1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

E.R., a Minor, through her Guardian, L.H., 

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

TIKTOK, INC. and BYTEDANCE, INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff E.R., a minor, by and through her Guardian L.H., brings this Class Action 

Complaint against Defendants TikTok, Inc. (“TikTok”) and ByteDance, Inc. (“ByteDance”) 

(collectively the “Defendants”) both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

individuals. Plaintiff alleges the following: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Every individual has unique biometric identifiers by which he or she can be 

identified. One such biometric identifier is a person’s facial geometry. 

2. As the Illinois General Assembly has found: “[b]iometrics are unlike other unique 

identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, social 

security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically 

unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at 

heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions.” 

740 ILCS § 14/5(c). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1
2 

3. Pursuant to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS §14/1, 

et seq., Illinois prohibits among other things, private entities from collecting, capturing, obtaining, 

disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating or profiting from the biometric identifiers or information 

of an individual without providing written notice and without obtaining a written release from the 

impacted individual or his authorized representative. BIPA also requires private entities in 

possession of biometric identifiers to adopt retention and destruction policies and to take measures 

to prevent the release of that information. 

4. Plaintiff brings this privacy class action case against TikTok, a video-sharing social 

networking service used to create short videos, favored by children and teens. TikTok’s owner, 

ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in Beijing, China. ByteDance, is well known as a hit 

app factory that has spent the last decade using technologies such as artificial intelligence and 

facial recognition.1 TikTok currently has approximately 2.4 million active daily users, many of 

whom are minors. This action seeks to ensure that Illinois minors’ privacy is adequately protected. 

5. Plaintiff and class members have particular concerns here given TikTok’s reported 

connections to the Chinese government, which have recently come under close public scrutiny. At 

least two U.S. Senators formally requested that the Intelligence Community conduct an assessment 

of the national security risks posed by TikTok. Because of data concerns, some U.S. military 

branches have even banned the use of the app on government-issued phones. Republican Senator 

1 “Worries That TikTok Is A Threat To National Security Have Merit,” at 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2019-10-29/worries-that-tiktok-is-a-threat-to-nationalsecurity-have-merit (last accessed May 8, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:2
3 

Josh Hawley has called for a total ban on the use of the app across the United States.2 Reddit CEO 

and co-founder Steve Huffman called TikTok “fundamentally parasitic” due to privacy concerns.3

6. As alleged in detail below, Defendants, through the popular app used to create short 

dance, lip-sync, comedy and talent videos, collected, captured, obtained, stored and, upon 

information and belief, disclosed and otherwise disseminated Illinois resident minor TikTok users’ 

facial geometric scans. 

7. Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a) without adequately informing the impacted 

individuals, including Plaintiff and members of the proposed class (the “Class Members”), that 

their biometric identifiers were being collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed or 

otherwise disseminated; (b) without informing the impacted individuals in writing of the purpose 

of the collection, capture, obtainment, disclosure, redisclosure and dissemination of the biometric 

identifiers and information; and (c) without seeking and obtaining written releases from such 

impacted individuals or their authorized representatives. 

8. As the Illinois General Assembly has found and both the Illinois Supreme Court 

and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have confirmed, the harm to Plaintiff and Class Members 

as a result of the BIPA violations alleged herein has already occurred. 

9. Further, as businesses worldwide compete to develop ever more advanced facial 

recognition technology, the race for data imperils the privacy of individuals everywhere. Public 

policy in Illinois provides that given the risks of unwanted data collection and disclosure, citizens 

2

 “Is TikTok Raiding Your Privacy in 2020? Here Is How To Stop It,” at 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2020/02/13/is-tiktok-raiding-your-privacy-in-2020-here-is-how-tostop-it/#1e34f6b569c8 (last accessed May 8, 2020). 

3

 “Reddit CEO Says TikTOk Is ‘Fundamentally Parasitic,’ Cites Privacy Concerns,” at 

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/27/21155845/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-tiktok-privacy-concernsspyware-fingerprinting-tracking-users (last accessed May 8, 2020) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:3
4 

need the power to make decisions about the fate of their unique biometric identifiers and 

information. Defendants’ actions robbed Plaintiff and Class Members of that power. 

10. Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint seeking: (a) statutory damages of 

$5,000 per BIPA violation, or, alternatively, if Defendants acted negligently, $1,000 per BIPA 

violation, along with attorneys’ fees and costs; (b) disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains 

derived from the use of the unlawfully-acquired data; and (c) an injunction (i) barring Defendants 

from any further use of individuals’ biometric identifiers and information; (ii) barring Defendants 

from continuing to collect, capture, obtain, disclose, redisclose, disseminate and profit from 

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information; (iii) requiring Defendants to 

delete and destroy all biometric identifiers and information in their possession, custody and 

control; and (iv) requiring Defendants to claw back the biometric identifiers and information from 

any third parties to whom Defendants disclosed, redisclosed or disseminated it. 

PARTIES

11. At relevant times, Plaintiff E.R., a minor, was and remains an Illinois resident. 

Plaintiff’s Guardian, L.H. was also, at relevant times, and is through the date of this filing an 

Illinois resident. Defendants performed facial geometric scans of Plaintiff through Plaintiff’s use 

of the TikTok app. 

12. Defendant TikTok, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of 

business in Culver City, California. TikTok, Inc. has a registered agent in Illinois. 

13. Defendant ByteDance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Palo Alto, California. ByteDance, Inc. has a registered agent in Illinois. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:4
5 

 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (the “Class Action 

Fairness Act”) because sufficient diversity of citizenship exists between the parties in this action, 

the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and 

there are 100 or more members of the Classes. Because it is estimated that the Class will have 

thousands of members and Defendants’ intentional and reckless violations of BIPA are punishable 

by statutory damages of $5,000 per violation, the amount in controversy is well in excess of 

$5,000,000. 

15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants used and 

disseminated data derived directly from Illinois-based TikTok users and exposed residents of 

Illinois to ongoing privacy risks within Illinois based on the collection, capture, obtainment, 

disclosure, redisclosure and dissemination of their biometric identifiers and information. 

Furthermore, many of the images Defendants used for their unlawful collection, capture and 

obtainment of biometric identifiers and information were created in Illinois, uploaded from 

Illinois, and/or managed via Illinois-based user accounts, computers, and mobile devices. Because 

of the scope and magnitude of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants knew that its collection, capture, 

obtainment, disclosure, redisclosure and dissemination of impacted individuals’ biometric 

identifiers and information would injure Illinois residents and citizens. Defendants knew or had 

reason to know that collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and disseminating 

Illinois citizens’ and residents’ biometric identifiers and information without providing the 

requisite notice or obtaining the requisite releases would deprive Illinois citizens and residents of 

their statutorily-protected privacy rights, neutralize Illinois citizens’ and residents’ ability to 

control access to their biometric identifiers and information via their Illinois-managed devices and 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:5
6 

exposed minors in Illinois to potential surveillance and other privacy harms as they went about 

their lives within the state. 

16. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts 

or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in Illinois. Alternatively, venue is 

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 

ILLINIOIS BIOMETRIC PRIVACY LAWS 

17. BIPA seeks to safeguard individuals’ biometric identifiers and information. 

18. Biometric identifiers include a scan of an individual’s face geometry. 740 ILCS § 

14/10. 

19. Biometric information is “any information . . . based on an individual’s biometric 

identifier used to identify an individual.” 740 ILCS § 14/10. 

20. Pursuant to BIPA, a private entity, such as Defendants, is among other things: (a) 

prohibited from collecting, capturing or otherwise obtaining an individual’s biometric identifiers 

and information without providing written notice and obtaining a written release; (b) prohibited 

from selling, leasing, trading or otherwise profiting from an individual’s biometric identifiers and 

information; (c) prohibited from disclosing, redisclosing or otherwise disseminating an 

individual’s biometric identifiers or information in the absence of circumstances specifically set 

forth in the statute; and (d) required, to the extent it is in possession of biometric identifiers or 

information, to develop a written policy, made available to the public, that establishes a retention 

schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying such identifiers and information. 740 ILCS § 

14/15. 

21. BIPA provides for a private right of action and allows a prevailing party to recover 

liquidated damages in the amount of: (a) $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:6
7 

negligent violations of its provisions; and (b) $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for 

intentional or reckless violations of its provisions. 740 ILCS § 14/20. BIPA also allows for the 

recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs and injunctive relief. 740 ILCS § 14/20. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct 

22. ByteDance, Inc. the parent company of TikTok, Inc., first launched the TikTok app 

(then known as “Douyin”) in China in September 2016. The app ultimately became available in 

the United States in August 2018 following a merger between TikTok and Shanghai-based social 

media platform musical.ly. While TikTok and Douyin are similar to each other and essentially the 

same app, they run on separate servers to comply with Chinese censorship restrictions.

23. The app allows users to create short music and lip-sync videos of 3 to 15 seconds 

and short looping videos of 3 to 60 seconds. By October 2018, TikTok was the most downloaded 

app in the United States.

24. As of January 2020, users in their teens, like Plaintiff and Class Members, 

accounted for 37.2 percent of TikTok’s active user accounts in the United States.

25. In direct violation of the BIPA, the TikTok app’s proprietary facial recognition 

technology scans every video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the 

unique points and contours (i.e., biometric identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create 

and store a template of each face – all without ever informing anyone of this practice.

26. To accomplish this end, Defendants implemented an artificial intelligence tool in 

the app that automatically performs these facial scans. This technology permits users to 

superimpose images onto their face or to use various “filters” that alter, distort, or enhance their 

facial features. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:7
8 

27. In collecting, capturing and otherwise obtaining the biometric identifiers and 

information of Plaintiff and Class Members and, upon information and belief, subsequently 

disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise disseminating those biometric identifiers and information 

to other related corporate entities – all without providing the requisite notice, obtaining the 

requisite releases or satisfying any of BIPA’s other provisions that would excuse it from BIPA’s 

mandates – Defendants violated BIPA.

28. In further violation of BIPA, Defendants failed to use a reasonable standard of care 

to protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information from disclosure 

and, in fact, affirmatively disclosed their biometric identifiers and information.4

29. In further violation of BIPA, as a private entity in possession of Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and information, Defendants failed to adopt or make available to 

the public a retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying such biometric identifiers 

and information once the initial purpose for collecting them had or has been satisfied.

30. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, in the alternative, 

negligent.

II. Allegations Related to Plaintiff E.R. 

31. Plaintiff E.R., a 16-year-old minor, has, within the applicable statute of limitations, 

uploaded and posted numerous videos to TikTok which include images of her face, and her face 

has appeared in other users’ uploaded videos. Plaintiff has uploaded videos, and/or Plaintiff’s face 

4 https://www.tiktok.com/legal/privacy-policy?lang=en (accessed May 8, 2020) (“We share the categories 

of personal information listed above with service providers and business partners to help us perform 

business operations and for business purposes, including research, payment processing and transaction 

fulfillment, database maintenance, administering contests and special offers, technology services, 

deliveries, email deployment, advertising, analytics, measurement, data storage and hosting, disaster 

recovery, search engine optimization, marketing, and data processing”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:8
9 

has appeared in videos uploaded by other users, employing TikTok’s face sticker, face filter, and 

face tracker lens technology. 

32. Through these videos, Defendants have collected and stored Plaintiff’s unique 

biometric identifiers or biometric information. Upon information and belief, Defendants have 

disclosed and/or disseminated these biometric identifiers or biometric information to third parties. 

III. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Injuries and Damages

33. As alleged herein, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and Class 

Members have already sustained injuries and face imminent and certainly impending injuries. 

34. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has resulted in, among other things: (a) Plaintiff’s 

and Class Members’ unique biometric identifiers and information being collected, captured, 

obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, and otherwise disseminated without the requisite notice having 

been given and without the requisite releases having been obtained; and (b) Plaintiff and Class 

Members being deprived of the very control over their biometric identifiers and information that 

BIPA was designed to protect, and which Illinois courts both State and Federal have reaffirmed.

35. To this day, Plaintiff and Class Members do not know which, or how many, 

individuals or entities have received, obtained, accessed, stored, disclosed, redisclosed or 

otherwise made use of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information, 

exposing them to the imminent and certainly impending injuries of identity theft, fraud, stalking, 

surveillance, social engineering and other invasions of privacy.5

36. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff and Class Members have no 

recourse for the fact that their biologically unique information has been compromised.

5

 “Facial Recognition Tech: 10 Views on Risks and Rewards,” at 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/03/facial-recognition-tech-10-views-on-risksand-rewards/#54d3e1716b3c (last accessed on May 8, 2020) 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:9
10 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

37. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of the following Class for 

which Plaintiffs seek certification: All Illinois residents who, within the applicable statute of 

limitations, registered for or used the TikTok Application when aged 14 through 17, and their 

parents and/or legal guardians. 

38. Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) any parent, affiliate or subsidiary 

of Defendants; (c) any entity in which Defendants has a controlling interest; (d) any of Defendants’ 

officers or directors; or (e) any successor or assign of Defendants. Also excluded are any judge or 

court personnel assigned to this case and members of their immediate families. 

39. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater 

specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery. 

40. Numerosity. While the exact number of Class Members is not known at this time, 

Defendants collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed and otherwise disseminated 

biometric identifiers and information from hundreds of millions of users, and Plaintiff estimates 

the total number of Class Members to be, at least, in the thousands. Consistent with Rule 23(a)(1), 

the proposed Class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Class 

Members may be identified through objective means, including objective data available to 

Defendants regarding their user data. Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this 

action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. 

mail, electronic mail, internet postings, social media and/or published notice 

41. Commonality and predominance. Common questions of law and fact exist as to 

all Class Members. These common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:10
11 

affecting only individual members of the proposed Class. Common questions include, but are not 

limited to, the following: 

a. Whether Defendants collected, captured and otherwise obtained the 

biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiffs and Class Members; 

b. Whether Defendants possessed the biometric identifiers and information of 

Plaintiffs and Class Members; 

c. Whether Defendants disclosed, redisclosed and otherwise disseminated the 

biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiffs and Class Members; 

d. Whether Defendants profited from the biometric identifiers and information 

of Plaintiffs and Class Members; 

e. Whether Defendants provided the notice required by BIPA before 

collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise 

disseminating the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiffs and 

Class Members; 

f. Whether Defendants obtained enforceable written releases from Plaintiff 

and Class Members or their authorized representatives before collecting, 

capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise disseminating 

the biometric identifiers and information or Plaintiffs and Class Members; 

g. Whether Defendants had in place – and disclosed to the public – the written 

retention and destruction policies required by BIPA while in possession of 

Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information; 

h. Whether Defendants protected Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ biometric 

identifiers and information from disclosure using the reasonable standard of 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:11
12 

care within Defendants’ industry and in a manner that was the same as or 

more protective than the manner in which Defendants protects other 

confidential and sensitive information; 

i. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered damages as a proximate 

result of Defendants; and 

j. Whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to damages, equitable 

relief and other relief. 

42. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff 

and all members of the proposed Class have suffered similar injuries as a result of the same 

practices alleged herein. Plaintiffs has no interests to advance adverse to the interests of the other 

members of the proposed Class. 

43. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed 

Class and has retained as counsel attorneys experienced in class actions and complex litigation. 

44. Superiority. A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and 

efficient adjudication of this dispute. The injury suffered by each Class Member, while meaningful 

on an individual basis, may not be of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of individual 

actions against Defendants economically feasible. Even if Class Members could afford individual 

litigation, those actions would put immeasurable strain on the court system. Moreover, individual 

litigation of the legal and factual issues of the case would increase the delay and expense to all 

parties and the court system. A class action, however, presents far fewer management difficulties 

and provides the benefit of a single adjudication, economy of scale and comprehensive supervision 

by a single court. 

45. In the alternative, the proposed Class may be certified because: 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:12
13 

a. The prosecution of separate actions by each individual member of the 

proposed Class would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications, which 

could establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants; 

b. The prosecution of individual actions could result in adjudications that as a 

practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of non-party Class 

Members or which would substantially impair their ability to protect their 

interests; and 

c. Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

proposed Class, thereby making final and injunctive relief appropriate with 

respect to members of the proposed Class. 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT ONE 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(a)) 

46. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-43 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

47. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by failing to develop a written policy 

made available to the public that established a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently 

destroying biometric identifiers and information. 

48. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, pleaded in the 

alternative, negligent. 

49. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

50. Plaintiff and Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, pleaded in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:13
14 

51. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Class 

Members in that their biometric identifiers and information can be viewed and used by 

unauthorized persons. Plaintiff and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law for their 

injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and information.

52. Plaintiff and Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the 

reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses relating to this action. 

COUNT TWO 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(b)) 

53. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-43 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein . 

54. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by collecting, capturing, and 

otherwise obtaining individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the biometric 

identifiers and information of Plaintiff and Class Members, without providing the requisite written 

information and without obtaining the requisite written releases. 

55. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, pleaded in the 

alternative, negligent. 

56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

57. Plaintiff and Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, pleaded in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages. 

58. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Class 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:14
15 

Members in that their biometric identifiers and information can be viewed and used by 

unauthorized persons. Plaintiff and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law for their 

injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiffs’ and Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and information.

59. Plaintiffs and Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the 

reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses relating to this action. 

COUNT THREE 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(d)) 

60. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-43 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

61. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by disclosing, redisclosing and 

otherwise disseminating individuals’ biometric identifiers and information, including the 

biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiffs and Class Members, even though: (a) neither the 

subjects of the biometric identifiers and information nor their authorized representatives consented 

to the disclosure and redisclosure; (b) the disclosure and redisclosure did not complete a financial 

transaction requested or authorized by the subjects of the biometric identifiers and information or 

their authorized representatives; (c) the disclosure and redisclosure was not required by State or 

federal law or municipal ordinance; and (d) the disclosure and redisclosure was not required 

pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

62. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, pleaded in the 

alternative, negligent. 

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:15
16 

64. Plaintiff and Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 or actual 

damages or, pleaded in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages. 

65. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Class 

Members in that their biometric identifiers and information can be viewed and used by 

unauthorized persons. Plaintiff and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law for their 

injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiff’s and Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and information.

66. Plaintiff and Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief and the 

reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses relating to this action.

COUNT FOUR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

67. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-43 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

68. Plaintiff and Class Members have clear and ascertainable rights in need of 

protection – namely: (a) the right to have Defendants abide by their obligations under BIPA; (b) 

the right to control their biometric identifiers and information; and (c) the right to privacy. 

69. Plaintiff and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law because a legal 

remedy cannot retrieve the biometric identifiers and information that Defendants unlawfully 

collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, disseminated and otherwise profited from, 

and cannot end the invasion of privacy caused by Defendants’ conduct. 

70. Plaintiff and Class Members will suffer irreparable harm, as alleged herein, caused 

by Defendants if their conduct is not so restrained, requiring injunctive relief. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:16
17 

71. Plaintiff and Class Members are likely to succeed on the merits because, as alleged 

herein, Defendants unlawfully collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, and 

disseminated Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information despite being 

prohibited from doing so. 

72. Plaintiff and Class Members seek injunctive relief: (a) barring Defendants from any 

further use of Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information; (b) barring 

Defendants from continuing to collect, capture, obtain, disclose, redisclose, disseminate or profit 

from Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and information; (c) requiring 

Defendants to delete and destroy Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and 

information; and (d) requiring Defendants to claw back the biometric identifiers and information 

from any third parties to whom Defendants disclosed, redisclosed or disseminated it. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, respectfully seek from 

the Court the following relief: 

a. Certification of the Class as requested herein; 

b. Appointment of Plaintiff as Class representative and undersigned counsel as 

Class counsel; 

c. An award of damages for Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class, 

including statutory and punitive damages; 

d. An award of equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief for Plaintiff and 

members of the proposed Class, including an injunction (i) barring Defendants 

from any further use of individuals’ biometric identifiers and information; (ii) 

barring Defendants from continuing to collect, capture, obtain, disclose, 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:17
18 

redisclose, disseminate and/or profit from Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ 

biometric identifiers and information; (iii) requiring Defendants to delete and 

destroy all biometric identifiers and information in its possession, custody and 

control; and (iv) requiring Defendants to claw back the biometric identifiers 

and information from any third parties to whom Defendants disclosed, 

redisclosed and disseminated it; 

e. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Plaintiff and 

members of the proposed Class, as permitted by law; 

f. An award for Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and 

g. An award for Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class of any further relief 

the Court deems proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all claims so triable. 

Dated: May 8, 2020 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Katrina Carroll 

Katrina Carroll 

Kyle A. Shamberg 

Nicholas R. Lange 

CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, Illinois 60602 

312.750.1265 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com 

kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com 

nlange@carlsonlynch.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02810 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:18