Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN R. VAUGHAN, JASON DARNELL, 

FEBBIE MINNIEFIELD, and ADRIEL VEGA,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIOMAT USA, INC., TALECRIS PLASMA 

RESOURCES, INC., and INTERSTATE 

BLOOD BANK, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20-cv-04241

Hon. Marvin E. Aspen

Mag. Judge Jeffrey Cole

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Brian Vaughan, Jason Darnell, Febbie Minniefield, and Adriel Vega (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) bring this Second Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated against Defendants Biomat USA, Inc. (“Biomat”), Talecris Plasma 

Resources, Inc. (“Talecris”), and Interstate Blood Bank, Inc. (“IBBI”) (collectively “Defendants”)

to stop to Defendants’ unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs’ and the proposed Class’s

sensitive, private, and personal biometric data. Plaintiffs allege as follows upon personal 

knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon 

information and belief including investigation conducted by their attorneys. 

PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs are individual citizens of the State of Illinois. 

2. Plaintiffs sold plasma at one of Defendants’ Illinois-based plasma donation centers.

3. Biomat, Talecris, and IBB are all part of the Grifols, S.A. network of blood plasma 

donation centers. Grifols, S.A. (“Grifols”) is a Spanish multinational pharmaceutical and chemical 

manufacturer.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:873
Page 2 of 23

4. Grifols utilizes the Defendants in this case to source plasma, primarily from lowincome individuals, to use in its manufacturing operations.

5. Defendant Biomat is a Delaware corporation with multiple business locations in 

Illinois where it contracts with people to purchase their plasma. Biomat owns and operates

locations in Chicago, Maywood, and Carbondale Illinois. Plaintiff Minniefield scanned her

fingerprint at Biomat in Maywood including in 2020.

6. Biomat also operates under the name “Plasmacare” with a location in Chicago, 

Illinois. Plaintiff Vaughan scanned his fingerprint at the Biomat “Plasmacare” location in Chicago

including during approximately 2017 through 2019.

1

7. Defendant Talecris is a Delaware corporation with multiple business locations in 

Illinois where it contracts with people to purchase their plasma. Talecris owns and operates 

locations in Champaign, Bloomington, Rockford, Waukegan, and Peoria, Illinois. Plaintiff Vega

scanned her fingerprint at Talecris in Bloomington including during approximately 2019 through 

2021.

8. Defendant IBB is a Tennessee corporation with multiple business locations in 

Illinois where it contracts with people to purchase their plasma. IBB also operates under the name 

Plasma Biological Services, LLC (“PBS”). PBS merged into Interstate Blood Bank in 2019. IBB 

owns and operates locations in Chicago and Elgin, Illinois. Plaintiff Darnellscanned his fingerprint 

at IBB in Elgin including from approximately 2016 through 2018.

9. Defendants are joined together in the same class action because they are all part of 

the Grifols network of plasma donation centers and are subsidiaries of Grifols, a Spanish Company 

1 Plasmacare, Inc. merged with Biomat USA in 2015. See GRIFOLS SEC ANNUAL REPORT 2016, available at 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1438569/000110465917021206/a17-8984_120f.htm (last visited May 13, 

2022).

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:874
Page 3 of 23

that operates in the United States through the Defendants. They are also all advertised as Grifols 

Plasma Donation Centers. See GRIFOLS PLASMA LOCATIONS, available at 

https://www.grifolsplasma.com/en/locations/find-a-donation-center (last visited May 13, 2022). 

10. According to Grifols’ Annual Report, (1) Biomat is Grifols “American subsidiary”

and Grifols owns 100% of the shares of Biomat; (2) Grifols acquired Talecris in 2011 and owns 

100% of the shares; (3) Grifols acquired IBB in 2016 and owns 100% of the shares. See AUDITOR’S 

REPORT ON GRIFOLS, S.A. AND SUBSIDIARIES, available at 318a4db9-4b6a-3755-8ddf6d0750325d39 (grifols.com) (last visited May 13, 2022).

11. Defendants jointly market their plasma purchasing facilities to consumers, like the 

Plaintiffs, and utilize virtually the same biometric collecting kiosks to extract biometric 

information.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants 

conducted business and scanned, collected, possessed, or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ fingerprint 

data in Illinois. 

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(d), because Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and there is 

over $5,000,000 is in controversy. 

14. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 

1391(a)(2) because the events giving rise to this action took place here.

INTRODUCTION

15. While most establishments use conventional means for tracking clients, Defendants 

require that plasma sellers—like Plaintiffs—use biometric data when selling plasma.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:875
Page 4 of 23

16. This exposes Defendants’ donors, including Plaintiffs, to serious and irreversible 

privacy risks. For example, if a biometric database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed –

such as in the recent Equifax data breach – donors have no means by which to prevent identity 

theft, unauthorized tracking, and other improper or unlawful use of this information.

17. In 2015, a data breach at the United States Office of Personnel Management 

exposed the personal identification information, including biometric data, of over 21.5 million 

federal employees, contractors, and job applicants. U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., Cybersecurity 

Incidents (2018), available at www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents.

18. An illegal market already exists for biometric data. Hackers and identity thieves 

have targeted Aadhaar, the largest biometric database in the world, which contains the personal 

and biometric data – including fingerprints, iris scans, and a facial photograph – of over a billion 

Indian citizens. See Vidhi Doshi, A Security Breach in India Has Left a Billion People at 

Risk of Identity Theft, The Washington Post (Jan. 4, 2018), available at 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/04/a-security-breachinindiahas-left-a-billion-people-at-risk-of-identity-theft/?utm_term=.b3c70259fl38. 

19. In January 2018, an Indian newspaper reported that the information housed in 

Aadhaar was available for purchase for less than $8 and in as little as 10 minutes. Rachna Khaira, 

Rs 500, 10 Minutes, and You Have Access to Billion Aadhaar Details, The Tribune (Jan. 

4, 2018), available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/rs-500-10-minutes-and-youhaveaccessto-billion-aadhaar-details/523361.html. 

20. As a plasma seller to one of the Defendants, each Plaintiff was identified using a 

biometric finger scan to sell plasma. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:876
Page 5 of 23

21. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (hereinafter “BIPA” or the “Act”) 

expressly obligates Defendants to obtain an executed, written release from an individual, as a 

condition of employment, in order to capture, collect, and store an individual’s biometric 

identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint or hand geometry scan, and biometric 

information derived from it.

22. BIPA further obligates Defendants to inform their plasma sellers in writing that a 

biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or captured; to tell them in writing 

for how long they will store their biometric data or information and any purposes for which 

biometric information is being captured, collected, and used; and to make available a written policy 

disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.

23. BIPA makes all of these requirements a precondition to the collection or 

recording of fingerprints, hand geometry scans, or other associated biometric information – under 

the Act, no biometric identifiers or biometric information may be captured, collected, purchased, 

or otherwise obtained if these pre-capture, pre-collection, pre-storage, or pre-obtainment 

requirements are not met.

24. There is no realistic way, absent surgery, to reassign someone’s biometric data. A 

person can obtain a new social security number, but not a new hand with an authentic fingerprint, 

which makes the protection of, and control over, biometric identifiers and biometric information 

particularly.

25. Defendants captured, collected, received through trade, and/or otherwise obtained 

and biometric identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois plasma purchasers, like 

Plaintiffs, without properly obtaining the above-described written executed release, and without 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:877
Page 6 of 23

making the required disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric 

identifiers or information.

26. Upon information and belief, Defendants lack retention schedules and guidelines 

for permanently destroying Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s biometric data. 

27. Plaintiffs and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendants’ failure to destroy 

their biometric data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied 

or within three years of their last interactions with the company.

28. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for Defendants’ BIPA violations, for 

themselves and all those similarly situated.

PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

29. Plaintiff Minniefield sold plasma at “Biomat USA, Inc.” located at 215 Madison 

St., Maywood, IL 60153 in approximately 2020. Each time she sold her plasma she was required 

to scan her fingerprint into a kiosk. 

30. Plaintiff Vaughan sold plasma at “Plasmacare, Inc.,” a Biomat location, at 3280 W. 

87th St., Chicago, IL 60652. Each time Plaintiff Vaughan sold plasma, he was required to scan his 

fingerprint into a kiosk. Plaintiff Vaughan also worked as a plasma processor at the same location 

and scanned his fingerprint on a time management system to track time worked. 

31. Plaintiff Vega sold plasma at “Talecris Plasma Resources, Inc.” located at 511 W. 

Washington St., Bloomington, IL 61701 at various times between 2019 and 2021. Each time 

Plaintiff Vega sold plasma, she was required to scan her finger into a kiosk. 

32. Plaintiff Darnell sold plasma at “Interstate Blood Bank, Inc.” located at 116 N. 

McLean Blvd., Elgin, IL at various times between 2016 and 2018. Each time Plaintiff Darnell sold 

plasma, he was required to scan his finger into a kiosk. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:878
Page 7 of 23

33. As plasma sellers, Plaintiffs were required to scan at least one fingerprint so 

Defendants could create, collect, capture, construct, store, use, and/or obtain a biometric template 

for them. 

34. Defendants then used Plaintiffs’ biometrics as an identification and authentication 

method to track their identity.

35. Defendants subsequently stored Plaintiffs’ biometric data in their respective

database(s).

36. Each time that Plaintiffs sold plasma they were required to scan their fingerprint 

using the Defendants’ biometric devices. 

37. Plaintiffs were not informed of the specific limited purposes or length of time for 

which Defendants collected, stored, or used their biometrics. 

38. Plaintiffs were never informed of any biometric data retention policy developed by 

Defendants, nor were they ever informed of whether Defendants will permanently delete their 

biometrics. 

39. Plaintiffs were never provided with nor ever signed a written release allowing 

Defendants to collect, capture, store, or otherwise obtain their fingerprint, handprint, hand 

geometry, or other biometrics. 

40. Plaintiffs have continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful 

conditions created by Defendants’ violations of BIPA alleged herein. 

41. BIPA protects donors like Plaintiffs putative Class from this precise conduct, and 

Defendants had no right to secure this data without complying with BIPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:879
Page 8 of 23

42. Through BIPA, the Illinois legislature has created a right – a right to receive certain 

information prior to an employer securing their highly personal, private and proprietary biometric 

data – and an injury – not receiving this extremely critical information.

ILLINOIS’ STRONG STANCE ON PROTECTION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION

43. BIPA provides valuable privacy rights, protections, and benefits to plasma donors

in Illinois. 

44. For example, BIPA’s requirements ensure that the environment for taking of 

biometrics is not forced or coerced; that individuals are freely advised that, by scanning one’s 

fingerprint and/or finger geometry, the employer or plasma company is capturing, extracting, 

creating, and recording biometrics; that individuals can keep tabs on their biometric roadmaps 

(e.g., who has their biometrics, for long how, and how it is being used). The BIPA-required 

environment for the taking of biometrics provides legislatively-imposed peace for biometric 

subjects.

45. To this end, in passing the Biometric Information Privacy Act (hereinafter “the 

Act”), the Illinois General Assembly found:

(a) The use of biometrics is growing in the business and security screening sectors 

and appears to promise streamlined financial transactions and security 

screenings.

(b) Major national corporations have selected the City of Chicago and other 

locations in this State as pilot testing sites for new applications of biometricfacilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery 

stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias.

(c) Biometrics 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 biometricfacilitated transactions.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:880
Page 9 of 23

(d) An overwhelming majority of members of the public are weary of the use of 

biometrics when such information is tied to finances and other personal 

information.

(e) Despite limited State law regulating the collection, use, safeguarding, and 

storage of biometrics, many members of the public are deterred from partaking 

in biometric identifier-facilitated transactions.

(f) The full ramifications of biometric technology are not fully known.

(g) The public welfare, security, and safety will be served by regulating the 

collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of 

biometric identifiers and information.

See, 740 ILCS 14/5, Legislative findings; intent. 

46. The law is specifically designed to require a company that collects biometrics to do 

several things, before collection, aimed, in part, at educating and protecting the person whose 

biometrics it is taking for its own use, and requiring signed, written consent attesting that the 

individual has been properly informed and has freely consented to biometrics collection.

47. Defendants violated these clear protections of the Act; Defendants violated, and 

upon information and belief, continue to violate their plasma seller’s biometric privacy rights.

DEFENDANTS’ BIOMETRIC FINGER-SCANNING OF PLASMA SELLERS

48. At relevant times, Defendants have taken the rather invasive and coercive step of 

requiring plasma sellers to be fingerprint scanned, and then using biometric information captured 

from those fingerprint scans, and data derived therefrom, to identify the donors.

49. Defendants have a practice of using biometric devices to track their donors, albeit 

without regard to Illinois’ requirements under BIPA.

50. Defendants caused biometrics from finger scans to be recorded, collected, captured, 

and stored at relevant times.

51. Defendants has not properly informed donors in writing that a biometric identifier 

or biometric information is being captured, obtained, collected or stored; informed donors in 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:881
Page 10 of 23

writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric 

information is being collected, stored, and used; obtained donors’ proper written consent to the 

capture, collection, obtainment or storage of their biometric identifier and biometric information 

derived from it; or obtained written consent.

52. Defendants did not at any time as part of their purchase of plasma: inform Plaintiffs

in writing (or otherwise) that a biometric identifier and biometric information was being obtained, 

captured, collected, and/or stored, or of the specific purposes and length of term for which a 

biometric identifier or biometric information was being collected, captured, stored, and/or used; 

obtain, or attempt to obtain, Plaintiffs’ executed written release to have Plaintiffs’ biometrics 

captured, collected, stored, or recorded as a condition of donation – Plaintiffs did not provide 

consent required by BIPA to the capture, collection, storage, obtainment, and/or use of Plaintiffs’ 

fingerprint, finger scan, finger geometry, or associated biometrics. Nor did Plaintiffs know or fully 

understand that Defendants was collecting, capturing, and/or storing biometrics when Plaintiffs

were scanning Plaintiffs; fingers; nor did Plaintiffs know or could Plaintiffs know all of the uses 

or purposes for which Plaintiffs’ biometrics were taken.

53. Defendants have not publicly disclosed their retention schedule and guidelines for 

permanently destroying donor biometrics.

54. Defendants, on information and belief, do not have and never followed a written 

policy, made available to the public, that discloses the retention schedule and/or guidelines for 

retaining and then permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information of donors.

55. The Pay by Touch bankruptcy that catalyzed the passage of BIPA highlights why 

conduct such as Defendants’ – where individuals are aware that they are providing a biometric but 

not aware of to whom or for what purposes they are doing so – is dangerous. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:882
Page 11 of 23

56. That bankruptcy spurred Illinois citizens and legislators into realizing that it is 

crucial for individuals to understand when providing biometric identifiers or information such as 

a finger scan, and/or data derived therefrom, who exactly is collecting their biometric data, where 

it will be transmitted and for what purposes, and for how long. 

57. Thus, BIPA is the Illinois Legislature’s expression that Illinois citizens have 

biometric privacy rights, as created by BIPA. 

58. Defendants disregarded these obligations and instead unlawfully collected, stored, 

and used donors’ biometric identifiers and information, without ever receiving the individual’s 

informed written consent as required by BIPA. 

59. Because Defendants neither published a BIPA-mandated data retention policy nor 

disclosed the purposes for their collection of biometric data, Defendants’ donors have no idea 

whether Defendants sell, disclose, re-disclose, or otherwise disseminated their biometric data. 

60. Nor are Plaintiffs and the putative Class told to whom Defendants currently disclose

their biometric data, or what might happen to their biometric data in the event of a buyout, merger, 

or a bankruptcy. 

61. By and through the actions detailed above, Defendants have not only disregard the 

Class’ privacy rights, but they have also violated BIPA.

62. Defendants’ above-described use of biometrics benefits only Defendants. There is 

no corresponding benefit to donors; they are forced to use biometrics to donate plasma.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

63. Plaintiffs Vaughan and Minniefield bring this action on behalf of themselves and 

on behalf of the following proposed “Biomat Class”:

All persons who were enrolled in the biometric system used by Defendant Biomat 

USA, Inc. in Illinois from five years preceding the filing of this action to the date a 

class notice is mailed in this action. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:883
Page 12 of 23

64. Plaintiff Vega brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the following 

proposed “Talecris Class”:

All persons who were enrolled in the biometric system used by Defendant Talecris 

Plasma Resources, Inc. in Illinois from five years preceding the filing of this action 

to the date a class notice is mailed in this action. 

65. Plaintiff Darnell brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of the 

following “IBB Class”:

All persons who were enrolled in the biometric system used by Defendant Interstate 

Blood Bank, Inc. in Illinois from five years preceding the filing of this action to the 

date a class notice is mailed in this action. 

Excluded from the class are Defendants’ officers and directors, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and any 

member of the judiciary presiding over this action.

66. Plaintiffs and the members of each respective Class are similar to one another 

because they were all subject to the same allegedly illegal practices: scanning their fingerprints in 

Defendants’ verification system despite Defendants failing to adhere to the requirements of the 

Biometric Information Privacy Act.

67. Each Class includes more than 100 members. See ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal, 

¶ 10.

68. As a result, each Class is so numerous that joining of all class members in one 

lawsuit is not practical.

69. The issues involved in this lawsuit present common questions of law and fact, 

including: whether Defendants required each Class to use their fingerprints; whether Defendants 

collected the Class’s biometric identifiers or information; and whether Defendants complied with 

the procedures in 740 ILCS 14/15(a) and (b) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act. 

70. These common questions of law and fact predominate over the variations that may 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:884
Page 13 of 23

exist between members of the Class, if any.

71. Plaintiffs, the members of the Classes, and Defendants have a commonality of 

interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and the remedy sought.

72. If individual actions were required to be brought by each member of the Classes

injured or affected, the result would be a multiplicity of actions, creating a hardship to the Classes, 

to the Court, and to Defendants. 

73. Accordingly, a class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit and distribution of the common fund to which the Class is entitled.

74. The books and records of Defendants are material to Plaintiffs’ case as they disclose 

how and when Plaintiffs and the Class scanned their fingerprints in Defendants’ verification

system and what information Defendants provided Plaintiffs and the Class about the collection, 

retention, use, and possession of their biometric identifiers and information.

75. Plaintiffs and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

76. Plaintiffs retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation.

COUNT I – FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST BIOMAT ONLY

VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/1, ET SEQ. – THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

(Vaughan and Minniefield Against Biomat)

77. Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated in the Biomat Class, repeat, re-allege, and incorporate all preceding paragraphs as if fully 

set forth herein. 

78. BIPA is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers, by requiring consent and 

disclosures associated with the handling of biometrics, particularly in the context of biometric 

technology. 740 ILCS 14/5(g), 14/10, and 14/15(b)(3).

79. The Illinois General Assembly’s recognition of the importance of the public policy 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:885
Page 14 of 23

and benefits underpinning BIPA’s enactment, and the regulation of biometrics collection, is 

detailed in the text of the statute itself. 

80. Biomat has been and continues to be a “private entity.” 

81. Biomat has been and continue to be in possession of Plaintiffs Vaughn and 

Minniefield and the Biomat Class’s biometrics, and it collected, captured, or otherwise obtained 

their biometric identifiers and biometric information within the meaning of the Act.

82. As more fully set forth above, at relevant times Defendant Biomat collected, 

captured, or otherwise obtained, Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class’s

biometric identifiers and biometric information based on those identifiers as defined by BIPA, 740 

ILCS 14/10, through the imposition of biometric devices.

83. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a), Defendant Biomat failed to make such a written 

policy publicly available to Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class members.

84. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), Defendant Biomat has collected, captured, 

stored, and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class’s

biometric identifiers and biometric information, without:

a. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, that the biometric identifiers or 

biometric information were being obtained, collected, captured, and/or 

stored;

b. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, of the specific purpose and length of 

term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information were being 

collected, stored, and used; and

c. receiving a written release executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members and 

executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members as a condition of employment

or donation.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:886
Page 15 of 23

85. Defendant Biomat took Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class’s

and other class members’ finger scans, and knowingly caused their biometrics to be captured, 

collected, stored, and/or otherwise obtained without making publicly available the required policy 

that explains, for example, any purposes for which the biometric identifiers and information were 

collected, a retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers 

and information.

86. As a result of Defendant Biomat’s above- described acts and omissions, Defendant

Biomat has invaded the privacy of Plaintiff Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class; it has 

unlawfully and coercively taken their biometrics; it has failed to provide them with information 

required by BIPA; it has deprived them of benefits, rights, opportunities and decisions conferred 

and required by the Illinois legislature via BIPA; and it illegally captured, collected, recorded, 

possessed, converted, and/or stored their finger scans, biometrics, and property.

87. Accordingly, Defendant Biomat has violated the BIPA, and Plaintiffs Vaughn and 

Minniefield and the Biomat Class have been damaged and are entitled to damages available under 

the BIPA, including liquidated damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and/or $5,000 per willful 

or reckless violation. 740 ILCS 14/20(1).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class, individually and 

on behalf of the Class of similarly situated individuals, prays for an Order as follows:

A. Finding this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set 

forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying the class as defined 

herein; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:887
Page 16 of 23

B. Designating and appointing Plaintiffs as representative of the class and Plaintiffs’ 

undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat 

Class and against Defendant Biomat;

D. Awarding Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class members 

liquidated damages of $1,000 per each negligent violation, $5,000 per each willful 

or reckless violation of BIPA; 

E. Awarding Plaintiffs Vaughn and Minniefield and the Biomat Class members 

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this litigation; and 

F. Granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. 

COUNT II – FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST TALECRIS ONLY

VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/1, ET SEQ. – THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

(Vega Against Talecris)

88. Plaintiff Vega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the 

Talecris Class, repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein. 

89. BIPA is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers, by requiring consent and 

disclosures associated with the handling of biometrics, particularly in the context of biometric 

technology. 740 ILCS 14/5(g), 14/10, and 14/15(b)(3).

90. The Illinois General Assembly’s recognition of the importance of the public policy 

and benefits underpinning BIPA’s enactment, and the regulation of biometrics collection, is 

detailed in the text of the statute itself. 

91. Talecris has been and continues to be a “private entity.” 

92. Talecris has been and continue to be in possession of Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:888
Page 17 of 23

Class’s biometrics, and it collected, captured, or otherwise obtained their biometric identifiers and 

biometric information within the meaning of the Act.

93. As more fully set forth above, at relevant times Defendant Talecris collected, 

captured, or otherwise obtained, Plaintiff Vega and the Biomat Class’s biometric identifiers and 

biometric information based on those identifiers as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10, through the 

imposition of biometric devices.

94. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a), Defendant Talecris failed to make such a written 

policy publicly available to Plaintiffs Vega and the Talecris Class members.

95. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), Defendant Talecris has collected, captured, 

stored, and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class’s biometric identifiers and 

biometric information, without:

d. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, that the biometric identifiers or 

biometric information were being obtained, collected, captured, and/or 

stored;

e. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, of the specific purpose and length of 

term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information were being 

collected, stored, and used; and

f. receiving a written release executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members and 

executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members as a condition of employment 

or donation.

96. Defendant Talecris took Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class’s and other class 

members’ finger scans, and knowingly caused their biometrics to be captured, collected, stored, 

and/or otherwise obtained without making publicly available the required policy that explains, for 

example, any purposes for which the biometric identifiers and information were collected, a 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:889
Page 18 of 23

retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and 

information.

97. As a result of Defendant Talecris’ above- described acts and omissions, Defendant

Talecris has invaded the privacy of Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class; it has unlawfully and 

coercively taken their biometrics; it has failed to provide them with information required by BIPA; 

it has deprived them of benefits, rights, opportunities and decisions conferred and required by the 

Illinois legislature via BIPA; and it illegally captured, collected, recorded, possessed, converted, 

and/or stored their finger scans, biometrics, and property.

98. Accordingly, Defendant Talecris has violated the BIPA, and Plaintiff Vega and the 

Biomat Class have been damaged and are entitled to damages available under the BIPA, including 

liquidated damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and/or $5,000 per willful or reckless 

violation. 740 ILCS 14/20(1).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class, individually and on behalf of the Class 

of similarly situated individuals, prays for an Order as follows:

G. Finding this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set 

forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying the class as defined 

herein; 

H. Designating and appointing Plaintiffs as representative of the class and Plaintiffs’ 

undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

I. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class and against 

Defendant Talecris;

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:890
Page 19 of 23

J. Awarding Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class members liquidated damages of 

$1,000 per each negligent violation, $5,000 per each willful or reckless violation 

of BIPA; 

K. Awarding Plaintiff Vega and the Talecris Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs incurred in this litigation; and 

L. Granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. 

COUNT III – FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST IBB ONLY

VIOLATION OF 740 ILCS 14/1, ET SEQ. – THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

(Darnell Against IBBI)

99. Plaintiff Darnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the 

IBB Class, repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

100. BIPA is a remedial statute designed to protect consumers, by requiring consent and 

disclosures associated with the handling of biometrics, particularly in the context of biometric 

technology. 740 ILCS 14/5(g), 14/10, and 14/15(b)(3).

101. The Illinois General Assembly’s recognition of the importance of the public policy 

and benefits underpinning BIPA’s enactment, and the regulation of biometrics collection, is 

detailed in the text of the statute itself. 

102. IBB has been and continues to be a “private entity.” 

103. IBB has been and continue to be in possession of Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB 

Class’s biometrics, and it collected, captured, or otherwise obtained their biometric identifiers and 

biometric information within the meaning of the Act.

104. As more fully set forth above, at relevant times Defendant IBB collected, captured, 

or otherwise obtained, Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class’s biometric identifiers and biometric 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:891
Page 20 of 23

information based on those identifiers as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10, through the imposition 

of biometric devices.

105. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a), Defendant IBB failed to make such a written 

policy publicly available to Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class members.

106. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), Defendant IBB has collected, captured, stored, 

and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class’s biometric identifiers and biometric 

information, without:

g. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, that the biometric identifiers or 

biometric information were being obtained, collected, captured, and/or 

stored;

h. informing Plaintiffs and the Class (including, where applicable, their legal 

authorized representatives), in writing, of the specific purpose and length of 

term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information were being 

collected, stored, and used; and

i. receiving a written release executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members and 

executed by Plaintiffs and/or Class members as a condition of employment 

or donation.

107. Defendant IBB took Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class’s and other class members’ 

finger scans, and knowingly caused their biometrics to be captured, collected, stored, and/or 

otherwise obtained without making publicly available the required policy that explains, for 

example, any purposes for which the biometric identifiers and information were collected, a 

retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and 

information.

108. As a result of Defendant IBB’s above- described acts and omissions, Defendant

IBB has invaded the privacy of Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class; it has unlawfully and 

coercively taken their biometrics; it has failed to provide them with information required by BIPA; 

it has deprived them of benefits, rights, opportunities and decisions conferred and required by the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:892
Page 21 of 23

Illinois legislature via BIPA; and it illegally captured, collected, recorded, possessed, converted, 

and/or stored their finger scans, biometrics, and property.

109. Accordingly, Defendant IBB has violated the BIPA, and Plaintiff Darnell and the 

IBB Class have been damaged and are entitled to damages available under the BIPA, including 

liquidated damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and/or $5,000 per willful or reckless 

violation. 740 ILCS 14/20(1).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class, individually and on behalf of the Class 

of similarly situated individuals, prays for an Order as follows:

M. Finding this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set 

forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and certifying the class as defined 

herein; 

N. Designating and appointing Plaintiffs as representative of the class and Plaintiffs’ 

undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

O. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class and against

Defendant IBB;

P. Awarding Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class members liquidated damages of 

$1,000 per each negligent violation, $5,000 per each willful or reckless violation 

of BIPA; 

Q. Awarding Plaintiff Darnell and the IBB Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and costs incurred in this litigation; and 

R. Granting all such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:893
Page 22 of 23

Dated: May 16, 2022 By: /s/ Mara Baltabols

David Fish (dfish@fishlawfirm.com)

Mara Baltabols (mara@fishlawfirm.com)

FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS, P.C.

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123

Naperville, Illinois 60563

Tel: 630.355.7590

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE 

PUTATIVE CLASS

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:894
Page 23 of 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mara Baltabols, an attorney, hereby certify that the foregoing was served on all counsel 

of record through service generated by the Court’s e-filing system and via electronic mail on May 

16, 2022.

 /s/ Mara Baltabols

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 72 Filed: 05/16/22 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:895