{"id":39023,"date":"2019-08-10T00:57:30","date_gmt":"2019-08-10T05:57:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=39023"},"modified":"2019-08-09T17:58:47","modified_gmt":"2019-08-09T22:58:47","slug":"ca9-standing-shown-to-sue-facebook-under-illinois-biometric-information-privacy-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=39023","title":{"rendered":"CA9: Standing shown to sue Facebook under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Plaintiffs stated Art. III standing to bring a class action against Facebook for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. <a href=\"http:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2019\/08\/08\/18-15982.pdf\">Patel v. Facebook, Inc.<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).* Summary by the court:<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The panel affirmed the district court&#8217;s order certifying a class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 of users of Facebook, Inc., who alleged that Facebook&#8217;s facial-recognition technology violated Illinois&#8217;s Biometric Information Privacy Act (&#8220;BIPA&#8221;).\t<\/p>\n<p>The panel held that plaintiffs alleged a concrete and particularized harm, sufficient to confer Article III standing, because BIPA protected the plaintiffs&#8217; concrete privacy interest, and violations of the procedures in BIPA actually harmed or posed a material risk of harm to those privacy interests. Specifically, the panel concluded that the development of a face template using facial-recognition technology without consent (as alleged in this case) invades an individual&#8217;s private affairs and concrete interests.<\/p>\n<p>The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Specifically, the panel rejected Facebook&#8217;s argument that Illinois&#8217;s extraterritoriality doctrine precluded the district court from finding predominance. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a class action was superior to individual actions in this case.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Plaintiffs stated Art. III standing to bring a class action against Facebook for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2019).* Summary by the court:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-surveillance-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39023","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=39023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39024,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39023\/revisions\/39024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=39023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=39023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=39023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}