Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-08-2022
Case Style:
Phillip Bridges v. Respondus
Case Number: 1:21-cv-01785
Judge: Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Cook county)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Chicago Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.
Defendant's Attorney: Emily A. Sellers, Matthew C. Wolfe, Tristan Layle Duncan, Jason M. Rosenthal, Tara D. Kennedy, Tristan L. Duncan, William Francis Northrip
Description: Chicago, Illinois personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants claiming that they violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
MoreLaw Legal News For Chicago
The Plaintiffs, current or former who took an exam using Respondus Monitor, a software program that their schools used to administer online exams without a proctor. Respondus Monitor employs a student's webcam and microphone to record the student and their examination environment. They claimed that the program captures various types of biometic data, including scans of the students' facial geometry.
All three sets of plaintiffs have sued the company that makes Respondus Monitor (Respondus, Inc., a Washington-based company), and one plaintiff has also sued her school (Lewis University, a private university in Illinois). All plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated BIPA by failing to obtain their informed, written consent to the collection of their biometric data, 740 ILCS 14/15(b), and by failing to publicly disclose a compliance policy regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in their possession, id. § 14/15(a). Some plaintiffs also allege that the defendants unlawfully profited from their biometric data, id. § 14/15(c), and unlawfully disclosed their biometric data to third parties, id. § 14/15(d).
Respondus and Lewis have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' BIPA claims on several grounds. The motions have generated a host of subsidiary disputes, including questions of civil procedure and contract law. After resolving these threshold issues, the court reaches the BIPA claims, addressing standing in addition to the issues briefed by the parties. As explained here, the court finds that the plaintiffs have successfully stated claims for violations of some BIPA provisions but that they lack Article III standing with respect to other provisions.
Outcome: Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Cheng Wu filed on 12/5/22 78 , Plaintiff Cheng Wu dismisses his individual claims against Defendant in their entirety, with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class. All parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees as to the dismissed claims. Pursuant to Notice of Voluntary dismissal filed on 7/9/21 24 , Plaintiff Phillip Bridges voluntarily dismissed his individual claims without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cp, ) (Entered: 12/08/2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Defendant's Attorney: Emily A. Sellers, Matthew C. Wolfe, Tristan Layle Duncan, Jason M. Rosenthal, Tara D. Kennedy, Tristan L. Duncan, William Francis Northrip
Description: Chicago, Illinois personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendants claiming that they violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
The Plaintiffs, current or former who took an exam using Respondus Monitor, a software program that their schools used to administer online exams without a proctor. Respondus Monitor employs a student's webcam and microphone to record the student and their examination environment. They claimed that the program captures various types of biometic data, including scans of the students' facial geometry.
All three sets of plaintiffs have sued the company that makes Respondus Monitor (Respondus, Inc., a Washington-based company), and one plaintiff has also sued her school (Lewis University, a private university in Illinois). All plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated BIPA by failing to obtain their informed, written consent to the collection of their biometric data, 740 ILCS 14/15(b), and by failing to publicly disclose a compliance policy regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in their possession, id. § 14/15(a). Some plaintiffs also allege that the defendants unlawfully profited from their biometric data, id. § 14/15(c), and unlawfully disclosed their biometric data to third parties, id. § 14/15(d).
Respondus and Lewis have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' BIPA claims on several grounds. The motions have generated a host of subsidiary disputes, including questions of civil procedure and contract law. After resolving these threshold issues, the court reaches the BIPA claims, addressing standing in addition to the issues briefed by the parties. As explained here, the court finds that the plaintiffs have successfully stated claims for violations of some BIPA provisions but that they lack Article III standing with respect to other provisions.
Outcome: Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff Cheng Wu filed on 12/5/22 78 , Plaintiff Cheng Wu dismisses his individual claims against Defendant in their entirety, with prejudice as to his individual claims and without prejudice as to the putative class. All parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys' fees as to the dismissed claims. Pursuant to Notice of Voluntary dismissal filed on 7/9/21 24 , Plaintiff Phillip Bridges voluntarily dismissed his individual claims without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cp, ) (Entered: 12/08/2022)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: