Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

BRIAN R. VAUGHAN and JASON 

DARNELL, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIOMAT USA, INC., TALECRIS PLASMA 

RESOURCES, INC., and INTERSTATE 

BLOOD BANK, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 20-cv-04241

Hon. Marvin E. Aspen

Mag. Judge Jeffrey Cole

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Brian Vaughan and Jason Darnell (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this Amended 

Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against 

Defendants Biomat USA, Inc., (“Biomat”), Talecris Plasma Resources, Inc. (“Talecris”), and 

Interstate Blood Bank, Inc. (“Interstate Blood Bank”) (collectively “Defendants”) to stop 

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

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

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

belief including investigation conducted by their attorneys. Further, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

PARTIES

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

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

centers.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:435
Page 2 of 19

3. Defendants Biomat and Talecris are Delaware corporations with multiple business 

locations in Illinois where they contract with people to purchase their plasma.

4. Defendant Interstate Blood Bank is a Tennessee corporation with multiple business 

locations in Illinois where it contracts with people to purchase their plasma. Interstate Blook Bank

also operates under the name Plasma Biological Services, LLC (“PBS”). PBS merged into 

Interstate Blood Bank in 2019. 

5. Defendants are part of the Grifols network of blood plasma donation. Grifols also 

operates in Illinois under the names of the Defendants. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants 

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

data in Illinois. 

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

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

over $5,000,000 is in controversy. 

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

require that plasma donors--like Plaintiffs--use biometric data when providing plasma to the 

Defendants.

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

privacy risks. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:436
Page 3 of 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15. As a donor of Defendants, Plaintiffs was identified using a biometric finger scan to 

donate plasma. 

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:437
Page 4 of 19

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

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

information derived from it.

17. BIPA further obligates Defendants to inform their donors in writing that a 

biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or captured; to tell their donors in 

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

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

disclosing when it will permanently destroy such information.

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

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

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

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

requirements are not met.

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

person can obtain a new social security number, but not a new hand, which makes the protection 

of, and control over, biometric identifiers and biometric information particularly.

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

and biometric identifiers or biometric information of their Illinois donors, like Plaintiffs, without 

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

disclosures concerning the collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers or 

information.

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:438
Page 5 of 19

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

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

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

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

themselves and all those similarly situated.

PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS

24. Plaintiffs donated plasma at one of the Defendants’ Illinois-based plasma donation 

centers within this District. 

25. As a plasma donor, Plaintiffs were required to scan at least one fingerprint so 

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

for them. 

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

method to track their plasma donations and identity.

27. Defendants subsequently stored Plaintiffs’ biometric data in their database(s).

28. Each time that Plaintiffs donated plasma they were required to scan their fingerprint 

using the biometric device. 

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

which Defendants collected, stored, or used their biometrics. 

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

Defendant, nor was he ever been informed of whether Defendants will ever permanently delete 

their biometrics. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:439
Page 6 of 19

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

Defendants to collect, capture, store, or otherwise obtain their fingerprint print(s), handprint, hand 

geometry, or other biometrics. 

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

conditions created by Defendants’ violations of BIPA alleged herein. 

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

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

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

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

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

ILLINOIS’ STRONG STANCE ON PROTECTION OF BIOMETRIC INFORMATION

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

in Illinois. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

subjects.

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

Act”), the Illinois General Assembly found:

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:440
Page 7 of 19

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

and appears to promise streamlined financial transactions and security 

screenings.

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

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

stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias.

(c) Biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances 

or other sensitive information. For example, social security numbers, when 

compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to 

the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is 

at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometricfacilitated transactions.

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

biometrics when such information is tied to finances and other personal 

information.

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

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

in biometric identifier-facilitated transactions.

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

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

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

biometric identifiers and information.

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

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

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

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

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

39. The Act defines “Biometric identifier” as: 

a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry. 

Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, 

photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or 

screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as 

height, weight, hair color, or eye color. Biometric identifiers do not include donated 

organs, tissues, or parts as defined in the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act or blood or 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:441
Page 8 of 19

serum stored on behalf of recipients or potential recipients of living or cadaveric 

transplants and obtained or stored by a federally designated organ procurement 

agency. Biometric identifiers do not include biological materials regulated under 

the Genetic Information Privacy Act. Biometric identifiers do not include 

information captured from a patient in a health care setting or information collected, 

used, or stored for health care treatment, payment, or operations under the federal 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Biometric identifiers

do not include an X-ray, roentgen process, computed tomography, MRI, PET scan, 

mammography, or other image or film of the human anatomy used to diagnose, 

prognose, or treat an illness or other medical condition or to further validate 

scientific testing or screening.

See, 740 ILCS 14/10. 

40. The Act defines “Biometric information” as:

any information, regardless of how it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, 

based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual. 

Biometric information does not include information derived from items or 

procedures excluded under the definition of biometric identifiers.

See, 740 ILCS 14/10.

41. The Act defines “Confidential and sensitive information” as: 

personal information that can be used to uniquely identify an individual or an individual’s 

account or property. Examples of confidential and sensitive information include, 

but are not limited to, a genetic marker, genetic testing information, a unique 

identifier number to locate an account or property, an account number, a PIN 

number, a pass code, a driver’s license number, or a social security number.

See, 740 ILCS 14/10.

42. The Act defines “Private entity” as:

any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other 

group, however organized. A private entity does not include a State or local 

government agency. A private entity does not include any court of Illinois, a clerk 

of the court, or a judge or justice thereof.

See, 740 ILCS 14/10.

43. The Act defines “Written release” as:

informed written consent or, in the context of employment, a release executed by 

an employee as a condition of employment

See, 740 ILCS 14/10.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:442
Page 9 of 19

44. The Act requires:

A 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. Absent a valid 

warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, a private entity in 

possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must comply with its 

established retention schedule and destruction guidelines.

740 ILCS 14/15(a).

45. Additionally, the Act provides:

No private entity may 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 or the subject’s legally authorized representative in 

writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or 

stored;

(2) informs the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative 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 or the subject’s legally authorized representative.

740 ILCS 14/15(b).

46. BIPA provides statutory damages negligent and reckless or willful violations. 

47. The Act explicitly provides a private right of action for violations of the Act, and 

provides that a prevailing party “may recover for each violation:”

(1) against a private entity that negligently violates a provision of this Act, 

liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater;

(2) against a private entity that intentionally or recklessly violates a provision 

of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is 

greater;

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:443
Page 10 of 19

(3) reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other 

litigation expenses; and

(4) other relief, including an injunction, as the State or federal court may deem 

appropriate.

740 ILCS 14/20.

48. In enacting BIPA, the Illinois General Assembly explicitly singled out and bound 

employers to BIPA’s requirements. 740 ILCS § 14/10 (defining “Written release” in the context 

of employment); 740 ILCS § 14/15(b)(3).

49. In fact, BIPA requires express written consent to capture or collect biometrics in 

the first place.

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

upon information and belief, continue to violate their donors’ biometric privacy rights.

DEFENDANTS’ BIOMETRIC FINGER-SCANNING OF DONORS

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

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

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

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

without regard to Illinois’ requirements under BIPA.

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

and stored at relevant times.

54. Defendants has not, on information and belief, properly informed donors in writing 

that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being captured, obtained, collected or stored; 

informed donors in writing of the specific purpose and length of term for which a biometric 

identifier or biometric information is being collected, stored, and used; obtained donors’ proper 

written consent to the capture, collection, obtainment or storage of their biometric identifier and 

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:444
Page 11 of 19

biometric information derived from it; or obtained written consent.

55. Defendants did not at any time, on information and belief as part of their donation 

of plasma: inform Plaintiffs in writing (or otherwise) that a biometric identifier and biometric 

information was being obtained, captured, collected, and/or stored, or of the specific purposes and 

length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information was being collected, 

captured, stored, and/or used; obtain, or attempt to obtain, Plaintiffs’ executed written release to 

have Plaintiffs’ biometrics captured, collected, stored, or recorded as a condition of donation –

Plaintiffs did not provide consent required by BIPA to the capture, collection, storage, obtainment, 

and/or use of Plaintiffs’ fingerprint, finger scan, finger geometry, or associated biometrics. Nor 

did Plaintiffs know or fully understand that Defendants was collecting, capturing, and/or storing 

biometrics when Plaintiffs were scanning Plaintiffs; fingers; nor did Plaintiffs know or could 

Plaintiffs know all of the uses or purposes for which Plaintiffs’ biometrics were taken.

56. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not publicly disclosed their retention 

schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying donor biometrics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:445
Page 12 of 19

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

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

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

biometric privacy rights, as created by BIPA. 

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

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

informed written consent as required by BIPA. 

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

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

whether Defendants sells, discloses, re-discloses, or otherwise disseminates their biometric data. 

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

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

merger, or a bankruptcy. 

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

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

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

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

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 

66. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the following 

class:

All persons who were enrolled in the biometric system used by Defendants in 

Illinois for plasma donors while donating plasma to Defendants from five years 

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

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

member of the judiciary presiding over this action.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:446
Page 13 of 19

67. Plaintiffs and the Class are similar to one another because they were all subject to 

the same allegedly illegal practices: scanning their fingerprints in Defendants’ verification system 

despite Defendants failing to adhere to the requirements of the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

68. The Class includes more than 100 members. See ECF No. 1, Notice of Removal, ¶ 

10.

69. As a result, the Class is so numerous that joining of all class members in one lawsuit 

is not practical.

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

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

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

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

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

exist between members of the Class, if any.

72. Plaintiffs, the members of the Class, and Defendants have a commonality of interest 

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

73. If individual actions were required to be brought by each member of the Class 

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

to the Court, and to Defendants. 

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

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

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

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:447
Page 14 of 19

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

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

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

COUNT I – FOR DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS

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

INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS

78. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, repeats, realleges, and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

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

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

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

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

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

detailed in the text of the statute itself. 

81. Further, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision made clear that 

“Compliance should not be difficult.” Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp., 2019 IL 

123186, ¶ 37 (Jan. 25, 2019). 

82. Additionally, the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that the Illinois Legislature 

intended to “subject[] private entities who fail to follow the statute’s requirements to substantial 

potential liability, including liquidated damages, injunctions, attorney fees, and litigation 

expenses ‘for each violation’ of the law (id. § 20) whether or not actual damages, beyond 

violation of the law's provisions, can be shown. Id. at ¶ 36 (emphasis added). 

83. “It is clear that the legislature intended for this provision to have substantial force.” 

Id. at ¶ 37.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:448
Page 15 of 19

84. Further, the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear, “an individual need not allege 

some actual injury or adverse effect, beyond violation of his or her rights under the Act, in 

order to qualify as an ‘aggrieved’ person and be entitled to seek liquidated damages and 

injunctive relief pursuant to the Act.” Id. at ¶ 40 (emphasis added). 

85. As Plaintiffs are not required to allege or prove actual damages in order to state a 

claim under BIPA, they seek statutory damages under BIPA as compensation from Defendants as 

authorized by BIPA. Id.

86. Defendants have been and continue to be each a “private entity.” 

87. Defendants have been and continue to be in possession of Plaintiffs’ biometrics, 

and it collected, captured, or otherwise obtained their biometric identifiers and biometric 

information within the meaning of the Act.

88. As more fully set forth above, at relevant times Defendants collected, captured, or 

otherwise obtained, Plaintiffs’ biometric identifiers and biometric information based on those 

identifiers as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10, through the imposition of biometric devices.

89. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(a), Defendants failed to make such a written policy 

publicly available to Plaintiffs and other class members.

90. In violation of 740 ILCS 14/15(b), Defendants have collected, captured, stored, 

and/or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ biometric identifiers and biometric 

information, without:

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

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

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

stored;

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

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

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:449
Page 16 of 19

term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information were being 

collected, stored, and used; and

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

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

or donation.

91. Defendants took Plaintiffs’ and other class members’ finger scans, and knowingly 

caused their biometrics to be captured, collected, stored, and/or otherwise obtained without making 

publicly available the required policy that explains, for example, any purposes for which the 

biometric identifiers and information were collected, a retention schedule, and guidelines for 

permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information.

92. As a result of Defendants’ above- described acts and omissions, Defendants have

invaded the privacy of Plaintiffs and the Class; it has unlawfully and coercively taken their 

biometrics; it has failed to provide them with information required by BIPA; it has deprived them 

of benefits, rights, opportunities and decisions conferred and required by the Illinois legislature via 

BIPA; and it illegally captured, collected, recorded, possessed, converted, and/or stored their finger

scans, biometrics, and property.

93. Accordingly, Defendants have violated the BIPA, and Plaintiffs and the Class have 

been damaged and are entitled to damages available under the BIPA, including liquidated damages 

of $1,000 per negligent violation and/or $5,000 per willful or reckless violation. 740 ILCS 

14/20(1).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class of similarly situated 

individuals, prays for an Order as follows:

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:450
Page 17 of 19

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

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

herein; 

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

undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;

C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and against Defendants;

D. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members liquidated damages of $1,000 per each

negligent violation, $5,000 per each willful or reckless violation of BIPA; 

E. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in this litigation; and 

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

COUNT II – FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS

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

94. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, repeats, realleges, and incorporates all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 

95. BIPA provides for injunctive relief. 740 ILCS 14/20(4).

96. Plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to an order requiring Defendants 

to make disclosures consistent with the Act and enjoining further unlawful conduct.

97. First, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to publicly disclose a written 

policy establishing any specific purpose and length of term for which Plaintiffs and other donors’ 

biometrics have been collected, captured, stored, obtained, and/or used, as well as guidelines for 

permanently destroying such biometrics 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, as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:451
Page 18 of 19

98. Second, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendants to disclose whether 

Defendants have retained Plaintiffs’ and other donor’s biometrics in any fashion, and if, when, and 

how such biometrics were permanently destroyed, consistent with BIPA.

99. Third, Defendants should be enjoined from further BIPA non-compliance and

should be ordered to remedy any BIPA compliance deficiencies forthwith.

100. Plaintiffs’ and other Class members’ legal interests are adverse to Defendants’ legal 

interests. There is a substantial controversy between Plaintiffs and Class members and Defendants 

warranting equitable relief so that Plaintiffs and the Class may obtain the protections that BIPA 

entitles them to receive.

101. Plaintiffs and the Class do not know what Defendants have done (or intend to do) 

with their biometrics. Absent injunctive relief, Defendants are likely to continue their BIPA 

non-compliance and Plaintiffs and other Class members will continue to be in the dark on the 

subject.

102. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their

claims.

103. BIPA establishes the importance, value, and sensitive nature of biometrics, along 

with the need to protect and control it; Plaintiffs are entitled to know what Defendants has done 

with it as set forth above, and to an affirmation and verification that it has been or will be 

permanently destroyed as required by 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

104. The gravity of the harm to Plaintiffs and the Class, absent equitable relief, 

outweighs any harm to Defendants if such relief is granted.

105. As a result, Plaintiffs requests commensurate injunctive relief.

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:452
Page 19 of 19

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the classes they represent, pray for 

an Order as follows:

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

forth in 735 ILCS 5/2-801, et seq., and certifying the class defined herein; 

B. Designating and appointing Plaintiffs as representative of the class they represent

and Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel as class counsel;

C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the classes and against Defendants;

D. Awarding Plaintiffs and the class members all damages available to Plaintiffs and 

the class available under applicable law, including statutory or liquidated damages;

E. Providing commensurate injunctive relief for Plaintiffs and class members as set 

forth above;

F. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in this litigation; and 

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

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: April 8, 2021 By: /s/ Mara Baltabols

David Fish

dfish@fishlawfirm.com

mara@fishlawfirm.com

docketing@fishlawfirm.com

THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.

200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123

Naperville, Illinois 60563

Tel: 630.355.7590

Fax: 630.778.0400

Firm ID: 44086

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE 

PUTATIVE CLASS

Case: 1:20-cv-04241 Document #: 33 Filed: 04/08/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:453