS long after the chemicals were released into the environment.

The WDNR has identified approximately 90 sites throughout Wisconsin with PFAS contamination, including municipalities such as Madison, Marinette, Peshtigo and Wausau with PFAS-contaminated groundwater.

©2022 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
For more articles about state lawsuits, visit the NLR Litigation section.

Agriculture Groups Sue FDA on Chlorpyrifos Ban

  • As previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on August 30, 2021 that revoked all tolerances for the pesticide chemical chlorpyrifos on raw agricultural commodities; the rulemaking was driven by toxicity concerns, primarily concerning exposure in children. The tolerances are set to expire on February 28, 2022, effectively banning the use of chlorpyrifos on food crops. In light of the expiration, FDA published a guidance document to assist food producers and processors that handle foods which may contain chlorpyrifos restudies.
  • In October of 2021, agriculture stakeholders submitted formal written objections and a request to stay the tolerance revocations to EPA. More than 80 stakeholders signed the document, arguing that significant harms would result from banning chlorpyrifos and urging the agency to stay implementation of the rule until objections were formally addressed by EPA.
  • Agriculture stakeholder groups are now seeking a court injunction against EPA’s ban on chlorpyrifos. On February 10, 2022, agricultural trade groups representing thousands of members filed a lawsuit against EPA before the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the agency ignored its own scientific findings regarding 11 high-benefit and low-risk crop uses for chlorpyrifos and that the revocation will cause irreparable damage. It remains to be seen how EPA will respond to the lawsuit.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

On February 14, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the company’s collection and use of biometric data. The suit alleges that Meta collected and used Texans’ facial geometry data in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (“CUBI”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The lawsuit is significant because it represents the first time the Texas Attorney General’s Office has brought suit under CUBI.

The suit focuses on Meta’s “tag suggestions” feature, which the company has since retired. The feature scanned faces in users’ photos and videos to suggest “tagging” (i.e., identify by name) users who appeared in the photos and videos. In the complaint, Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Meta,  collected and analyzed individuals’ facial geometry data (which constitutes biometric data under CUBI) without their consent, shared the data with third parties, and failed to destroy the data in a timely matter, all in violation of CUBI and the DTPA. CUBI regulates the collection and use of biometric data for commercial purposes, and the DTPA prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Among other forms of relief, the complaint seeks an injunction enjoining Meta from violating these laws, a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation of CUBI, and a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of the DTPA. The suit follows Facebook’s $650 million class-action settlement over alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Privacy Act and the company’s discontinuance of the tag suggestions feature last year.

Article By Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice Group

For more privacy and cybersecurity legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright © 2022, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Texas AG Sues Meta Over Collection and Use of Biometric Data

On February 14, 2022, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton brought suit against Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, over the company’s collection and use of biometric data. The suit alleges that Meta collected and used Texans’ facial geometry data in violation of the Texas Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (“CUBI”) and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”). The lawsuit is significant because it represents the first time the Texas Attorney General’s Office has brought suit under CUBI.

The suit focuses on Meta’s “tag suggestions” feature, which the company has since retired. The feature scanned faces in users’ photos and videos to suggest “tagging” (i.e., identify by name) users who appeared in the photos and videos. In the complaint, Attorney General Ken Paxton alleged that Meta,  collected and analyzed individuals’ facial geometry data (which constitutes biometric data under CUBI) without their consent, shared the data with third parties, and failed to destroy the data in a timely matter, all in violation of CUBI and the DTPA. CUBI regulates the collection and use of biometric data for commercial purposes, and the DTPA prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

Among other forms of relief, the complaint seeks an injunction enjoining Meta from violating these laws, a $25,000 civil penalty for each violation of CUBI, and a $10,000 civil penalty for each violation of the DTPA. The suit follows Facebook’s $650 million class-action settlement over alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Privacy Act and the company’s discontinuance of the tag suggestions feature last year.

This article was written by the team at Hunton Andrews Kurth. For more articles about biometric information protection, please see here.

A Warning to One, A Warning to All?

As part of their ongoing effort to combat misinformation about COVID-19, federal agencies have issued warning letters to more than 150 companies. While companies know that a warning letter is serious and requires immediate attention, perhaps the greater challenge is what often follows: the so-called “piggyback” class action lawsuit.[1] And recently, plaintiffs’ attorneys have gone one step further: they have been filing “piggyback” class actions not against the company that received the warning letter but against competitors that make similar products.

Because warning letters are publicly available and posted prominently on various agency websites, consumers can view the warning letter and then file a “piggyback” class action against the recipient of the warning letter. Indeed, oftentimes these “piggyback” class actions merely recast the government agency’s allegations as claims for violations of various state consumer protection statutes. For example, in November 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a genetic testing company a warning letter ordering it to stop selling and marketing one of its genome tests because the company had failed to show that the test actually worked. Five days later, the company was hit with a proposed class action for allegedly violating several California consumer protection laws.[2] Dozens of other companies – from hotel chains to cereal manufacturers – have also been hit with piggyback class actions based on warning letters.

But things have changed recently. Consumers have targeted companies that never received a warning letter. These proposed class actions are based largely – sometimes entirely – on the allegations in a warning letter directed to another company. In these cases, the plaintiffs’ theory is that, because the products are similar, the substance of the warning letter “applies equally” to the similar products.

This trend has continued in the COVID-19 era. On January 17, 2020, a week before the first reported case of COVID-19 in the United States, the FDA sent a leading hand sanitizer manufacturer a warning letter telling the company to stop advertising its product as one that can prevent an array of diseases, including Ebola, MRSA, and the flu. The FDA explicitly challenged the product’s claim that it “kills 99.99% of most common germs” because the claim allegedly lacked adequate scientific support. On the heels of FDA’s warning letter, at least six class actions were filed against the manufacturer.[3] Although the claims differ slightly, all of the lawsuits are premised on the same basic theory articulated in the FDA warning letter—which all of the complaints cite.

Then came the copycat piggyback lawsuits. The manufacturer of a competing hand sanitizer was sued in February and March 2020.[4] In one of the complaints, the plaintiff alleged that because both products have the same active ingredient, the FDA’s allegations about labeling apply to both products. Separately, a plaintiff sued a large retailer in a class action making similar claims about its generic hand sanitizer.[5] In that case, the plaintiff argued that the retailer’s labeling was also misleading because it had the same active ingredient as the brand name and implied that its product was as effective as the brand name.

So what should companies do? Here are proactive steps to protect against these lawsuits.

Review labels and advertisements. To protect against “piggyback” class actions, companies should ensure that they have reliable scientific evidence to support their products’ stated claims and alleged benefits, particularly if a competing product that makes similar claims has received a warning letter. Additionally, if a company compares its product to competing products, companies should check to see whether those competing products have ever been the subject of a warning letter.

Monitor guidance from relevant governmental agencies. Companies should also actively monitor guidance from relevant federal or state agencies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agencies have issued and amended guidance more often than they typically do. For example, in March 2020 the FDA issued guidance temporarily relaxing regulatory requirements for production of certain hand sanitizer products. The FDA then revised that guidance on March 28, and again on April 15, 2020. Companies should stay abreast of the most recent guidance to ensure that they are complying with laws and regulations.

Monitor warning letters and enforcement actions against competitors. Of course, a company that receives a warning letter should seek legal advice to determine how to respond. But even if a company does not itself receive a warning letter, companies might learn about federal agencies’ warning letters and enforcement actions against other companies, particularly competitors or companies that make similar products. Where the products are similar, enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys could repurpose a warning or enforcement action against one company’s product into the basis for a class action against its competitors. If a competitor has received a warning letter or been the target of an agency enforcement action, legal counsel may help assess their situation compared to the company’s.

Conclusion

It is a challenging time for companies in so many ways. These lawsuits might be the beginning of a trend of class actions filed both against companies whose products appear on the radar of governmental agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic and against companies that make similar products. The plaintiffs’ bar is closely monitoring agency warning letters. Companies should take that into consideration.

[1] John E. Villafranco and Daniel S. Blynn, The Case of the Piggyback Class Action, Nutritional Outlook (Sept. 2012) (defining a piggyback lawsuit as “a class action lawsuit filed by a private litigant against an advertiser or manufacturer after a federal agency…has already taken regulatory action against the same company on behalf of the public.”)

[2] Aeron v. 23andMe, Inc., No. 13-cv-02847 (S.D. Cal. filed Nov. 27, 2013); see also Dan Munro, Class Action Filed Against 23andMe, Forbes (Dec. 2, 2013, 11:04 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/12/02/class-action-law-suit-f….

[3] DiBartolo v. GOJO Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-01530 (E.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 24, 2020); Miller v. GOJO Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-00562 (N.D. Ohio filed Mar. 13, 2020); Jurkiewicz v. Gojo Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-00279 (N.D. Ohio filed Feb. 9, 2020); Gonzalez v.Gojo Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-00888 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 1, 2020); Aleisa v. Gojo Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-01045 (C.D. Cal. filed Jan. 31, 2020); Marinovich v. Gojo Industries, Inc., No. 20-cv-00747 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 31, 2020).

[4] David v. Vi-Jon, Inc., No. 20-cv-00424 (S.D. Cal. filed Mar. 5, 2020); Sibley v. Vi-Jon, Inc., No. 20-cv-00951 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 7, 2020).

[5] Taslakian v. Target Corp., No. 2:20-cv-02667 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 20, 2020)

© 2020 Schiff Hardin LLP

For more on product’s COVID-19 claims, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

You’ve Been Sued: How to Avoid Early Missteps

Litigation doesn’t have to be catastrophic for a growing company, but it can quickly spiral out of control if not handled properly.  This article will explore issues to consider when your company is faced with a lawsuit

 

Stop All Communications

Most lawsuits don’t come out of the blue.  They usually are preceded by a back-and-forth with the other person or company, sometimes through counsel but often without.  Emerging companies understandably need to keep costs in check, so it is not uncommon for a company to try to deal with a brewing dispute on its own.  But once litigation hits, it is important to put pens down and consult counsel immediately.  Everything you write or say – internally, to the other side, or to anyone else (except your attorney) – can be obtained by the other side during the lawsuit’s discovery process.  You don’t want anyone to write or say something in the early hours of the lawsuit that unnecessarily pins the company down or hurts it later in the litigation.

Preserve Documents and Files

Although it sounds mundane, it is crucial that the company preserve all documents and files that may be relevant to the dispute.  In a nutshell, the company will need to preserve every document that relates to the issues raised in the lawsuit.  And “document” includes both hard copy documents as well as emails, text messages, voicemails, electronic files, and everything else that contains relevant information.  It encompasses more than just the important documents or communications.  It includes anything that bears on the claims asserted in the complaint and your potential defenses to those claims.

Preserving evidence includes obvious things, like not deleting emails, text messages, or electronic files, and not throwing away hardcopy files.  But it also includes less obvious steps, like turning off any settings in your email system that automatically purge messages after a set period of time or after the mailbox reaches a certain size.  It also includes preserving data and files on individual laptops, desktops, and other devices, if that data isn’t saved on a company server or other system.  There are potential landmines everywhere, and failing to preserve relevant evidence – called spoliation – can dramatically affect a case.

Gather the Facts and Understand the Law

It is important to gather and understand the underlying facts as soon as possible.  This involves not only reviewing relevant documents, but also talking to key players who were involved in the matter.  While the process doesn’t have to be exhaustive at this early step, it must be deep enough for the company to be able to make a reasonable assessment of the case.

If there are good facts, you want to know them.  If there are bad facts, you need to know them early, so you can factor them into your decision about how to proceed.  You will need to assess the facts, good and bad, in light of the relevant law and begin to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiff’s claims, as well as your likely defenses and any potential counterclaims you may have against the plaintiff.

Other things you and counsel should consider at the outset are: whether the company has insurance that may cover the lawsuit and any potential settlement or judgment that results; whether someone else has an obligation to indemnify the company in connection with the lawsuit; whether the lawsuit was filed in the right court; whether the plaintiff was required to bring the claim in arbitration rather than court; whether the plaintiff waited too long to sue such that one or more claims may be barred by a statute of limitations; and whether the company has any counterclaims it could assert against the plaintiff.

Establish a Plan

Armed with an understanding of the facts and the relevant law, you should establish a plan for how to proceed with the lawsuit.  Should you fight to the end?  Is it better to settle early?  There’s no one-size-fits-all answer to those questions.  The answer will be unique to your company, the lawsuit you’re facing, and the opposing party with whom you’re dealing.  You should weigh each potential outcome, including the cost to reach that outcome, and assess how it will impact your company.  Be wary of sacrificing business goals for the sake of litigation.

Your plan for the case does not have to be static.  It can change over time, as the litigation unfolds.  Even when you have thoroughly analyzed the available facts at the outset of a case, the landscape almost always changes as the case proceeds and additional evidence comes to light.  Your strategy can evolve with the landscape.

Prepare for the Long Haul

Litigation can be painfully slow.  Few things in litigation happen quickly, and it usually takes more than a year to get to trial, and sometimes two or three years depending on the type of case.  After the Complaint is filed and served, there typically will be motions practice, additional pleadings, and an extended period of discovery where the parties gather and produce relevant documents, depose fact witnesses, and retain expert witnesses to provide reports and give testimony.  It is a long process, and parties should be prepared for the possibility that it could take years for the case to wind its way through it and get to trial.

Settlement Considerations

Although you need to prepare your case as though it will go to trial, the reality is that almost all cases eventually settle.  Some cases are resolved through direct discussions between the parties (typically through counsel).  Others are settled through the use of a mediator, who serves as an independent third party to foster settlement discussions and attempt to resolve the dispute.  Mediation is voluntary, and the mediator cannot force either party to settle.  But an effective mediator can bring a fresh perspective to a lawsuit, giving each side an unvarnished view of how a judge and jury may see their case.  That alone can serve as a useful reality check to parties who have been living with a case for months or years and may have difficulty viewing it dispassionately.

Conclusion

No company wants to be sued.  But the odds are that your company will face at least one lawsuit in its lifetime.  By knowing what to expect and being proactive when it happens, you can avoid some of the pitfalls that strike less prepared companies.  And by approaching it with a clear plan and developed strategy, you can put your company in the best position to prevail in the lawsuit or resolve it on favorable terms.

Read more about Legal Issues for High-Growth Technology Companies: The Series.

© 1998-2018 Wiggin and Dana LLP
This post was written by Joseph C. Merschman of Wiggin and Dana LLP.

Illinois Employers Face A Recent Rash of Class Action Lawsuits Filed Under State Biometric Information Privacy Law

Illinois enacted its Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) in 2008 to regulate, among other things, employer collection and use of employee biometric information.  Biometrics is defined as the measurement and analysis of physical and behavioral characteristics.  This analysis produces biometric identifiers that include things like fingerprints, iris or face scans, and voiceprints, all of which can be used in a variety of ways, including for security, timekeeping, and employer wellness programs.

Illinois is not the only state with a biometrics privacy law on its books, however, its version is considered the nation’s most stringent.  BIPA requires a business that collects and uses biometric data to protect the data in the same manner it protects other sensitive or confidential information; to establish data retention and destruction procedures, including temporal limitations of three years; to publish policies outlining its biometric data collection and use procedures; and to obtain prior, informed consent from any individuals from whom it plans to obtain and use biometric data.   The statute also requires  businesses to notify employees in the event of a data breach.

Protection of biometric data is viewed as critical because, unlike passwords comprised of letters, numbers, or typographical characters, biometric data is unique and cannot be replaced or updated in the event of a breach.  Technology now allows biometric data to be captured surreptitiously, such as recording a voice over the phone, or face mapping individuals in a crowd or through photographs, increasing the risk for its theft or unauthorized or at least, unknown, use.  In fact, these more furtive methods of collecting and using biometric data is what led to the filing of five BIPA class action lawsuits in 2015 – four against Facebook, and one against online photo website Shutterfly – that alleged these companies used facial recognition software to analyze online posts, but did not comply with BIPA’s consent or other procedural requirements.  These first lawsuits brought attention to the private right of action authorized under BIPA, which provides that any “aggrieved” person may sue and recover $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, or, in both circumstances, actual damages if greater than the statutory damages.  Prevailing parties may also recover their attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiffs’ employment bar recently has gotten seriously into the BIPA class action game; since August 2017, approximately 30 lawsuits have been filed in Cook County, Illinois (where Chicago is), alone.  These putative class actions have been filed against employers in many industries including gas stations, restaurants, and retail, and typically involve the employer’s use of fingerprint operated time clocks.  The cases allege that the defendant employers failed to obtain proper informed consent or fail to maintain and inform employees about policies on the company’s use, storage, and destruction of biometric data.  Many of these lawsuits also allege the employer companies have improperly shared employee biometric data with third-party time clock vendors, and some even name the vendor as a defendant.

In addition to the obvious cost of class action litigation, these suits present additional legal challenges because many aspects of BIPA remain untested.  For example, the statutory term “aggrieved” person leaves open the question whether a plaintiff must be able to prove actual harm in order to recover.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York both have dismissed BIPA suits for lack of standing where the plaintiffs did not allege actual harm.  The latter case, Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, is currently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument in October 2017, but has not yet issued its ruling.   Other aspects of BIPA also remain in flux – such as whether facial recognition through photography is biometric data, as defined under the statute, and what forms of consent are compliant.  On the other side, defendants are challenging the constitutionality of the damages provisions, arguing that their potentially disproportionate nature to any actual harm violates due process.  As these issues are flushed out under BIPA, they are certain to affect other states who have already enacted, or may seek to enact, laws regarding use of biometric data.

This post was written by Daniel B. Pasternak of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP., © Copyright 2017
For more Labor & Employment legal analysis go to The National Law Review 

Employees Sue for Fingerprint Use

Employees of Peacock Foods, an Illinois-based food product manufacturer, recently filed a lawsuit against their employer for alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. Under BIPA, companies that collect biometric information must inter alia have a written retention policy (that they follow). As part of the policy, the law states that they must delete biometric information after they no long need it, or three years after the last transaction with the individual. Companies also need consent to collect the information under the Illinois law, cannot sell information, and if shared must get consent for such sharing.

According to the plaintiff-employees, Peacock Foods used their fingerprints for a time tracking system without explaining in writing how the saved fingerprints would be used, or if they would be shared with third parties. According to the employees, this violated BIPA’s requirement for explaining -in the consent request- how information would be used and how long it would be kept. The employees also alleged that Peacock Foods did not have a retention schedule and program in place for deleting biometric data. The employees are currently seeking class certification.

Putting it Into Practice: This case is a reminder that plaintiffs’ class action lawyers are looking at BIPA and possible complaints that can be brought under the law. To address the Illinois law – and similar ones in Texas and Washington – companies should look at the notice and consent process they have in place.   

This post was written by Liisa M. Thomas & Mukund H. Sharma of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP., Copyright © 2017

For more Labor & Employment legal analysis, go to The National Law Review