IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ISELA CARMINE, )

on behalf of herself and all others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-4589

vs. )

)

MACY’S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC., ) Jury Demanded

)

Defendant. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Isela Carmine, on behalf of herself and a putative class (“Plaintiff” or “Carmine”), 

brings this Class Action Complaint against Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. (“Macy’s”) and alleges 

the following:

Introduction

1. A New York Times article published on January 18, 2020 introduced Americans to the 

then relatively unknown company Clearview AI, Inc (“Clearview”). The article described a 

dystopian surveillance database, owned and operated by a private company and leased to the 

highest bidder. 

2. On February 27, 2020, BuzzFeed News released an article based on a review of 

Clearview’s documents, revealing that Clearview is working or contracted with over 2,200 law 

enforcement agencies, companies, and individuals around the world.

3. The same article and subsequent reporting by several news outlets revealed that 

Defendant Macy’s, among other private businesses and government entities, was using 

Clearview’s surveillance database to aid in its operations.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
2

4. Macy’s has run the identities of over six thousand individual customers through the 

database. 

5. Clearview AI’s database includes the photographs, and personal and private data, 

including names, home addresses, and work addresses, of millions of Americans. Clearview

acquired the billions of data points by “scraping” or harvesting the data from publicly available 

internet-based platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

6. Clearview’s database is unique – it has run every one of the 3 billion photographs it has 

acquired through facial recognition software to extract and index the unique biometric data from 

each face. The database thus also contains the biometric identifiers and information of millions 

of Americans. Any private citizen can be identified by uploading a photo to the database. Once 

identified, the end-user – here Macy’s – then has access to all of the individual’s personal details 

that Clearview has also obtained.

7. Macy’s acquisition and use of consumer’s biometric information and identifiers is illegal 

in Illinois.

8. Macy’s practice of identifying and tracking their customers using Clearview’s illegal 

surveillance database is unfair and directly violates each customers’ right to privacy.

Parties

9. Plaintiff Isela Carmine is a natural person and resident of this district. She maintains an 

active presence on social media, including Facebook and Instagram. She also uses Venmo to 

make and accept payments to other individuals. Carmine is a regular customer at Macy’s.

10. Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, doing business in 

Illinois, with twenty-one department stores in the state.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
3

Jurisdiction

11. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and the Class Action Fairness 

Act (“CAFA”) because there are 100 or more members of the class, the parties and putative class 

members are minimally diverse and the aggregate amount in controversy is greater than 

$5,000,000.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Macy’s because they conduct a substantial 

amount of business here which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims. Macy’s operates multiple 

stores in Illinois and is registered to do business in this state.

13. Venue is proper here under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial amount of the 

acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Illinois. 

Macy’s Surveillance and Clearview’s Database

14. Clearview ‘scrapes,’ ‘harvests,’ or otherwise obtains information and photos of millions 

of Americans from the internet, in particular social media platforms like Facebook and 

Instagram. That is, they use automated software or processes to obtain massive amounts of data 

without the consent or knowledge of the platform users.

15. Macy’s stores are equipped with video surveillance that captures the images of its visitors 

and customers. 

16. Macy’s sends or has sent pictures of persons who have visited its stores to Clearview, to 

identify the people in the pictures and obtain their personal information. 

17. Clearview then runs the photos through facial recognition software which identifies the 

photos that contain faces.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
4

18. The faces are then processed by Clearview’s software, and their biometric data is 

extracted. The biometric data is a collection of vectors and/or other data points that allows faces 

to be classified, searched and indexed. 

19. Clearview’s database links the biometric data to the other data Clearview has scraped so 

an end-user, like Macy’s, can find out where the photos came from along with a significant 

amount of personal and private details about a given individual.

20. In short, anyone with access to the database, including a reseller of the database or enduser, can upload a single photo and identify the person in real-time. A single picture on the 

internet means that any private citizen can immediately be identified and tracked.

21. Clearview sells or leases access to the surveillance database to public and private entities, 

for profit. Clearview additionally contracts with third parties, like Macy’s, to sell or lease access 

to the surveillance database.

22. Macy’s has a paid contract with Clearview.

23. The pictures and images from video surveillance at Macy’s are uploaded to Clearview’s 

database. If there is a match, the results identifying individual shoppers based on their facial 

geometry are sent back to Macy’s.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”)

24. More than ten years ago, the Illinois Legislature recognized the promises and perils of 

biometric identification technology. It passed the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 

§ 14/1 et seq., to establish and safeguard Illinois’ residents absolute right to control their 

biometric data.

25. BIPA regulates both biometric identifiers and biometric information. See, id.

26. Under the act, a “scan of...face geometry,” is a biometric identifier. Id. at § 14/10. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
5

27. Biometric information is any information derived from a biometric identifier, regardless 

of how it is captured, stored, or shared. Id.

28. The positive ID’s that Macy’s received back from Clearview are biometric information, 

as they are based on the biometric data Clearview has harvested and are used to identify 

individuals.

29. Once the photo is positively identified based on the biometric information in Clearview’s 

possession, the positive identification of those photos become biometric information. 

30. Under the act, a private entity, like Clearview or Macy’s, in possession of either 

biometric identifiers or information must develop a written policy, available to the public, 

establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the information or 

identifiers. Id. § 14/15(a).

31. Defendant has not provided any policy whatsoever establishing either a retention 

schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric data.

32. Under the act, a private entity like Macy’s is prohibited from collecting, capturing, or 

otherwise obtaining a person’s biometric information or identifier unless it first: a) informs the 

subject in writing that the information or identifier is being collected or stored; b) informs the 

subject in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which the information or 

identifier is being collected, stored, or used;, and, c) receives a written release from the subject of 

the information or identifier. Id. at § 14/15(b).

33. Macy’s had not at any relevant time informed Plaintiff or any member of the Class 

(described below) any of the information required under § 14/15(b). Neither the Plaintiff nor 

members of the putative Class executed a written release to Macy’s.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
6

34. Under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric 

identifier or information may not sell, lease, trade, or otherwise, profit from a person’s 

information or identifier. Id. § 14/15(c). 

35. Macy’s is actively profiting off of Plaintiff’s and each member of the putative class’ 

information or identifier through improved security and/or through marketing.

36. Under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric 

identifier or information may not disclose or disseminate the information except in certain 

specific situations, such as to comply with a valid warrant or subpoena. Id. at § 14/15(d).

37. Finally, under the act, a private entity, like Macy’s, in possession of a person’s biometric 

identifier or information must store, transmit, and protect the information from disclosure using a 

reasonable standard of care for their industry and in a manner that is the same or more protective 

than the manner in which the private entity stores, transmits, and protects other confidential and 

sensitive information. Id. at § 14/15(e).

38. BIPA provides a private right of action for violations of the act. For each individual 

violation, a person may recover the greater of actual damages or $1,000 for each negligent 

violation or $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Id. at § 14/20. The act also provides 

for reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses and any other relief the court deems 

appropriate, including injunctive relief. Id. 

39. Macy’s knew that to covertly collect personal and private data and biometric information 

would violate the privacy rights that BIPA was enacted to protect and that the violations would 

cause substantial harm to Illinois residents.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
7

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”)

40. The ICFA proscribes any unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course of trade or 

commerce. 815 ILCS § 505/2.

41. The ICFA allows any consumer who suffers actual damages from a violation of the act to 

bring a private action to recover actual damages or any other relief the court deems proper, 

including punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. Id. at §§ 505/10a(a); 505/10a(c).

42. Macy’s does not provide notice that individual’s entering their stores will be 

photographed or filmed and that their faces will be run through the illegal Clearview surveillance 

database. 

43. Macy’s does not notify consumers that Macy’s is acquiring their identity and personal 

information from the Clearview database.

44. Macy’s secret collection of photos and videos and positive identifications through 

Clearview’s database occurred in the course of commerce or trade. 

45. Macy’s secret identification of its shoppers based on their photographs is an unfair 

business practice. 

46. Macy’s use of the illegal Clearview database without notice to consumers is an unfair 

business practice. 

47. Macy’s intended for Illinois residents to be unaware of their covert data harvesting and 

surveillance operation, knowing that if they were aware, they would take steps to protect their 

personal and private data, including by not shopping at or entering any of Macy’s stores.

48. Once Plaintiff became aware of Macy’s practices and/or Clearview’s database, and the 

likelihood she was included in it, she was harmed by the invasion of her privacy, the anxiety and 

fear from being included in the surveillance database without her knowledge and consent, and by 

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
8

having to pay for an attorney to file and litigate this suit to have her data removed from the 

database. 

Plaintiff’s Allegations

49. Plaintiff has been an Illinois resident, residing in the Northern District of Illinois.

50. At relevant times, Plaintiff posted photos of herself on various publicly-accessible 

platforms and websites. Plaintiff posted the photos described in the preceding sentence while 

located in the Northern District of Illinois.

51. At relevant times, others posted photos of Plaintiff on various publicly-accessible 

platforms and websites.

52. At relevant times, photos of Plaintiff have appeared on various publicly-accessible 

websites.

53. At no time did Defendant nor Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized 

representative of Plaintiff in writing that they had collected or obtained Plaintiff’s biometric 

identifier or biometric information.

54. At no time did Defendant nor Clearview inform Plaintiff or a legally authorized 

representative of Plaintiff in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which 

Plaintiff’s biometric identifier and/or biometric information was being collected, stored and used.

55. At no time did Plaintiff or her legally authorized representative provide Defendant with 

an executed written release allowing them to collect, obtain, or use her biometric identifier 

and/or biometric information.

56. At no time did Plaintiff or her legally authorized representative consent to Defendant 

disclosing or redisclosing her biometric identifiers and/or biometric information.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
9

57. Based on publicly-available information, Defendant Macy’s obtained biometric 

information for over six thousand individual searches – including the biometric identifiers and 

information of Plaintiff and Class Members – and subsequently profited from that biometric 

information. 

58. Clearview, directly and through its agents, provided customers, such as Defendant 

Macy’s, with a service agreement that ensured customers would have unlimited access to its 

database. Based on a service agreement, the agreement made no mention of privacy protections, 

constitutional safeguards or limitations on information sharing of any kind.

59. In practice, Macy’s could use the database to identify individual shoppers, whose pictures 

they have taken, via biometric searches and then share or use the results in its desired way. As a 

result, a single shopper’s biometric search could potentially snowball into a nationwide dragnet.

60. Moreover, any Macy’s employee with access to the surveillance database could use it for 

their own personal ends -- for example, to stalk or track an individual.

61. Carmine learned of the Clearview surveillance database and its use by Macy’s.

62. Because Carmine has such a widespread and active social media presence, on 

information and belief, Carmine’s biometric information and identifiers and her personal and 

private information are contained in Clearview’s database. 

63. Carmine was immediately concerned for her own privacy and safety and the privacy and 

safety of her friends and family. 

64. Plaintiff Carmine has experienced anxiety, stress and other emotional distress based on 

her inclusion in the surveillance database and the unauthorized, for-profit acquisition and use of 

her biometric information by Defendant Macy’s.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
10

65. Carmine has suffered actual damages from the loss of control over her personal 

property—her biometric identifiers and information—as a result of the Defendant’s actions.

66. Due to Defendant’s actions, Carmine’s unique biometric information, which BIPA was 

designed to protect, has been compromised and sold for profit. It is unclear whether Carmine will 

ever be able to regain control over her biometric information.

67. Further, and as a result of all Defendant’s actions, Carmine, and her family and friends, 

are at a greater risk of stalking, harassment, and identity theft. 

Class Allegations

68. Isela Carmine brings this action on behalf of herself and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on 

behalf of a class defined as:

All persons who reside or resided in Illinois whose biometric identifier or information is 

or was contained in the Clearview database at any time and subsequently provided to 

Macy’s.

69. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definition as necessary following 

discovery.

70. On information and belief, the Class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. While 

the exact number is unknown, Plaintiff believes, based on reputable news sources, that 

Defendant has run over 6,000 searches on individuals.

71. Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over individual questions and 

include:

a. Whether any of the members consented to their inclusion in the surveillance 

database;

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
11

b. Whether an individual’s unique biometric identifiers and information, such as 

facial geometry, is intangible personal property or whether they have property right in 

such identifiers and information;

c. The extent of any damages incurred by Class members as a result of Defendant’s

actions.

72. Plaintiff’s claims are also typical and co-extensive with the claims of the class because 

she and members of the Class have all suffered the same injuries as a result of identical conduct 

by the Defendant.

73. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the proposed Class and she has 

retained counsel with experience in consumer law, Illinois law, and federal class actions.

74. A class action is superior to other methods of adjudication. The Class seeks injunctive 

relief applicable to the Class as a whole; due to the complexity of the claims, individual actions 

are not likely to be economically feasible; based on the possibility of a very large Class size, 

individual litigation would be a burden on the courts and result in delay and inconsistent results.

Relief Sought

COUNT I – DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

75. Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.

76. Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaration:

a. That the Macy’s business practice of using surveillance camera photos to get a 

positive identification through Clearview’s database are an ongoing violation of the 

Illinois Biometric Privacy Act;

77. Plaintiff and the Class seek a court order:

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
12

a. to command Macy’s to expunge, delete, and/or remove all information associated 

in any way with any member of the Class from their database or any other data 

collection;

b. to restrain Macy’s from using its received positive identification from Clearview’s

scraping or harvesting any information related to any member of the class from any 

source at any time now or in the future;

c. to command Macy’s to submit to and pay for court-supervised monitoring by a 

third party of their database and data-collection procedures to ensure compliance with 

BIPA and any other order of the court;

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

78. Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.

79. Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(a) by failing to develop and maintain a 

publicly available retention and destruction schedule.

80. Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(b) by obtaining biometric information and 

identifiers without making the required disclosures and receiving a written release from each 

Class member. 

81. Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(c) by selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise 

profiting from the Plaintiff’s and Class member’s biometric information and identifiers.

82. Defendant violated BIPA 740 ILCS § 14/15(d) by disclosing, re-disclosing, and 

otherwise disseminating Plaintiff’s and Class members’ biometric identifiers and information 

where the individuals did not consent to such disclosure and it was not: a) part of a financial 

transaction; b) required by any law; or, c) pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
13

83. As a direct result of these violations, Plaintiff and the Class suffered and continue to 

suffer injury and actual, economic, and emotional damages.

84. Plaintiff and the Class seek:

a. $1,000 for the Plaintiff and each member of the class for each and every separate 

negligent violation;

b. $5,000 for the Plaintiff and each member of the class for each and every separate 

intentional or reckless violation;

c. punitive damages;

d. costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees;

e. and, any other relief this court deems proper.

COUNT III – INVASION OF PRIVACY

85. Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.

86. Defendant did not have the right to Plaintiff’s biometric information, and invaded the 

privacy of Plaintiff and other Macy’s customers.

87. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s misconduct.

88. Plaintiff and the Class seek: 

a. actual damages;

b. punitive damages;

c. costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT IV – ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 

ACT (ICFA) – UNFAIR ACT

89. Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
14

90. At all times relevant, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce in the state: Macy’s 

has a paid contract with Clearview who leased, sold, or otherwise provided, for profit, access to 

the surveillance database based on pictures that Macy’s provided. 

91. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and members of the class were consumers within the 

meaning of ICFA.

92. Defendant’s practice of using Clearview’s unauthorized scraping or harvesting of 

Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ photos, videos, private and personal information, and its 

conversion into biometric information and identifiers to add to their surveillance database is an 

unfair practice. 

93. This practice has caused substantial injury and harm to Plaintiff and the members of the 

Class. It has also forced the Plaintiff to retain counsel to force Macy’s to comply with BIPA and 

redress other violations of state law.

94. Plaintiff and the Class seek:

a. actual damages;

b. punitive damages;

c. costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT V – ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 

ACT – DECEPTIVE ACT

95. Plaintiff restates and alleges the above paragraphs, 1-80, as if set forth fully herein.

96. At all times relevant, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce in the state: Macy’s 

has a paid contract with Clearview who leased, sold, or otherwise provided, for profit, access to 

the surveillance database based on pictures that Macy’s provided. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
15

97. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and members of the class were consumers within the 

meaning of ICFA.

98. Defendant’s practice of using Clearview’s unauthorized scraping or harvesting of 

Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ photos, videos, private and personal information, and its 

conversion into biometric information and identifiers to add to their surveillance database is a 

deceptive act. 

99. This practice has caused substantial injury and harm to Plaintiff and the members of the 

Class. It has also forced the Plaintiff to retain counsel to force Macy’s to comply with BIPA and 

redress other violations of state law.

100. Plaintiff and the Class seek:

a. actual damages;

b. punitive damages;

c. costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. any other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

August 5, 2020

[Signature Page Follows]

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
16

Submitted By:

/s/ Michael W. Drew

Michael Drew

Neighborhood Legal LLC

20 N. Clark Street #3300

Chicago, IL 60602

312-967-7220

mwd@neighborhood-legal.com

Michael Wood

Community Lawyers LLC

20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

Tel (312) 757-1880

mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case: 1:20-cv-04589 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/05/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16