IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

FREDY SOSA and ROHITH AMRUTHUR,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ONFIDO, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

 Case No.: 20-cv-04247

 Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Fredy Sosa and Rohith Amruthur (“Plaintiffs”) bring this First Amended Class 

Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant Onfido, Inc. (“Onfido”) to put a 

stop to its unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiffs’ and putative Class members’ 

sensitive biometric data. Plaintiffs, for this Class Action Complaint, 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.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Defendant Onfido markets and sells biometric software that purports to help 

businesses identify and register consumers. 

2. Onfido’s software is becoming increasingly popular in the digital era, as online 

business often requires consumers to establish their identities by submitting photographs of their 

driver’s licenses or identification cards along with photographs of their faces. Onfido developed 

proprietary facial recognition software that can be used to scan those uploaded photographs, 

locate consumers’ faces, extract unique biometric identifiers associated with the consumers’ 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:661
2

faces, and determine whether the photographs match uploaded identification cards, other photos 

in its database, the biometric data of known masks, or in some instances, on information and 

belief, third party and government databases. 

3. Businesses can integrate Onfido’s software into their own websites so that they 

can establish a consumer’s identity—for example, during a sign up or registration process—

without having to send the consumer to another location or webpage. In other words, Onfido’s 

software is designed to be embedded into a business’s website in such a way that that consumers 

will likely be entirely unaware they are interacting with and providing their sensitive information 

to an unknown, third-party company, Onfido.

4. Utilizing biometric identification software exposes consumers to serious and 

irreversible privacy risks, especially here where it is not clear to consumers that Onfido is 

collecting their biometric identifiers. 

5. Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like these, Illinois 

enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), specifically to 

regulate companies that collect and store Illinois citizens’ biometrics.

6. Despite this law, Onfido disregards consumers’ statutorily protected privacy 

rights and unlawfully collects, stores, and uses, their biometric data in violation of the BIPA. 

Specifically, Onfido has violated (and continues to violate) the BIPA because it did not:

• Properly inform Plaintiffs and the Class members in writing of the specific 

purpose and length of time for which their biometric data were being collected, 

stored, and used, as required by the BIPA; 

• Provide and make known to Plaintiffs and the Class members a publicly available 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiffs’ and the 

Class’s biometric data, as required by the BIPA; nor

• Receive a written release from Plaintiffs or the members of the Class to collect, 

capture, or otherwise obtain their biometric data, as required by the BIPA.

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:662
3

7. Accordingly, this Complaint seeks an Order: (i) declaring that Defendant’s 

conduct violates the BIPA; (ii) requiring Defendant to cease the unlawful activities discussed 

herein; and (iii) awarding damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class.

PARTIES

8. Plaintiff Fredy Sosa is a natural person and citizen of Illinois.

9. Plaintiff Rohith Amruthur is a natural person and citizen of Illinois.

10. Defendant Onfido, Inc. is a Delaware corporation existing under the laws of the 

State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 3 Finsbury Avenue, London 

EC2M 2PA. Onfido does business in this District, the State of Illinois, and across the country. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This matter was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. (See

Dkt. 1.)

12. As the removing party, Defendant Onfido asserted that jurisdiction and venue are

proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441 (See id. at 3–9.)

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and 

belief, Defendant has contracted with Illinois-based businesses to provide its biometric 

identification software with the intention and purpose that it would be used to collect biometric 

data from Illinois residents. Defendant is and has been aware that it is collecting biometric data 

from Illinois residents, without complying with BIPA, throughout the class period. Additionally, 

this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs because they are residents of the State of Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:663
4

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The Biometric Information Privacy Act. 

14. In the early 2000s, major national corporations started using Chicago and other

locations in Illinois to test “new [consumer] applications of biometric-facilitated financial 

transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school 

cafeterias.” 740 ILCS 14/5(b). Given its relative infancy, an overwhelming portion of the public 

became weary of this then-growing, yet unregulated, technology. See 740 ILCS 14/5.

15. In late 2007, a biometrics company called Pay By Touch—which provided major 

retailers throughout the State of Illinois with fingerprint scanners to facilitate consumer 

transactions—filed for bankruptcy. That bankruptcy was alarming to the Illinois Legislature 

because suddenly there was a serious risk that millions of fingerprint records—which, are unique 

biometric identifiers, can be linked to people’s sensitive financial and personal data—could now 

be sold, distributed, or otherwise shared through the bankruptcy proceedings without adequate 

protections for Illinois citizens. The bankruptcy also highlighted the fact that most consumers 

who had used that company’s biometric scanners were completely unaware that the scanners 

were not actually transmitting data to the retailer who deployed the scanner, but rather to the 

now-bankrupt company, and that their unique biometric identifiers could now be sold to 

unknown third parties.

16. Recognizing the “very serious need [for] protections for the citizens of Illinois 

when it [came to their] biometric information,” Illinois enacted the BIPA in 2008. See Illinois 

House Transcript, 2008 Reg. Sess. No. 276; 740 ILCS 14/5. 

17. The BIPA is an informed consent statute which achieves its goal by making it 

unlawful for a company to, among other things, “collect, capture, purchase, receive through 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:664
5

trade, or otherwise obtain a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifiers 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).

18. Biometric identifiers include retina and iris scans, voiceprints, scans of hand and 

fingerprints, and—most importantly here—face geometry. See 740 ILCS 14/10. Biometric 

information is separately defined to include any information based on an individual’s biometric 

identifier that is used to identify an individual. See id.

19. The BIPA also establishes standards for how companies in possession of 

biometric identifiers and biometric information must handle them. See 740 ILCS 14/15(c)–(d). 

For instance, the BIPA requires companies to develop and comply with 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 

such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within three years of the individual’s last 

interaction with the company, whichever occurs first. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

20. Ultimately, the BIPA is simply an informed consent statute. Its narrowly tailored 

provisions place no absolute bar on the collection, sending, transmitting or communicating of 

biometric data. For example, the BIPA does not limit what kinds of biometric data may be 

collected, sent, transmitted, or stored. Nor does the BIPA limit to whom biometric data may be 

collected, sent, transmitted, or stored. The BIPA simply mandates that entities wishing to engage 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:665
6

in that conduct must make proper disclosures and implement certain reasonable safeguards.

II. Onfido Violates the Biometric Information Privacy Act. 

21. By the time the BIPA passed through the Illinois Legislature in mid-2008, many 

companies who had experimented with using biometric data as an authentication method stopped 

doing so, at least for a time. That is because Pay By Touch’s bankruptcy, described in Section I 

above, was widely publicized and brought attention to consumers’ discomfort with the use of 

their biometric data. 

22. Unfortunately, Onfido failed to address these concerns and it continues to collect, 

store, and use consumers’ biometric data in violation of the BIPA by using facial recognition 

technology. 

23. Onfido provides biometric identification software intended to be seamlessly 

incorporated into its customers’ products and mobile apps, without clear notice to consumers that 

Onfido is even involved in the process (or how it is involved). According to Onfido’s 

representations to businesses, “[i]dentity verification technology helps establish the legitimate 

online identity of the people accessing your product or service.” Onfido claims that use of its 

software will “create trust and integrity” in its customer’s online communities, and, for 

businesses first requiring user identification, Onfido’s software will “make onboarding a breeze.”

Indeed, various businesses have partnered with Onfido for this purpose. 

24. A consumer establishing his or her identity through Onfido must upload a copy of 

his or her identification (such as a driver’s license, state identification, or a passport) and a photo 

of his or her face. 

25. Onfido uses biometric facial recognition to establish consumers’ identities.

According to Onfido, “we take a new approach to identity—combining a person’s ID with their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:666
7

physical biometrics ... Using advanced facial scanning, Onfido then compares their facial 

biometrics to the photo on the ID, and generates a score based on the similarity of the faces.”

26. Onfido states that its biometric software “extract[s] and compare[s] numerical 

biometric data from facial images to understand whether two faces are likely to be a match.”

27. Onfido also checks whether uploaded facial images show signs of fraud by, for 

example, comparing a person’s numerical biometric data to the biometric data of known masks.

28. Consumers establishing their identities through a mobile app, website, or other 

software using Onfido’s identity software are not made aware that the process relies on biometric 

technology rather than, for example, a real person conducting the identification process or any 

other confirmation method.

29. What’s worse, Onfido has also created numerous, potentially massive databases

of biometric identifiers obtained from consumers. Onfido calls these databases “Known Faces.” 

The Known Faces database allows Onfido’s customers to compare a consumer’s identity against 

an individual already in its database and flag consumers who have already been identified: 

The Known Faces report compares a specific applicant’s likeness in their most 

recent live photo to live photos from all applicants in your Onfido account database. 

It alerts you to faces which have already been through your identity verification 

flow, so you can catch repeat identity fraud attempts, and help confused users who 

may have forgotten they already registered with you to recover their accounts.

30. As such, the biometric templates obtained by Onfido may be compared against 

hundreds or even thousands of other templates as part of the identification process. 

31. Although Onfido is well aware of Illinois consumers’ privacy rights under 

BIPA—stating on its website that “[c]onsent and transparency must be paramount concerns”

when collecting consumers’ biometric identifiers—it failed to inform consumers of the complete

purposes for which it collects their sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed, if at 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:667
8

all.

32. Onfido similarly failed to provide consumers with a written, publicly available 

policy identifying its retention schedule, and guidelines for permanently destroying consumers’

facial geometries when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their facial geometries is no 

longer relevant, as required by the BIPA. A consumer who established his or her identity through 

Onfido does so without any knowledge of when his or her biometric identifiers will be removed 

from Onfido’s databases—or if they ever will be.

33. The Pay By Touch bankruptcy that catalyzed the passage of the BIPA highlights 

why conduct such as Onfido’s—where the consumers upload their photos but are not aware of

the full extent of the reasons they are doing so, nor are they informed who else is receiving this 

data—is so dangerous. That bankruptcy spurred Illinois citizens and legislators to reach a critical 

conclusion: it is crucial for people to understand that (1) they are providing biometric data in the 

first place; (2) who exactly is collecting it; (3) who it will be transmitted to; (4) for what 

purposes; and (5) for how long it will be kept. But Onfido disregards these obligations, and 

instead unlawfully collects, stores, and uses consumer’s biometric identifiers and information

without proper consent. 

34. Ultimately, Onfido’s conduct disregards consumers’ statutorily protected privacy 

rights in violation of the BIPA.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF SOSA

35. Plaintiff Fredy Sosa is a member of an online marketplace where consumers buy 

and sell goods. In order to increase one’s reputation and trustworthiness in the online 

marketplace, consumers are strongly encouraged to register their identities.

36. For this purpose, the online marketplace partnered up with Onfido to establish its 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:668
9

users’ identities.

37. On or around April 2020, Plaintiff Sosa established his identity through the online 

marketplace’s mobile application by uploading a photograph of his driver’s license and a 

photograph of his face. Onfido subsequently used biometric identification technology to extract 

his biometric identifiers and compare the two photographs. 

38. Onfido did not inform Plaintiff Sosa that it would collect, store, or use his

biometric identifiers derived from his face. In fact, there was almost no notice whatsoever that 

Onfido is even involved in the process. 

39. In addition, Onfido never informed Plaintiff Sosa of any biometric data retention 

policy it developed, nor whether it will ever permanently delete the biometric identifiers derived 

from his face.

40. Plaintiff Sosa never signed a written release allowing Onfido to collect, use, or 

store his biometric identifiers derived from his face.

41. Plaintiff Sosa has, therefore, been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions 

created by Onfido’s violations of the BIPA alleged herein.

42. Plaintiff Sosa seeks damages under BIPA as compensation for the injuries Onfido

has caused.

FACTS SPECIFIC TO PLAINTIFF AMRUTHUR

43. Plaintiff Rohith Amruthur downloaded to his smartphone and used a financial 

services app operated by a customer of Onfido. Specifically, Onfido provides identity 

verification software to the customer’s app so that the customer can establish its users’ identities.

44. In or around 2019, Plaintiff Amruthur established his identity through the 

financial services mobile app by uploading a photograph of his driver’s license and a photograph 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:669
10

of his face. Onfido subsequently used biometric identification technology to extract his biometric 

identifiers and compare the two photographs. 

45. Onfido did not inform Plaintiff Amruthur that it would collect, store, or use his 

biometric identifiers derived from his face. In fact, there was almost no notice whatsoever that 

Onfido is even involved in the process. 

46. In addition, Onfido never informed Plaintiff Amruthur of any biometric data 

retention policy it developed, nor whether it will ever permanently delete the biometric 

identifiers derived from his face.

47. Plaintiff Amruthur never signed a written release allowing Onfido to collect, use, 

or store his biometric identifiers derived from his face.

48. Plaintiff Amruthur has, therefore, been exposed to the risks and harmful 

conditions created by Onfido’s violations of the BIPA alleged herein.

49. Plaintiff Amruthur seeks damages under BIPA as compensation for the injuries 

Onfido has caused.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

50. Class Definitions: Plaintiffs Fredy Sosa and Rohith Amruthur bring this action 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and two classes of 

similarly situated individuals (collectively, the “Classes”). 

51. Plaintiff Amruthur seeks to represent a class defined as: All persons who, while 

within the State of Illinois, uploaded their photograph(s) and an ID to any application, software,

or website operated by an Onfido customer that is a financial institution, and subsequently to 

Onfido, between June 12, 2015 and the present (the “Financial Institution Class”). 

52. Plaintiff Sosa seeks to represent a class defined as: All persons who, while within 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:670
11

the State of Illinois, uploaded their photograph(s) and an ID to any application, software, or 

website operated by a Onfido customer that is not a financial institution, and subsequently to 

Onfido, between June 12, 2015 and the present (the “Non-Financial Institution Class”).

53. The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate 

presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s 

subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its 

parents have a controlling interest and its current or former officers and directors; (3) persons 

who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (4) persons whose 

claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) 

Plaintiffs’ counsel and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and 

assigns of any such excluded persons.

54. Numerosity: Defendant has collected, captured, received, or otherwise obtained 

biometric identifiers or biometric information from hundreds of thousands of consumers who fall 

into the Financial Institution Class and Non-Financial Institution Class, making individual 

joinder impracticable. Ultimately, the members of the Classes will be easily identified through 

Defendant’s or its customers’ records.

55. Commonality and Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to 

all members of the Financial Institution Class and as to all members of the Non-Financial 

Institution Class, and those questions predominate over questions affecting only individual 

members of the respective Classes. Common legal and factual questions include, but are not 

necessarily limited to the following:

a) whether Defendant collected, captured, or otherwise obtained Plaintiffs’ and 

the Classes’ biometric identifiers or biometric information;

b) whether Defendant properly informed Plaintiffs and the Classes of its 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:671
12

purposes for collecting, using, and storing their biometric identifiers or 

biometric information; 

c) whether Defendant obtained a written release (as defined in 740 ILCS 14/10) 

to collect, use, and store Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ biometric identifiers or 

biometric information;

d) whether Defendant has sold, leased, traded, or otherwise profited from 

Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ biometric identifiers or biometric information;

e) whether Defendant developed 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 three years of their last interaction, whichever occurs first; 

f) whether Defendant complies with any such written policy (if one exists); and

g) whether Defendant used Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ faceprints or facial 

geometry to identify them.

56. Adequate Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of their respective Classes and have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to 

those of their respective Classes, and Defendant has no defenses unique to either Plaintiff. 

Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the 

members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their

counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Classes.

57. Superiority: This class action is appropriate for certification because class 

proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of 

this controversy and joinder of all members of the Classes is impracticable. The damages 

suffered by the individual members of the Classes are likely to have been small relative to the 

burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by 

Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:672
13

members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members 

of the Classes could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be preferable to a class action 

because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the 

complex legal and factual controversies presented in their Complaint. By contrast, a class action 

presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, 

economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, 

and expense will be fostered and uniformity of decisions will be ensured.

CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq.

(On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes)

58. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

59. The BIPA requires companies to obtain informed written consent from 

individuals before acquiring their biometric data. Specifically, the BIPA makes it unlawful for 

any private entity to “collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise obtain a 

person’s or a customer’s biometric identifiers or biometric information, unless [the entity] 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) (emphasis added).

60. The BIPA also mandates that companies in possession of biometric data establish 

and maintain a satisfactory biometric data retention (and—importantly—deletion) policy. 

Specifically, those companies must: (i) make publicly available a written policy establishing a 

retention schedule and guidelines for permanent deletion of biometric data (i.e., when the 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:673
14

business relationship ends); and (ii) actually adhere to that retention schedule and actually delete 

the biometric information. See 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

61. Unfortunately, Onfido fails to comply with these BIPA mandates.

62. Defendant is corporation and thus qualifies as a “private entity” under the BIPA. 

See 740 ILCS 14/10.

63. Plaintiffs and the Classes are individuals who had their “biometric identifiers” 

collected by Onfido (in the form of their facial scans), as explained in detail in Section II. See 

740 ILCS 14/10. 

64. Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ biometric identifiers or information based on those 

biometric identifiers were used to identify them, constituting “biometric information” as defined 

by the BIPA. See 740 ILCS 14/10.

65. Onfido violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3) by failing to obtain written releases from 

Plaintiffs and the Classes before it collected, used, and stored their biometric identifiers and 

biometric information. 

66. Onfido violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1) by failing to inform Plaintiffs and the 

Classes in writing that their biometric identifiers and biometric information were being collected 

and stored. 

67. Onfido violated 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(2) by failing to inform Plaintiffs and the 

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

or biometric information was being collected, stored, and used. 

68. Onfido violated 740 ILCS 14/15(a) by failing to establish a publicly-available 

retention schedule or guideline for permanently destroying consumers’ biometric identifiers and 

biometric information.

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:674
15

69. By collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ biometric identifiers 

and biometric information as described herein, Onfido violated Plaintiffs’ and the Classes’ rights 

to privacy in their biometric identifiers or biometric information as set forth in the BIPA, 740 

ILCS 14/1, et seq.

70. On behalf of themselves and the Classes, Plaintiffs seek: (1) injunctive and 

equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiffs and the Classes by requiring 

Defendant to comply with the BIPA’s requirements for the collection, storage, and use of 

biometric identifiers and biometric information as described herein; (2) statutory damages of

$5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation of the BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, 

in the alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of the BIPA pursuant 

to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); and (3) reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 740 

ILCS 14/20(3).

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Classes, respectfully request 

that the Court enter an Order:

A. Certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes defined above, 

appointing Plaintiff Rohith Amruthur as class representative of the Financial Institution Class, 

appointing Plaintiff Fredy Sosa as class representative of the Non-Financial Institution Class, and 

appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;

B. Declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the BIPA; 

C. Awarding statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless violation 

of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, statutory damages of $1,000 for 

each negligent violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1); 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:675
16

D. Awarding injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the 

interests of the Classes, including an Order requiring Defendant to collect, store, and use 

biometric identifiers or biometric information in compliance with the BIPA; 

E. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable litigation expenses and 

attorneys’ fees;

F. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent 

allowable; and

G. Awarding such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. 

JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

FREDY SOSA and ROHITH AMRUTHUR,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Dated: March 2, 2023 By: /s/ Schuyler Ufkes

One of Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

J. Eli Wade-Scott

ewadescott@edelson.com

Schuyler Ufkes

sufkes@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 64 Filed: 03/02/23 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:676