DashCam Developer Insulated From BIPA Liability

On November 3, 2022, an Illinois circuit court judge dismissed a Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act or BIPA) putative class action against Samsara, Inc., a DashCam developer. DashCam is a safety technology for trucking companies such as Samsara’s customer and co-defendant, Beelman Truck Co. The DashCam device points an internet-connected dashboard camera at the driver to detect risky driving behaviors.

First Jury Verdict Issued in Illinois Biometric Privacy Act Class Action

On October 12, 2022, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois concluded that a company violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act or BIPA) 45,600 times over six years by collecting truck drivers’ fingerprints to verify identities without the informed, written consent the Privacy Act requires.

No Grand Bargain: Illinois Supreme Court Rejects Exclusive Remedy Preemption in Privacy Act Class Actions

On February 3, 2022, in McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, the Illinois Supreme Court held the exclusive remedy provisions of the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (“Compensation Act”) do not preempt employee statutory damages claims under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“Privacy Act”).

The Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act: Privacy Implications of Illinois’s AI Statute

It’s time for employers to start preparing for legislation recently signed into law in Illinois, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview Act. The new law, which takes effect on January 1, 2020, regulates Illinois employers’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the interview and hiring process.

Seventh Circuit Invites Supreme Court to Make Sexual Orientation Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

Bound by its own precedent, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals again held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not redress sexual orientation discrimination in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, (7th Cir. July 28, 2016). The opinion could have ended there, and perhaps it would have, if penned by any other judge.