Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:289
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 

AMBER L ECK (177882) 

 ambere@haelaw.com 

ALREEN HAEGGQUIST (221858) 

 alreenh@haelaw.com 

AARON M. OLSEN (259923) 

 aarono@haelaw.com 

IAN PIKE (329183) 

 ianp@haelaw.com 

225 Broadway, Suite 2050 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-342-8000 

Facsimile: 619-342-7878 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEAN BURKE and JAMES 

POMERENE, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly 

Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CLEARVIEW AI, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation; HOAN TON-THAT, an 

Individual; RICHARD SCHWARTZ, 

an Individual; and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

CLASS ACTION 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:290 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 34
2 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

Plaintiffs Sean Burke and James Pomerene (“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, 

bring this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the 

“Class”) against Defendants Clearview AI, Inc. (“Clearview”), Hoan Ton-That, 

Richard Schwartz, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Plaintiffs make the following allegations upon information and belief (except those 

allegations as to the Plaintiffs or their attorneys, which are based on personal 

knowledge), based upon an investigation that is reasonable under the 

circumstances, which allegations are likely to have evidentiary support after a 

reasonable opportunity for further investigation and/or discovery. 

NATURE OF ACTION 

1. The disturbing conduct at issue in this Complaint was highlighted in 

a letter by Senator Edward J. Markey to Clearview about its use of technology to 

collect, generate, and sell consumers’ biometric information without their consent: 

“Widespread use of your technology could facilitate dangerous 

behavior and could effectively destroy individuals’ ability to go 

about their daily lives anonymously.” 

“The ways in which this technology could be weaponized are vast 

and disturbing.” 

2. As warned by Senator Markey, “[a]ny technology with the ability to 

collect and analyze individuals’ biometric information has alarming potential to 

impinge on the public’s civil liberties and privacy.” Id. Indeed, Defendants’ use of 

Clearview’s technology does just that and violates California’s and Illinois’s 

privacy protection statutes, among other laws. 

3. Without notice or consent, Clearview illicitly “scraped” hundreds, if 

not thousands or more, websites, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, for over 

three billion images of consumers’ faces.1

 Clearview’s automated scraping for 

1

   Web “scraping” (aka web harvesting or web data extraction) is data scraping 

used for extracting data from websites. It is a form of copying, in which specific 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:291 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 34
3 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

images violated the policies of websites like Facebook and Twitter, the latter of 

which specifically prohibits scraping to build facial recognition databases. 

Unlawfully, Defendants stored billions of scraped images of faces in Clearview’s 

database, used its facial recognition software to generate biometric information 

(aka a “Faceprint”) to match the face to identifiable information, and then sold 

access to the database to third-party entities and agencies for a commercial gain. 

4. In clear violation of multiple privacy laws, Clearview sold for a profit 

access to billions of consumers’ Faceprints to law enforcement agencies and 

private companies across the country, including in California. Consumers did not 

receive notice of this violation of their privacy rights, and they certainly have not 

consented to it – in writing or otherwise. Clearview and its customers, including 

law enforcement and each of their employees, staff, and any number of other 

people, may be able to access billions of consumers’ identities, social connections, 

and other personal details based on the Faceprint created and sold by Clearview. 

As acknowledged by the co-director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara 

University, the “weaponization possibilities of this are endless.” Imagine a rogue 

employee of one of Clearview’s customers who wants to stalk potential romantic 

partners, a foreign government using it to discover information to use to blackmail 

key individuals, or law enforcement agencies prying into the private lives of 

citizens with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The “dystopian future” of 

a mass surveillance state has arrived with the erosion of privacy for billions of 

people, and Clearview is at the helm. 

5. To redress the harms suffered, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf 

of The Class and sub-classes (as defined herein below) bring claims for: (1) 

violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code 

data is gathered/fetched and copied/processed from the web, typically into a 

central local database or spreadsheet, for later use. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:292 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 34
4 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

§17200, et seq. (“UCL”) (predicated on, inter alia, violation of the California 

Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, California Civil Code §1798.100, et seq. 

(“CCPA”) (on behalf of Plaintiff Burke and the CCPA Class, Commercial 

Misappropriation Class, and Unjust Enrichment Class against all Defendants); (2) 

violation of California Civil Code §3344(a) (“Commercial Misappropriation”) (on 

behalf of Plaintiffs and the Commercial Misappropriation Class against all 

Defendants); (3) unjust enrichment (aka “restitution” or “quasi-contract”) (on 

behalf of Plaintiff Burke and the Unjust Enrichment Class against Defendant 

Clearview); and (4) violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 

740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”) (on behalf of Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class 

against all Defendants).2

 

JURISDICTION 

6. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§1332(a) as well as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), 

as to the named Plaintiffs and every member of The Class, because the proposed 

Class contains more than 100 members, the aggregate amount in controversy 

exceeds $5 million, and Class members reside in California and are therefore 

diverse from Clearview. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ 

state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). 

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs 

submit to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purpose of this Complaint. This Court 

has personal jurisdiction over Clearview because it does a substantial amount of 

business in California, including in this District; is authorized to conduct business 

in California, including in this District; and/or has intentionally availed itself of 

the laws and markets of this District through the use, promotion, sale, marketing, 

and/or distribution of its products and services at issue in this Complaint. 

2

 The Sub-Classes are defined below in Paragraphs 51-52 of the Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:293 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 34
5 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

Defendants’ liability to Plaintiffs and the Class arises from and relates to 

Defendants’ conduct within the state of California. As set forth, infra, Defendants 

acted within California to collect the biometric information of Plaintiffs and 

persons throughout the United States. Defendants put this biometric information, 

collected within the state of California, to commercial use throughout the United 

States, including within the states of California and Illinois. Further, Defendants 

harvest the biometric information of Plaintiffs and persons throughout the United 

States, wherever that biometric information is harvested, and subsequently put that 

biometric information to commercial use within the state of California. Thus, 

Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections 

of the state of California in conducting their unlawful enterprise, which purposeful 

availment constitutes sufficient minimum contacts with the state of California that 

the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants with regard to the claims of 

Plaintiffs and the Class does not violate Due Process. 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Hoan Ton-That 

and Richard Schwartz because, as set forth in more detail below, they conspired 

with Clearview and the Co-Conspirators as defined herein below to further the 

illegal scheme alleged in this Complaint, which directly targeted and impacted 

thousands, if not millions, of California residents and citizens, including in this 

District. Defendants Ton-That and Schwartz consented to, authorized, and directed 

the business conduct at issue in California, including in this District and have 

availed themselves of the laws and markets of this District. 

9. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), 

because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims 

occurred in this District. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. §1965(a), because 

Clearview transacts a substantial amount of its business in this District. 

Alternatively, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(3) because this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:294 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 34
6 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

THE PARTIES 

Plaintiff Sean Burke 

10. Plaintiff Sean Burke is a natural person and over the age of eighteen. 

Plaintiff Burke is, and at all relevant times has been, a resident and citizen of San 

Diego, California. 

11. Throughout the relevant period of this Complaint, numerous 

photographs that include images of Plaintiff Burke’s face were uploaded to various 

internet-based platforms and websites, including on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, 

Google, Venmo, and/or YouTube. 

12. Based on information and belief, Clearview “scraped” images of 

Plaintiff Burke’s face from internet-based websites, in violation of several of the 

websites’ terms of use and stored them in its database. Based on information and 

belief, in order to scrape Plaintiff Burke’s image, Clearview’s web scraper 

harvested information stored on servers in various states, including California and 

Illinois. Clearview also targeted companies that are at home in the state of 

California to perform its unlawful scraping. Clearview’s software application then 

applied facial recognition software to the images of Plaintiff Burke’s face, 

calculated his unique physical characteristics, and generated a biometric template 

therefrom. Clearview generated biometric information (a “Faceprint”) enabling 

the identification of Plaintiff Burke, in direct violation of the laws identified in this 

Complaint, including the BIPA and CCPA. Clearview then sold, marketed, 

advertised, or otherwise made commercial use of access to its database containing 

Plaintiff Burke’s photograph and Faceprint to third-party entities throughout the 

United States generally, and in the states of California and Illinois particularly, for 

a commercial monetary gain in an amount to be determined at trial. 

13. Plaintiff Burke never consented, agreed, or gave permission – written 

or otherwise – to Clearview to collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, 

obtain, sell, lease, trade, disclose, redisclose, disseminate, or otherwise profit from 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:295 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 34
7 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

or use his photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers. 

Likewise, Clearview never informed Plaintiff Burke by written notice or otherwise 

that Plaintiff Burke could prevent Clearview from collecting, capturing, 

purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, 

redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using his photograph, 

likeness, and biometric information and identifiers. Similarly, Plaintiff Burke was 

never provided with an opportunity to prohibit or prevent Clearview from 

collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, 

leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting 

from or using his photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers. 

14. As a result of Clearview’s unauthorized collecting, capturing, 

purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, 

redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using Plaintiff Burke’s 

photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers, Plaintiff Burke 

was deprived of his control over that valuable and sensitive information. By 

depriving him of his control over this valuable information, Clearview 

misappropriated the value of his photograph, likeness, and biometric information 

and identifiers. Clearview has unlawfully profited therefrom. Plaintiff Burke has 

further suffered damages in the diminution in value of his sensitive biometric 

information and identifiers – information which is now at higher risk of privacy 

violations. 

Plaintiff James Pomerene

15. Plaintiff James (aka “Jim”) Pomerene is a natural person and over the 

age of eighteen. Plaintiff Pomerene is, and at all relevant times has been, a resident 

and citizen of Rockford, Illinois. 

16. Throughout the relevant period of this Complaint, photographs that 

include images of Plaintiff Pomerene’s face were uploaded to various internetCase: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:296 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 7 of 34
8 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

based platforms and websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, 

Venmo, and/or YouTube. 

17. Based on information and belief, Clearview “scraped” images of 

Plaintiff Pomerene’s face from internet-based websites, in violation of several of 

the websites’ terms of use and stored them in its database. Based on information 

and belief, in order to scrape Plaintiff Pomerene’s image, Clearview’s web scraper 

harvested information stored on servers in various states, including California and 

Illinois. Clearview also targeted companies that are at home in the state of 

California to perform its unlawful scraping. Clearview’s software application then 

applied facial recognition software to the images of Plaintiff Pomerene’s face, 

calculated his unique physical characteristics, and generated a biometric template 

therefrom. Clearview generated biometric information (a Faceprint) enabling the 

identification of Plaintiff Pomerene, in direct violation of the laws identified in this 

Complaint, including the BIPA and CCPA. Clearview then sold, marketed, 

advertised or otherwise made commercial use of access to its database containing 

Plaintiff Pomerene’s photograph and Faceprint to third-party entities throughout 

the United States generally, and in the states of California and Illinois particularly, 

for a commercial monetary gain in an amount to be determined at trial. 

18. Plaintiff Pomerene never consented, agreed, or gave permission – 

written or otherwise – to Clearview to collect, capture, purchase, receive through 

trade, obtain, sell, lease, trade, disclose, redisclose, disseminate, or otherwise profit 

from or use his photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers. 

Likewise, Clearview never informed Plaintiff Pomerene by written notice or 

otherwise that Plaintiff Pomerene could prevent Clearview from collecting, 

capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, 

disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using his 

photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers. Similarly, 

Plaintiff Pomerene was never provided with an opportunity to prohibit or prevent 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:297 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 8 of 34
9 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

Clearview from collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, 

obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or 

otherwise profiting from or using his photograph, likeness, and biometric 

information and identifiers. 

19. As a result of Clearview’s unauthorized collecting, capturing, 

purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, 

redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise profiting from or using Plaintiff 

Pomerene’s photograph, likeness, and biometric information and identifiers, 

Plaintiff Pomerene was deprived of his control over that valuable and sensitive 

information. By depriving him of his control over this valuable information, 

Clearview misappropriated the value of his photograph, likeness, and biometric 

information and identifiers. Clearview has unlawfully profited therefrom. Plaintiff 

Pomerene has further suffered damages in the diminution in value of his sensitive 

biometric information and identifiers – information which is now at higher risk of 

privacy violations. 

Defendant Clearview AI, Inc. 

20. Defendant Clearview AI, Inc., is a private, for-profit Delaware 

Corporation, with its principal place of business located in in New York, New 

York. Clearview markets, advertises, sells, and otherwise makes commercial use 

of its product throughout the United States, including in California, Illinois, New 

York and many other States. Based on information and belief, Clearview illicitly 

scraped the images of faces of billions of consumers from websites and platforms 

owned and operated by Illinois and California-based companies. Defendants are 

unlawfully using the biometric information, identifiers, and likeness of residents 

from all U.S. states, in California and Illinois. In other words, even though 

residents from U.S. states other than California and Illinois do not reside in 

California or Illinois, they are being specifically harmed by Defendants’ conduct 

in California and Illinois in multiple ways, including: (a) Defendants illicitly 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:298 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 9 of 34
10 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

scraping images of their faces from servers in California and Illinois (among other 

states); and (b) Defendants unlawfully selling, using, or otherwise disclosing their 

biometric information, identifiers, and likeness to business entities in California 

and Illinois (among other states), who are then also violating some of the laws at 

issue in this Complaint. As such, Defendants have intentionally availed themselves 

of the laws and markets of this District through the use, promotion, sale, and/or 

distribution of the unlawful products and services at issue in this Complaint – not 

just for Plaintiff Burke and California residents, but for all residents across the 

United States, including Plaintiff Pomerene and Illinois residents. 

21. Defendant Clearview is a “private entity” within the meaning of the 

BIPA, which defines “private entity” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, 

[etcetera] ... however organized.” 740 ILCS 14/10. Based on information and 

belief, Clearview is also a “business” within the meaning of the CCPA because: 

(i) it is a corporation; (ii) it operates for a profit or financial benefit of its 

shareholders or other owners; (iii) it does business in the State of California; (iv) 

it collects “consumers’ personal information” and determines the purposes and 

means of the processing of consumers’ personal information; and (v) it derives 50 

percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal 

information and/or its sells and/or shares for commercial purposes, alone or in 

combination, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers. Defendant 

Clearview is also a “person” within the meaning of California’s commercial 

misappropriation statute, Civil Code §3344. As set forth below, Plaintiffs, 

individually and on behalf of the Class, bring Counts I-IV against Clearview. 

Defendant Hoan Ton-That 

22. Defendant Hoan Ton-That is a founder and Chief Executive Officer 

of Clearview. Defendant Ton-That is a “private entity” within the meaning of the 

BIPA, which defines “private entity” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, 

[etcetera] ... however organized.” 740 ILCS 14/10. Defendant Ton-That is also a 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:299 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 10 of 34
11 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

“person” within the meaning of California’s commercial misappropriation statute, 

Cal. Civ. Code §3344. 

23. As a founder and owner of Clearview, Defendant Ton-That knew of, 

participated in, consented to, approved, authorized, and directed the wrongful acts 

alleged in this Complaint. Based on information and belief, Defendant Ton-That 

conspired with Clearview and its other owners/shareholders, officers, and/or 

directors, including, without limitation, Defendant Richard Schwartz, to carry out 

the illegal scheme alleged in this Complaint. As set forth below, Plaintiffs bring 

Counts I, II and IV against Defendant Ton-That. 

Defendant Richard Schwartz

24. Defendant Richard Schwartz is a founder and, based on information 

and belief, an officer, director and/or principal of Clearview. Defendant Schwartz 

is a “private entity” within the meaning of the BIPA, which defines “private entity” 

as “any individual, partnership, corporation, [etcetera] ... however organized.” 

740 ILCS 14/10. Defendant Schwartz is also a “person” within the meaning of 

California’s commercial misappropriation statute, Cal. Civ. Code §3344. 

25. As a founder and officer, director, and/or principal of Clearview, 

Defendant Schwartz knew of, participated in, consented to, approved, authorized, 

and directed the wrongful acts alleged in this Complaint. Based on information 

and belief, Defendant Schwartz conspired with Clearview and its other 

owners/shareholders, officers, and/or directors, including, without limitation, 

Defendant Hoan Ton-That, to carry out the illegal scheme alleged in this 

Complaint. As set forth below, Plaintiffs bring Counts I, II and IV against all 

Defendants. 

26. The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 

through 10, inclusive, are presently not known to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues 

these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek to amend this 

complaint and include these Doe Defendants true names and capacities when they 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:300 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 11 of 34
12 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

are ascertained. Each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some 

manner for the conduct alleged herein and for the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs 

and The Class. 

Defendants Conspired Amongst Themselves and With Others 

to Carry Out the Unlawful Scheme 

27. Defendants conspired amongst themselves and, based on information 

and belief, with the other owners, directors, officers, and/or shareholders of 

Clearview (the “Co-Conspirators”), to carry out the unlawful scheme, including 

the intentional torts. Defendants and the Co-Conspirators knew and/or had reason 

to know about Clearview’s primary business function, which was to scrape the 

internet for images of faces, use facial recognition technology to generate 

biometric information and identifiers, and sell access of the same to third-party 

entities and agencies, without the consent of the consumers whose photographs, 

likenesses, and biometric information and identifiers were being used. Defendants 

and the Co-Conspirators agreed to this business plan – a plan, which when carried 

out, violated several laws, including, inter alia, the BIPA and California’s 

Commercial Misappropriation statute. Defendants and the Co-Conspirators 

intended to profit from the primary, albeit unlawful, business plan of Clearview. 

28. Defendants each had knowledge of the unlawful business purpose, 

consented to and authorized the fulfillment of the unlawful business purpose, and 

directed and otherwise carried out the unlawful business purpose of the 

unauthorized collecting, capturing, purchasing, receiving through trade, obtaining, 

selling, leasing, trading, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or otherwise 

profiting from and/or using Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s photographs, likenesses, and 

biometric information and identifiers without their consent. 

29. Each of the Co-Conspirators are responsible as joint tortfeasors for 

all damages ensuing from the wrongful conduct carried out by Defendants. Each 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:301 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 12 of 34
13 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

member of the conspiracy is liable for all acts done by others pursuant to the 

conspiracy, and for all damages caused thereby. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

Biometrics and Privacy 

30. “Biometrics” refers to technologies used to identify an individual 

based on unique physical characteristics, e.g., “face geometry.” Throughout the 

last several years, companies have developed facial recognition technology, which 

works by scanning an image for human faces, extracting facial feature data from 

the image, generating a “faceprint” through the use of facial-recognition 

algorithms, and then comparing the resultant faceprint to other faceprints stored in 

a database. If a match is found, a person may be identified, including sensitive and 

confidential information about that person. 

31. This technology has raised serious privacy concerns about its massive 

scope and surreptitiousness. For example, in 2011, Google’s Chairman at the time 

said it was a technology the company held back on because it could be used “in a 

very bad way.” U.S. Senator Markey recognized that widespread use of the 

technology “could facilitate dangerous behavior and could effectively destroy 

individuals’ ability to go about their daily lives anonymously.” 

32. The Illinois Legislature has acknowledged that the “full ramifications 

of biometric technology are not fully known.” 740 ILCS 14/5(f). It is known, 

however, that 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.” 740 ILCS 14/5(g). 

33. “Biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access 

finances or other sensitive information.” 740 ILCS 14/5(c). “For example, social 

security numbers, when compromised, can be changed.” Id. “Biometrics, however, 

are unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:302 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 13 of 34
14 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

recourse ... [and] is at heightened risk for identity theft ....” Id. Recognizing this 

problem, the Federal Trade Commission urged companies using facial recognition 

technology to ask for consent before scanning and extracting biometric data from 

photographs.3

 This prevailing view has been adopted by both the BIPA and the 

CCPA, which require notice to and consent from the person who’s biometric 

identifier or information is being used. Unfortunately, Clearview could care less 

about the prevailing view or these laws and failed to obtain user consent before 

launching its widespread facial recognition program and continues to violate 

millions of California and Illinois residents’ legal privacy rights. 

California’s Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (via UCL) 

34. Under the CCPA, a “business that collects a consumer’s personal 

information shall, at or before the point of collection, inform consumers as to the 

categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the 

categories of personal information shall be used.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100(b). 

“A business shall not collect additional categories of personal information or use 

personal information collected for additional purposes without providing the 

consumer with notice consistent with this section.” Id. 

35. The statute defines “personal information” as any “information that 

identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or 

could reasonable be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or 

household.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(o)(1). Personal information includes, but 

is not limited to, “[b]iometric information.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(o)(1)(E). 

“‘Biometric information’ means an individual’s physiological, biological, or 

behavioral characteristics, including an individual’s deoxyribonucleic acid 

3

 See Facing Facts: Best Practices for Common Uses of Facial Recognition 

Technologies, Federal Trade Commission (Oct. 2012), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/facing-facts-bestpractices-common-uses-facial-recognition-technologies/121022facialtechrpt.pdf. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:303 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 14 of 34
15 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

(DNA), that can be used, singly or in combination with each other or with other 

identifying data, to establish individual identity.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(b). 

“Biometric information includes, but is not limited to, imagery of the iris, retina, 

fingerprint, face, hand, [etcetera] ... from which an identifier template, such as a 

faceprint ... can be extracted ....” Id. (emphasis added). 

Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) 

36. The BIPA was enacted in 2008. Under the BIPA, companies may not 

“collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s 

or a customer’s biometric identifier ... unless it first: 

(1) informs the subject ... in writing that a biometric identifier ... is being 

collected or stored; 

(2) informs the subject ... in writing of the specific purpose and length 

of term for which a biometric identifier ... is being collected, stored, and 

used; and 

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric 

identifier ....” 

740 ILCS 14/15(b). 

37. The statute defines “biometric identifier” to include “retina or iris 

scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.” 740 ILCS 14/10. 

“‘Biometric Information’ means any information, regardless of how it is captured, 

converted, stored, or shared, based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to 

identify an individual.” Id.

38. The BIPA also regulates how companies acting within Illinois must 

handle biometric identifiers and information. See 740 ILCS 14/15(c)-(d). For 

example, the law prohibits selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from a 

person’s biometric data. 704 ILCS 14/15(c). The BIPA also requires companies 

like Clearview to develop a publicly available written policy establishing a 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data. 740 

ILCS 14/15(a). 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:304 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 15 of 34
16 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

Clearview Knowingly and Intentionally Violated the BIPA and CCPA 

39. As explained below, Defendants unlawfully collected, captured, 

purchased, received through trade, obtained, sold, leased, traded, disclosed, 

redisclosed, disseminated, and/or otherwise profited from or used Plaintiffs’ and 

The Class’s photographs and biometric information and identifiers in violation of 

the CCPA, BIPA, and California’s law against Commercial Misappropriation. 

Clearview has been described by the media as the “secretive company that might 

end privacy as we know it.”4

40. Clearview uses a software application to illicitly and secretly scrape 

billions of images from websites such as Twitter, Facebook, Venmo, Google, 

Instagram, and YouTube, in violation of many of the websites’ policies. Indeed, 

companies such as Facebook and Twitter have sent Clearview cease and desist 

letters. Based on information and belief, Clearview’s web scraping software 

accesses data, which includes the photographs and likenesses of Plaintiffs and 

Class members, stored on servers within California and throughout the United 

States. 

41. Clearview’s software application then applies facial recognition 

software to the illicitly scraped images, whereby the company uses artificial 

intelligence algorithms to scan the facial geometry of faces in the images. The 

algorithm calculates an individual face’s unique physical characteristics, which 

result in a biometric template that is separate and distinct from the image from 

which it was created. Clearview describes the technology as a “state-of-the-art 

neural net” to convert all images into mathematical formulas, or “vectors,” based 

on facial geometry – like how far apart a person’s eyes are. This process generates 

biometric information enabling the identification of the individuals in the images 

4

   See, e.g., Hill, Kashmir (2020-01-18). “The Secretive Company That Might 

End Privacy as We Know It.” The New York Times, ISSN 0362-4331, retrieved 

Jan. 18, 2020; updated Feb. 10, 2020.

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:305 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 16 of 34
17 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

(herein referred to as individuals’ Faceprint), in direct violation of the BIPA and 

CCPA. Defendants engage in this process without notifying any of the individuals 

whose images Clearview has captured, converted into a Faceprint, stored, and 

shared for a profit. Defendants certainly have not obtained these individuals’ 

consent – written or otherwise. 

42. Once Defendants generate the biometric information for millions of 

people, Clearview sells access to the database to law enforcement agencies and 

private companies. Instead of having limited photo arrays, agencies and private 

companies are now able to use Clearview’s database of three billion photos: 

43. Based on information and belief, very few individuals have been 

arrested, much less convicted, using Clearview’s database. Yet, these agencies and 

private companies have instantaneous access to the biometric information of 

billions of people allowing them to peep into almost every aspect of their digital 

lives, including who they associate with, where they live, etcetera 

44. It has also been reported that Defendants have real-time access to 

monitor which individuals the law enforcement agencies are searching for. For 

example, an investigative journalist from The New York Times who was doing a 

This is how many photos you can search ... 

3 

2 

&million 47 million 

0------------------- ... w ith the 

Los Angeles 

Police 

... with 

Florida 

Police 

... w ith the 

FBI 

3 billion 

... with 

Clearview 

A chart from marketing 

materials that Clearview 

provided to law 

enforcement. 

Clearview 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:306 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 17 of 34
18 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

story on Clearview had a law enforcement agency upload images of his face and 

run it through Clearview’s application. Soon thereafter, the agency received calls 

from Clearview asking if it was talking to the media – a clear sign Clearview has 

the ability and appetite to monitor whom law enforcement is searching for. 

45. In addition, based on information and belief, the computer code 

underlying Clearview’s software application includes programmable language to 

enable it to pair with augmented reality glasses. This tool potentially enables any 

user wearing the glasses to identify in real-time every person they see as they walk 

down the street, potentially revealing not just their names, but where they live, 

what they like to do, and who they know and associate with. 

46. Moreover, it has been shown that Clearview cannot adequately 

safeguard the biometric information and identifiers of Plaintiffs and The Class. On 

February 26, 2020, it was publicly reported that there was a data breach of 

Clearview’s data storage servers, which compromised the privacy and security of 

every person whose image Clearview had scraped and used to generate biometric 

identifiers. 

47. The result of Clearview’s technology is not a safer society by 

enabling law enforcement access to a broader database from which can lead to the 

capture of criminals. The result is a profit machine for a single company that relies 

on the secret use of individual’s biometric information. This is a radical evasion 

and erosion of privacy. Defendants are laying the groundwork for a dystopian 

future and violating, inter alia, the BIPA and CCPA in the process. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference each allegation 

in the preceding and subsequent paragraphs. 

49. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a class of 

similarly situated individuals pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:307 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 18 of 34
19 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

50. As used herein, the following terms have the meanings set forth 

below: 

(a) “California Biometric Information” means an “individual’s 

physiological, biological, or behavioral characteristics, including an individual’s 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), that can be used, singly or in combination with each 

other or with other identifying data, to establish individual identity” as defined 

under CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(b). 

(b) “Illinois Biometric Information” means “any information, 

regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an 

individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual” as defined in the 

BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10. 

(c) “Photograph” means “any photographic or photographic 

reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission, of 

any person, such that the person is identifiable” as defined by California Civil 

Code §3344(b). 

51. Plaintiffs seek to represent the following classes of persons: 

(a) Sub-Class One (the “Commercial Misappropriation 

Class”) (Cal. Civ. Code §3344): 

All persons in the United States who had their Photograph or likeness 

knowingly used by Clearview, without those persons’ consent, for 

commercial gain within the state of California. 

(b) Sub-Class Two (the “BIPA Class”) (740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.):

All persons in the United States who had their Illinois Biometric 

Information collected, captured, purchased, received, obtained, sold, 

leased, traded, disclosed, redisclosed, disseminated, and/or otherwise 

profited from and/or used by Clearview without their consent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:308 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 19 of 34
20 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

52. Plaintiff Burke seeks to represent the following classes of persons: 

(a) Sub-Class Three (the “CCPA Class”) (Cal. Civ. Code 

§1798.100, et seq): 

All persons who, while residing in California, had their California 

Biometric Information collected and/or used by Clearview without 

prior notice by Clearview and without their consent. 

(b) Sub-Class Four (the “Unjust Enrichment Class”):

All persons who, while residing in California, had their California 

Biometric Information misappropriated by Clearview from which 

Clearview was unjustly enriched. 

53. Collectively, the four sub-classes are herein referred to as “The 

Class.” 

54. Excluded from The Class are Defendants, their officers and directors, 

families, owners, and legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any 

entity in which Clearview have a controlling interest, and any Judge assigned to 

this case and their immediate families. 

55. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the class definition in 

connection with their motion for class certification, as a result of discovery, at trial, 

or as otherwise allowed by law. 

56. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all others 

similarly situated because there is a well-defined community of interest in the 

litigation and the proposed sub-classes are easily ascertainable. 

Numerosity 

57. The potential members of The Class, and each of the four sub-classes 

independently, are so numerous joinder of all the members is impracticable. While 

the precise number of members of The Class, or each of the four sub-classes, has 

not been determined, Plaintiffs are informed and believe The Class, and each of 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:309 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 20 of 34
21 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

the four-sub classes, include at least thousands (and potentially even millions) of 

individuals. 

58. Based on information and belief, Clearview’s records evidence the 

number and location of The Class, and each of the four sub-classes, respectively. 

Commonality and Predominance 

59. There are questions of law and fact common to The Class that 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. These 

common questions of law and fact include, without limitation: 

(a) Whether Clearview collected, captured, received, or otherwise 

obtained Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s Illinois Biometric Information; 

(b) Whether Clearview has sold, leased, traded, or otherwise 

profited from Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s Illinois Biometric Information; 

(c) Whether Clearview disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise 

disseminated Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s Illinois Biometric Information; 

(d) Whether Clearview properly informed Plaintiffs and the BIPA 

Class that it collected, captured, purchased, received, obtained, sold, leased, 

traded, disclosed, redisclosed, disseminated, and/or otherwise profited from and/or 

used their Illinois Biometric Information; 

(e) Whether Clearview obtained a written release (as defined in 

740 ILCS 14/10) from Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class to collect, capture, or 

otherwise obtain their biometric identifiers; 

(f) Whether Clearview made publicly available to Plaintiffs and 

the BIPA Class, a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines 

for permanently destroying Illinois Biometric Information in compliance with the 

BIPA; 

(g) Whether Clearview’s violations of the BIPA were committed 

intentionally, recklessly, or negligently; 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:310 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 21 of 34
22 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

(h) Whether Clearview collected and/or used Plaintiff Burke’s and 

the CCPA Class’s California Biometric Information without first providing notice 

of such collection and/or use; 

(i) Whether Clearview knowingly used Plaintiff Burke’s 

Photograph and/or the likeness of Plaintiffs and the Commercial Misappropriation 

Class for commercial gain without their consent; 

(j) Whether Clearview was unjustly enriched by the 

misappropriation of Plaintiff Burke’s and the Unjust Enrichment Class’s 

California Biometric Information; 

(k) Whether Defendants conspired for the purpose of 

accomplishing some concerted action either an unlawful purpose or lawful purpose 

by unlawful means; and 

(l) Whether Plaintiffs and The Class have been harmed and the 

proper measure of relief. 

Typicality 

60. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of The Class. 

Plaintiffs and all members of The Class sustained injuries and damages arising out 

of and caused by Clearview’s common course of conduct in violation of laws, 

regulations that have the force and effect of law, and statutes as alleged herein. 

Adequacy of Representation 

61. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests 

of The Class. Counsel who represents Plaintiffs are competent and experienced in 

litigating large consumer class actions. 

Superiority of Class Action 

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

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Individual joinder of The Class is not 

practicable, and questions of law and fact common to The Class predominate over 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:311 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 22 of 34
23 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

any questions affecting only individual members of The Class. Each member of 

The Class has been damaged and is entitled to recovery because of Clearview’s 

uniform unlawful policy and/or practices described herein. There are no 

individualized factual or legal issues for the court to resolve that would prevent 

this case from proceeding as a class action. Class action treatment will allow those 

similarly situated persons to litigate their claims in the manner that is most efficient 

and economical for the parties and the judicial system. Plaintiffs are unaware of 

any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action 

that would preclude its maintenance as a class action. 

COUNT I 

Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices 

In Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq. 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Burke, Plaintiffs, the CCPA Class, and the 

Commercial Misappropriation Class against All Defendants) 

63. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein. 

64. Defendants engaged in unlawful activity prohibited by the UCL. The 

actions of Defendants as alleged within this Complaint constitute unlawful and 

unfair business practices with the meaning of the UCL. 

65. Defendants have conducted the following unlawful activities: 

(a) Violations of the CPPA, Civil Code §1798.100(b) (Defendant 

Clearview); and 

(b) Violations of Commercial Misappropriation, Civil Code 

§3344(a) (all Defendants). 

66. The statutory requirements for Commercial Misappropriation under 

Civil Code §3344, including how Defendants violated that law, are set forth in 

detail in Count II herein below. 

67. With respect to Clearview’s violation of the CCPA, a “business that 

collects a consumer’s personal information shall, at or before the point of 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:312 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 23 of 34
24 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

collection, inform consumers as to the categories of personal information to be 

collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information shall 

be used.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100(b). “A business shall not collect additional 

categories of personal information or use personal information collected for 

additional purposes without providing the consumer with notice consistent with 

this section.” Id.

68. The CCPA defines “personal information” as any “information that 

identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or 

could reasonable be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or 

household.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(o)(1). Personal information includes, but 

is not limited to, “[b]iometric information.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(o)(1)(E). 

“‘Biometric information’ means an individual’s physiological, biological, or 

behavioral characteristics, including an individual’s deoxyribonucleic acid 

(DNA), that can be used, singly or in combination with each other or with other 

identifying data, to establish individual identity.” Cal. Civ. Code §1798.140(b). 

“Biometric information includes, but is not limited to, imagery of the iris, retina, 

fingerprint, face, hand, [etcetera] ... from which an identifier template, such as a 

faceprint ... can be extracted ....” Id. (emphasis added). 

69. As set forth in detail elsewhere in this Complaint, Clearview collected 

Plaintiff Burke’s and the CCPA Class’s “personal information” as defined in the 

CCPA and failed to inform Plaintiff Burke and the CCPA Class of the same at or 

before the point of collection. Accordingly, Clearview violated the CCPA. 

Clearview also engaged in Commercial Misappropriation as detailed in Count II 

herein below. 

70. In addition to constituting “unlawful conduct” in violation of the 

above-noted laws, Clearview’s activities also constitute unfair practices in 

violation of the UCL because Clearview’s practices violate an established public 

policy, and/or the practice is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:313 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 24 of 34
25 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

substantially injurious to Plaintiff Burke, the CCPA Class, and the Commercial 

Misappropriation Class. 

71. Because of Defendants’ violations of the identified laws, Plaintiff 

Burke, the CCPA Class, and the Commercial Misappropriation Class have 

suffered injury-in-fact and have lost money or property. Plaintiff Burke, the CCPA 

Class, and the Commercial Misappropriation Class are entitled to restitution, 

restitutionary disgorgement, an injunction, declaratory, and other equitable relief 

against such unlawful practices to prevent future harm for which there is no 

adequate remedy at law. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices of 

Defendants, Plaintiff Burke, the CCPA Class, and the Commercial 

Misappropriation Class are entitled to equitable and injunctive relief, including 

restitutionary disgorgement of the value of Plaintiff Burke’s, the CCPA Class’s, 

and the Commercial Misappropriation Class’s California Biometric Information 

and Photographs and/or likeness which have been unlawfully misappropriated by 

Clearview. Defendants should be enjoined and cease and desist from engaging in 

the practices described herein for the maximum time permitted pursuant to 

California Business & Professions Code §17208, including any tolling. 

73. The unlawful and unfair conduct alleged herein is continuing, and 

there is no indication that Defendants will refrain from such activity in the future. 

Plaintiffs believe and allege that if Defendants are not enjoined from the conduct 

set forth in this Complaint, they will continue to violate California’s and Illinois’s 

laws. Plaintiffs further requests that the Court issue a preliminary and permanent 

injunction. 

74. Plaintiffs are also entitled to and hereby claims attorneys’ fees and 

costs, pursuant to the private attorney general theory doctrine (Code of Civil 

Procedure §1021.5), and any other applicable provision for attorney fees and costs, 

based upon the violation of the underlying public policies. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:314 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 25 of 34
26 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

COUNT II 

Commercial Misappropriation 

In Violation of California Civil Code §3344(a) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and The Commercial Misappropriation Class 

against All Defendants) 

75. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein. 

76. Pursuant to California Civil Code §3344(a) it is unlawful for any 

person to knowingly use “another’s name, voice, signature, photograph, or 

likeness, in any manner ... without such person’s prior consent ....” 

77. Any person who violates this section shall be liable to the injury party 

or parties “in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) 

or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, 

and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are 

not taken into account in computing the actual damages.” Civil Code §3344(a); 

See Orthopedic Systems, Inc. v. Schlein, 202 Cal. App. 4th 529, 547 (2011) (“We 

hold that under section 3344(a), an injured party may recover either the amount of 

damages specified in the statute or actual damages, whichever is greater, as well 

as profits from the unauthorized use.”). 

78. Plaintiffs and the Commercial Misappropriation Class had 

Photographs (as defined in Civil Code §3344(b)) posted to various websites on the 

internet, including on Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Venmo, and 

YouTube, under the terms and conditions governing those sites. 

79. Without providing notice to, and/or obtaining consent from, Plaintiffs 

and the Commercial Misappropriation Class, Defendants knowingly and illicitly 

obtained Photographs and likenesses of Plaintiffs and the Commercial 

Misappropriation Class by scraping the internet in violation of many of the 

websites’ policies which prohibited such conduct. Without notice to, and/or 

consent from, Plaintiffs and the Misappropriation Class, Defendants knowingly 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:315 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 26 of 34
27 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

used their Photographs and likenesses to Defendants’ advantage by selling access 

to them to third-party entities within the state of California for a commercial gain. 

80. The use of Plaintiffs and the Commercial Misappropriation Class’s 

Photographs and likenesses by Defendants did not have any connection with any 

news, public affairs, sports broadcast or account, or any political campaign. 

81. “‘Shareholders, officers, and directors of corporations’” may be 

“‘held personally liable for intentional torts when they knew or had reason to know 

about but failed to put a stop to tortious conduct.’” Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp. v. 

Actelion Ltd., 222 Cal. App. 4th 945, 966 (2013) (internal citation omitted). In 

addition, all persons “who are shown to have participated in an intentional tort are 

liable for the full amount of the damages suffered.” Id. Defendants Hon-That and 

Schwartz knew of, consented to, directed, and/or authorized the tortious conduct 

and failed to put a stop to it. 

82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs 

and the Commercial Misappropriation Class have been harmed in an amount to be 

proven at the time of trial. 

83. Plaintiffs are also entitled to claim recovery of costs and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code §3344(a). 

COUNT III 

Unjust Enrichment / Restitution 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Burke and The Unjust Enrichment Class 

against Defendant Clearview) 

84. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein. 

85. Clearview was unjustly enriched by its unlawful misappropriation of 

Plaintiff Burke’s and the Unjust Enrichment Class’s California Biometric 

Information, Photographs, and likeness. Through its unlawful conduct, Clearview 

received and retained a benefit it otherwise would not have achieved. By depriving 

Plaintiff Burke and the Unjust Enrichment Class of control over their valuable 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:316 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 27 of 34
28 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

Biometric Information, Clearview took control of and misappropriated the value 

of their California Biometric Information. Clearview’s conduct also exposed 

Plaintiff Burke and the Unjust Enrichment Class to a heightened risk of an invasion 

of their privacy. 

86. There is not another adequate remedy at law. It would be unjust and 

unfair for Clearview to retain any of the benefits obtained from its unlawful 

misappropriation of Plaintiff Burke’s and the Unjust Enrichment Class’s 

California Biometric Information. 

87. Clearview should be ordered to disgorge the proceeds that it unjustly 

received from the misappropriation of Plaintiff Burke’s and the Unjust Enrichment 

Class’s California Biometric Information. 

COUNT IV 

Violation of the BIPA 

740 ILCS §14/1, et seq. 

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class against All Defendants) 

88. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein. 

89. Defendants violated the following sections of the BIPA: 

(a) 740 ILCS 14/15(a); 

(b) 740 ILCS 14/15(b); 

(c) 740 ILCS 14/15(c); and 

(d) 740 ILCS 14/15(d). 

90. Section 15(a) of the BIPA requires that any “private entity in 

possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must develop a written 

policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and 

guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric 

information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or 

information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual’s last interaction 

with the private entity, whichever occurs first.” 740 ILCS 14/15(a). 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:317 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 28 of 34
29 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

91. Section 15(b) of the BIPA makes it unlawful for any private entity to, 

among other things, “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or 

otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric 

information, unless it first: (1) informs the subject ... in writing that a biometric 

identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; (2) informs the 

subject ... in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a 

biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and used; 

and (3) receives a written release executed by the subject of the biometric identifier 

or biometric information ....” 740 ILCS 14/15(b). 

92. Section 15(c) of the BIPA makes it unlawful for any private entity to, 

among other things, “sell, lease, trade, or otherwise profit from a person’s or a 

customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information.” 740 ILCS 14/15(c). 

93. Section 15(d) of the BIPA makes it unlawful for any private entity to, 

among other things, “disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate a person’s or 

a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information unless: (1) the subject 

of the biometric identifier or biometric information ... consents to the disclosure 

or redisclosure; (2) the disclosure or redisclosure completes a financial transaction 

requested by the subject of the biometric identifier or the biometric information 

...; (3) the disclosure or redisclosure is required by State or federal law or 

municipal ordinance; or (4) the disclosure is required pursuant to a valid warrant 

or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.” 740 ILCS 14/15(d). 

94. Defendants violated Sections 15(a)-(d) of the BIPA. Preliminarily, 

Clearview is a Delaware corporation and thus qualifies as a “private entity” under 

the BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10. Defendants Ton-That and Schwartz are 

“individuals” and, thus, are each a “private entity” under the BIPA. Id. 

95. Plaintiffs’ and The Class’s Faceprints are “biometric identifiers” and 

“biometric information” pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/10. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:318 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 29 of 34
30 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

96. During the relevant period, Defendants did not make available to the 

public a written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for 

permanently destroying Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s biometric identifiers and 

biometric information as specified by the BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/15(a). Thus, 

Defendants violated Section (a) of the BIPA. 

97. Defendants systematically and automatically collected, captured, 

purchased, received, and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information without first obtaining the 

specific written release required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3). Likewise, Defendants 

did not properly inform Plaintiffs or the BIPA Class in writing that their biometric 

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

purchased, received, and/or otherwise obtained, nor did it inform them in writing 

of the specific purpose and length of term for which their biometric identifiers 

and/or biometric information were being collected, captured, purchased, received, 

and/or otherwise obtained as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1)-(2). Thus, 

Defendants violated Section (b) of the BIPA. 

98. Defendants knowingly sold, leased, traded, and/or otherwise profited 

from Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information. Thus, Defendants violated Section (c) of the BIPA. 

99. Defendants also disclosed, redisclosed, and/or otherwise 

disseminated Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information without obtaining the consent from Plaintiffs and the BIPA 

Class and/or their authorized representatives. The disclosure, redisclosure, and/or 

dissemination by Defendants of Plaintiffs’ and the BIPA Class’s biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information was not to complete a financial transaction 

requested or authorized by Plaintiffs or members of the BIPA Class, nor was the 

disclosure and/or redisclosure required by State or federal law, municipal 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:319 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 30 of 34
31 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

ordinance, or required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of 

competent jurisdiction. Thus, Defendants violated Section (d) of the BIPA. 

100. Defendants Ton-That and Schwartz conspired with Clearview and the 

Co-Conspirators to carry out the unlawful scheme set forth above. They each had 

direct knowledge of the scheme, and consented, participated, directed, and 

otherwise assisted in carrying out the unlawful scheme. Based on information and 

belief, Defendants are continuing to direct and carry out the unlawful scheme. 

101. Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class have been directly harmed by 

Clearview’s violations of Sections 14/15(a)-(d) of the BIPA. They have been 

deprived of their control over their valuable information, and otherwise suffered 

monetary and non-monetary losses. By depriving Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class of 

control over their valuable information, Defendants misappropriated the value of 

their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. Based on information and 

belief, Defendants have profited from its unlawful conduct. 

102. On behalf of Plaintiffs and the BIPA Class, Plaintiffs seek: (i) 

injunctive and equitable relief as necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and 

the BIPA Class by requiring Defendants to comply with the BIPA’s requirements; 

(ii) statutory damages of $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation of the BIPA 

pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) and statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent 

violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (iii) reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs and other litigation expenses pursuant to 740 ILCS 

14/20(3). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of The Class, respectfully 

request that this Court enter an Order: 

A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the four subclasses defined above, appointment of the named Plaintiffs as the representatives 

of The Class, and appointing their counsel as Class Counsel; 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:320 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 31 of 34
32 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

B. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above, violate the 

BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.; 

C. Declaring that Clearview’s actions, as set out above, violate the 

CCPA, Cal. Civ. Code §1798.100, et seq.; 

D. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above, violate 

California’s commercial misappropriation statute, Cal. Civ. Code §3344(a); 

E. Declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above, violate 

California’s UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.; 

F. Awarding compensatory, non-compensatory, statutory, 

exemplary, and punitive damages; 

G. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 per intentional or 

reckless violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) and statutory 

damages of $1,000 per negligent violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 

14/20(1); 

H. Awarding either the amount of damages specified in the statute 

or actual damages, whichever is greater, as well as profits from the unauthorized 

use pursuant California’s commercial misappropriation statute, Cal. Civ. Code 

§3344(a); 

I. Awarding restitution of all monies, expenses, and costs due to 

Plaintiffs and The Class; 

J. Awarding restitutionary disgorgement from the unlawful and 

unfair business practices in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §§17200, et seq.; 

K. Awarding Plaintiffs and The Class their reasonable attorneys’ 

fees, costs, and litigation expenses; 

L. Awarding Plaintiffs and The Class pre- and post-judgment 

interest, to the extent allowable; 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:321 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 32 of 34
33 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

M. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as necessary to 

protect the interests of The Class, including, among other things, an order requiring 

Defendants to comply with the BIPA and CCPA; and 

N. Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice 

may require. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of The Class, hereby demand trial by 

jury on all issues so triable. 

Dated: April 7, 2020 HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 

AMBER L. ECK (177882) 

ALREEN HAEGGQUIST (221858) 

AARON M. OLSEN (259923) 

IAN PIKE (329183) 

By: 

 AARON M. OLSEN 

 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-342-8000 

Facsimile: 619-342-7878 

aaarono@haelaw.com 

aarono@zhlaw.com 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Class 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:322 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 33 of 34
34 Case No. 3:20-cv-00370-BAS-MSB 

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

HAEGGQUIST 

&

ECK, LLP 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on April 7, 2020, I authorized the electronic filing of 

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic 

Mail Notice List. 

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 7, 2020. 

/s/Aaron M. Olsen 

AARON M. OLSEN 

HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 

AARON M. OLSEN (259923) 

225 Broadway, Suite 2050 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-342-8000 

Facsimile: 619-342-7878 

aarono@haelaw.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 46-4 Filed: 04/27/20 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:323 Case 1:20-cv-03104-CM Document 6 Filed 04/07/20 Page 34 of 34