1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

MORGAN KUKOVEC, individually and ) 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) Case No. ______________________ 

 ) 

v. ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

TIKTOK INC. and BYTEDANCE INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Plaintiff, MORGAN KUKOVEC, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendants 

TikTok Inc. (hereinafter, “TikTok” or “the App”) and ByteDance Inc. (hereinafter, “ByteDance”) 

(collectively the “Defendants”) both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated 

individuals. Plaintiff alleges the following: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This case is about Defendant TikTok’s brazen exploitation of tens of thousands of 

Illinois resident minors (“Minors”) through calculated tactics designed to impermissibly obtain, 

use and distribute the images, videos, voiceprints, data and biometric data of Minors. Defendant 

TikTok’s meteoric rise is largely attributable to its branding, products and features targeting users 

under the age of 18 years. Approximately 40% of its users are under the age of 18, and lack legal 

capacity to consent or contract with TikTok. Nevertheless, Defendant TikTok knowingly entices 

Illinois Minors into providing TikTok with images, videos, data, biometric data and other 

confidential and private information, without obtaining the written consent of a parent or legal 

guardian. TikTok commercializes and profits from its brazen exploitation of Illinois children and 

violations of Illinois law. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:1
2

2. Every individual has unique biometric identifiers by which he or she can be 

identified. For example, biometric identifiers include a person’s voiceprint, fingerprint, hand or 

face geometry. 

3. As the Illinois General Assembly has found: “[b]iometrics 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 biometric-facilitated transactions.” 

740 ILCS § 14/5(c). 

4. Defendants elected to flout the straightforward requirements of Illinois’ Biometric 

Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS §14/1, and instead have deviously targeted teens and 

young adults by the illegal collection of Plaintiff’s and Class member’s biometric data, without 

first providing the relevant disclosures, and denying Plaintiff and other Class members of their 

statutory rights under Illinois law. 

5. Pursuant to BIPA, Illinois prohibits among other things, private entities from 

collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing, disseminating, or profiting from the 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of an individual without providing written notice 

and without obtaining a written release from the impacted individual or his authorized 

representative. BIPA also requires private entities in possession of biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information to adopt retention and destruction policies and to take measures to prevent 

the release of that information. 

6. Plaintiff brings this privacy class action case against TikTok, a video-sharing social 

networking service used to create short videos, generally favored by children, teens and young 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:2
3

adults. TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, was founded in 2012 and based in Beijing, China. ByteDance, 

is well known as a hit app factory that has spent the last decade using technologies such as artificial 

intelligence and facial recognition. 1 TikTok currently ranks amongst the “top 5” most downloaded 

free iPhone/Android apps, and has approximately 800 million active users worldwide.2 This action 

seeks to ensure that Illinois citizens’ privacy is adequately protected, in accordance with Illinois law. 

7. The App allows users to create, view, and share three to fifteen-second videos of 

dancing, lip-syncing, and other forms of self-expression, as well as short looping videos of three 

to sixty seconds. The App also uses facial scans to allow users to superimpose animated facial 

filters onto the moving faces of video subjects.

8. As alleged in detail below, Defendants, through the use of the App, capture, 

receive, obtain, store and/or use facial scans without obtaining informed consent and by failing to 

make public their data and use and retention policy, in direct violation of BIPA.

9. Defendants engaged in this conduct: (a) without adequately informing the impacted 

individuals, including Plaintiff and members of the Putative class (the “Class Members”), that their 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information was being collected, captured, obtained, 

disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated; (b) without informing the impacted individuals 

in writing of the purpose of the collection, capture, obtainment, disclosure, redisclosure and 

dissemination of the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; and (c) without seeking 

and obtaining written releases from such impacted individuals or their authorized representatives. 

1 “Worries That TikTok Is A Threat To National Security Have Merit,” at 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2019-10-29/worries-that-tiktok-is-a-threat-to-national-securityhave- merit (last accessed June 23, 2020). 

2

 “50 TikTok Stats That Will Blow Your Mind [Updated 2020],” at 

https://influencermarketinghub.com/tiktok-stats/ (last accessed June 24, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:3
4

10. As the Illinois General Assembly has found and both the Illinois Supreme Court 

and Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals have confirmed, the harm to Plaintiff and Putative Class 

Members as a result of the BIPA violations alleged herein has already occurred. 

11. Further, as businesses worldwide compete to develop ever more advanced facial 

recognition technology, the race for data imperils the privacy of individuals everywhere. Public 

policy in Illinois provides that given the risks of unwanted data collection and disclosure, citizens 

need the power to make decisions about the fate of their unique biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information. Defendants’ actions robbed Plaintiff and Class Members of that power. 

12. Plaintiff brings this Class Action Complaint seeking: (a) statutory damages of 

$5,000 per BIPA violation, or, alternatively, if Defendants acted negligently, $1,000 per BIPA 

violation, along with attorneys’ fees and costs; (b) disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains 

derived from the use of the unlawfully-acquired data; and (c) an injunction (i) barring Defendants 

from any further use of individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; (ii) barring 

Defendants from continuing to collect, capture, obtain, disclose, redisclose, disseminate, and/or 

profit from Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; (iii) 

requiring Defendants to delete and destroy all biometric identifiers and/or biometric information 

in their possession, custody, and control; and (iv) requiring Defendants to claw back the biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information from any third parties to whom Defendants disclosed, 

redisclosed, or disseminated it.

PARTIES

13. At relevant times, Plaintiff, Morgan Kukovec, was and remains a citizen of 

Hampshire, Kane County, Illinois. Plaintiff reached the age of majority on June 15, 2020. At 

all relevant times herein, Plaintiff downloaded, utilized, posted and appeared in videos on TikTok 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:4
5

while she was still a minor, as defined by Illinois law. 

14. Defendant TikTok, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of 

business in Culver City, California. 

15. Defendant ByteDance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of 

business in Palo Alto, California. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

16. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) (the “Class Action 

Fairness Act”) because sufficient diversity of citizenship exists between the parties in this action, 

the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and 

there are thousands of putative class members. Because there are thousands of putative class 

members and Defendants’ intentional and reckless violations of BIPA are punishable by statutory 

damages of $5,000 per violation, the amount in controversy is well in excess of $5,000,000. 

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants used and 

disseminated data derived directly from Illinois-based TikTok users and exposed residents of 

Illinois to ongoing privacy risks within Illinois based on the collection, capture, obtainment, 

disclosure, redisclosure and/or dissemination of their biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information. Furthermore, many of the images Defendants used for their unlawful collection, 

capture, and/or obtainment of biometric identifiers and/or biometric information were created in 

Illinois, uploaded from Illinois, and/or managed via Illinois-based user accounts, computers, and 

mobile devices. Because of the scope and magnitude of Defendants’ conduct, Defendants knew 

that its collection, capture, obtainment, disclosure, redisclosure and/or dissemination of impacted 

individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information would injure Illinois residents and 

citizens. Defendants knew or had reason to know that collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:5
6

redisclosing, and/or disseminating Illinois citizens’ and residents’ biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information without providing the requisite notice or obtaining the requisite releases 

would deprive Illinois citizens and residents of their statutorily-protected privacy rights, neutralize 

Illinois citizens’ and residents’ ability to control access to their biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information via their Illinois-managed devices and exposed minors in Illinois to 

potential surveillance and other privacy harms as they went about their lives within the state. 

18. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts 

or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in Illinois. Alternatively, venue is 

proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

ILLINIOIS BIOMETRIC PRIVACY LAWS 

19. BIPA seeks to safeguard individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information. 

20. Biometric identifiers include a scan of an individual’s face geometry. 740 ILCS § 

14/10. Biometric information is “any information . . . based on an individual’s biometric identifier 

used to identify an individual.” 740 ILCS § 14/10. 

21. Pursuant to BIPA, a private entity, such as Defendants, is among other things: (a) 

prohibited from collecting, capturing, or otherwise obtaining an individual’s biometric identifiers 

and/or biometric information without providing written notice and obtaining a written release; (b) 

prohibited from selling, leasing, trading, or otherwise profiting from an individual’s biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information; (c) prohibited from disclosing, redisclosing, or otherwise 

disseminating an individual’s biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in the absence of 

circumstances specifically set forth in the statute; and (d) required, to the extent it is in possession 

of biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, to develop a written policy, made available 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:6
7

to the public, that establishes a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying such 

identifiers and information. 740 ILCS § 14/15. 

22. BIPA provides for a private right of action and allows a prevailing party to recover 

liquidated damages in the amount of: (a) $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for 

negligent violations of its provisions; and (b) $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for 

intentional and/or reckless violations of its provisions. 740 ILCS § 14/20. BIPA also allows for 

the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs and injunctive relief. 740 ILCS § 14/20. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

I. Defendants’ Unlawful Conduct 

23. ByteDance Inc. the parent company of TikTok Inc., first launched the TikTok app 

(then known as “Douyin”) in China in September 2016. The app ultimately became available in 

the United States in August 2018 following a merger between TikTok and Shanghai-based social 

media platform musical.ly. While TikTok and Douyin are similar to each other and essentially 

the same app, they run on separate servers to comply with Chinese censorship restrictions.

24. The App allows users to create short music and lip-sync videos of 3 to 15 seconds 

and short looping videos of 3 to 60 seconds. By October 2018, TikTok was the most downloaded 

app in the United States. 

25. As of June 2020, minors, as defined by IL law, accounted for approximately 37 

percent of TikTok’s active user accounts in the United States.3

3 “Top 20 TikTok Statistics: Key Facts, Figures & Data” https://mediakix.com/blog/top-tik-tok-statisticsdemographics/#:~:text=37%25%20Of%20TikTok's%20U.S.%20Users%20Are%20Under%2018%20Yea

rs%2DOld&text=It%20is%20important%20to%20note,older%20to%20create%20an%20account. (Last 

accessed July 8, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:7
8

26. In direct violation of the BIPA, the TikTok app’s proprietary facial recognition 

technology scans every video uploaded to the app for faces, extracts geometric data relating to the 

unique points and contours (i.e., biometric identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create 

and store a template of each face – all without ever informing anyone of this practice. 

27. To accomplish this end, Defendants implemented an artificial intelligence tool in 

the app that automatically performs these facial scans. This technology permits users to 

superimpose images onto their face or to use various “filters” that alter, distort, or enhance their 

facial features. 

28. In collecting, capturing, and/or otherwise obtaining the biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information of Plaintiff and Putative Class Members and, upon information and belief, 

subsequently disclosing, redisclosing, and/or otherwise disseminating those biometric identifiers 

and/or biometric information to other related corporate entities – all without providing the requisite 

notice, obtaining the requisite releases, or satisfying any of BIPA’s other provisions that would 

excuse it from BIPA’s mandates – Defendants violated BIPA. 

29. In further violation of BIPA, Defendants failed to use a reasonable standard of care 

to protect Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information from 

disclosure and, in fact, affirmatively disclosed their biometric identifiers and biometric 

information.4

4

 https://www.tiktok.com/legal/privacy-policy?lang=en (accessed June 23, 2020) (“We share the categories 

of personal information listed above with service providers and business partners to help us perform 

business operations and for business purposes, including research, payment processing and transaction 

fulfillment, database maintenance, administering contests and special offers, technology services, 

deliveries, email deployment, advertising, analytics, measurement, data storage and hosting, disaster 

recovery, search engine optimization, marketing, and data processing”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:8
9

30. In further violation of BIPA, as a private entity in possession of Plaintiff’s and Putative 

Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, Defendants failed to adopt or 

make available to the public a retention schedule or guidelines for permanently destroying such 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information once the initial purpose for collecting them had 

or has been satisfied. 

31. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, in the alternative, 

negligent. 

II. Allegations Related to Plaintiff 

32. Plaintiff, Morgan Kukovec, is an 18-year-old female. In or around late 2019, while still a 

minor as defined by Illinois law, Plaintiff downloaded and began using the TikTok app as a minor. 

Moreover, Plaintiff utilized TikTok to generate innumerable videos and images, many of which 

were uploaded and posted and disseminated by TikTok to third parties. TikTok retains possession 

and control of all images captured through Plaintiff’s use of the TikTok app, even those images 

that are not posted or made public by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s image has repeatedly been captured and 

used by TiKTok in videos created and or uploaded and posted to TikTok by other TikTok users, 

including images of Plaintiff’s face. Plaintiff has created, uploaded and posted videos, and/or 

Plaintiff’s face has appeared in videos created, uploaded or posted by other users, employing 

TikTok’s face sticker, face filter, and face tracker lens technology. 

33. As a minor, Plaintiff lacked capacity in Illinois to consent to or contract with 

TikTok. TikTok did not obtain Plaintiff’s parents or legal guardian’s permission. 

34. Through these videos, Defendants have collected and stored Plaintiff’s unique 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information and failed to provide Plaintiff with the proper 

disclosures under BIPA. Upon information and belief, Defendants have disclosed and/or 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:9
10

disseminated these biometric identifiers and/or biometric information to third parties. 

35. TikTok failed to provide Plaintiff’s parents or legal guardian with required BIPA 

disclosures or obtain the written consent required under BIPA. 

III. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ Injuries and Damages 

36. As alleged herein, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and 

Putative Class Members have already sustained injuries and face imminent and certainly 

impending injuries. 

37. Defendants’ unlawful conduct has resulted in, among other things: (a) Plaintiff’s 

and Putative Class Members’ unique biometric identifiers and/or biometric information being 

collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, and/or otherwise disseminated without the 

requisite notice having been given and without the requisite releases having been obtained; and (b) 

Plaintiff and Putative Class Members being deprived of the very control over their biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information that BIPA was designed to protect, and which Illinois 

courts both State and Federal have reaffirmed. 

38. To date, Plaintiff and Putative Class Members do not know which, or how many, 

individuals or entities have received, obtained, accessed, stored, disclosed, redisclosed or 

otherwise made use of Plaintiffs’ and Class Putative Members’ biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information, exposing them to the imminent and certainly impending injuries of identity 

theft, fraud, stalking, surveillance, social engineering, and/or other invasions of privacy.5

5 “Facial Recognition Tech: 10 Views on Risks and Rewards,” at 

https://www forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/03/facial-recognition-tech-10-views-on-risks-andrewards/#54d3e1716b3c (last accessed on June 23, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:10
11

39. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have 

no recourse for the fact that their biologically unique information has been compromised. 

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 

40. Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23, seeking damages and equitable relief on behalf of the following Class for 

which Plaintiffs seek certification: 

All residents of Illinois who registered for or used the TikTok

Application while under the age of 18, including those who may bring 

their claim by and through their legal guardian(s). 

41. Excluded from the Class are: (a) Defendants; (b) any parent, affiliate or subsidiary 

of Defendants; (c) any entity in which Defendants has a controlling interest; (d) any of Defendants’ 

officers or directors; or (e) any successor or assign of Defendants. Also excluded are any judge or 

court personnel assigned to this case and members of their immediate families. 

42. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the class definitions with greater 

specificity or division after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery. 

43. Numerosity. While the exact number of Putative Class Members is not known at 

this time, Defendants collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, and/or otherwise 

disseminated biometric identifiers and/or biometric information from hundreds of millions of users, 

and Plaintiff estimates the total number of Putative Class Members to be, at least, in the thousands. 

Consistent with Rule 23(a)(1), the Putative Class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all 

members is impracticable. Putative Class Members may be identified through objective means, 

including objective data available to Defendants regarding their user data. Putative Class Members 

may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination 

methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, internet postings, social media and/or 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:11
12

published notice. 

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

all Putative Class Members. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of 

Plaintiffs and the Putative Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may 

affect individual members of the Putative Class. Common questions for the Putative Class include, 

but are not necessarily limited to the following: 

a. Whether Defendants collected, captured, and/or otherwise obtained the 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiff and Putative 

Class Members; 

b. Whether Defendants possessed the biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information of Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members; 

c. Whether Defendants disclosed, redisclosed, and/or otherwise disseminated 

the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiff and 

Putative Class Members; 

d. Whether Defendants profited from the biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information of Plaintiff and Putative Class Members; 

e. Whether Defendants provided the notice required by BIPA before 

collecting, capturing, obtaining, disclosing, redisclosing and otherwise 

disseminating the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of 

Plaintiff and Putative Class Members; 

f. Whether Defendants obtained enforceable written releases (as defined in 

740 ILCS 14/10) from Plaintiff and Putative Class Members or their 

authorized representatives before collecting, capturing, obtaining, 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:12
13

disclosing, redisclosing and/or otherwise disseminating the biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiff and Putative Class 

Members; 

g. Whether Defendants had in place – and disclosed to the public – the written 

retention and destruction policies, schedules, and/or guidelines for 

permanently destroying biometric identifiers and/or 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 as is required by BIPA while in possession of 

Plaintiff’s and Putative Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information; 

h. Whether Defendant complied with any such written policy (if one exists); 

i. Whether defendants protected Plaintiff’s and Putative Class Member’s 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information from disclosure using the 

reasonable standard of care within Defendant’s industry and in a manner 

that was the same as or more protective than the manner in which 

Defendants protects other confidential and sensitive information; 

j. Whether Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members suffered damages as a 

proximate result of Defendants; and 

k. Whether Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members are entitled to damages, 

equitable relief and other relief. 

45. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff 

and all members of the Putative Class have suffered similar injuries as a result of the same practices 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:13
14

alleged herein. Plaintiffs has no interests to advance adverse to the interests of the other members 

of the putative Class. 

46. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the putative 

Class and has retained as counsel attorneys experienced in class actions and complex litigation. 

Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Putative Class, and Defendant has no defenses 

unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action 

on behalf of the members of the Putative Class, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither 

Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest adverse to those of the other members of the Putative 

Class. 

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

efficient adjudication of this dispute. The injury suffered by each Putative Class Member, while 

meaningful on an individual basis, may not be of such magnitude as to make the prosecution of 

individual actions against Defendants economically feasible. Even if Putative Class Members 

could afford individual litigation, those actions would put immeasurable strain on the court system. 

Moreover, individual litigation of the legal and factual issues of the case would increase the delay 

and expense to all parties and the court system. A class action, however, presents far fewer 

management difficulties and provides the benefit of a single adjudication, economy of scale and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court. 

48. In the alternative, the Putative Class may be certified because: 

a. The prosecution of separate actions by each individual member of the 

Putative Class would create a risk of inconsistent adjudications, which 

could establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:14
15

b. The prosecution of individual actions could result in adjudications that as a 

practical matter would be dispositive of the interests of non-party Class 

Members or which would substantially impair their ability to protect their 

interests; and 

c. Defendants acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

Putative Class, thereby making final and injunctive relief appropriate with 

respect to members of the Putative Class. 

COUNT ONE 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(a)) 

49. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-46 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

50. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by failing to develop a written policy 

made available to the public that established a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently 

destroying biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. 

51. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, pleaded in the 

alternative, negligent. 

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Putative Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

53. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 

or actual damages or, pleaded in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages. 

54. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Putative Class 

Members in that their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information can be viewed and used 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:15
16

by unauthorized persons. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have no adequate remedy at law 

for their injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiff’s 

and Putative Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. 

55. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief 

and the reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses relating to this action. 

COUNT TWO 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(b)) 

56. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-46 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

57. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by collecting, capturing, and/or 

otherwise obtaining individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, including the 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiff and Putative Class Members, 

without providing the requisite written disclosures and without obtaining the requisite written 

releases. 

58. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and/or reckless or, in the 

alternative, Defendants were negligent. 

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Putative Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

60. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members seek as monetary relief the greater of $5,000 

or actual damages or, pleaded in the alternative, $1,000 or actual damages. 

61. Unless and until enjoined and/or restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

unlawful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Putative 

Class Members. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have no adequate remedy at law for their 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:16
17

injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiffs’ and Putative 

Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. 

62. Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief, 

and the reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses relating to this action. 

COUNT THREE 

(VIOLATION OF BIPA – 740 ILCS § 14/15(d)) 

63. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-46 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

64. As alleged above, Defendants violated BIPA by disclosing, redisclosing, and/or 

otherwise disseminating individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information, including 

the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information of Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members, 

even though: (a) neither the subjects of the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information nor 

their authorized representatives consented to the disclosure and/or redisclosure; (b) the disclosure 

and/or redisclosure did not complete a financial transaction requested or authorized by the subjects 

of the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information or their authorized representatives; (c) the 

disclosure and redisclosure was not required by State or federal law or municipal ordinance; and 

(d) the disclosure and redisclosure was not required pursuant to a valid warrant or subpoena issued 

by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

65. Defendants’ violations of BIPA were intentional and reckless or, pleaded in the 

alternative, negligent. 

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of BIPA, Plaintiff and 

Putative Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injury. 

67. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members seek as monetary relief all money damages 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:17
18

available under applicable Illinois law. 

68. Unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, Defendants’ 

wrongful conduct will continue to cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and Putative Class 

Members in that their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information can be viewed and used 

by unauthorized persons. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have no adequate remedy at law 

for their injuries in that a judgment for monetary damages will not end the misuse of Plaintiff’s 

and Putative Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. 

69. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members also seek punitive damages, injunctive relief 

and the reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses relating to this action. 

COUNT FOUR 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

70. Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1-46 of this Class Action Complaint as 

though fully set forth herein. 

71. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have clear and ascertainable rights in need 

of protection – namely: (a) the right to have Defendants abide by their obligations under BIPA; (b) 

the right to control their biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; and (c) the right to 

privacy. 

72. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members have no adequate remedy at law because a 

legal remedy cannot retrieve the biometric identifiers and/or biometric information that Defendants 

unlawfully collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, disseminated and otherwise 

profited from, and cannot end the invasion of privacy caused by Defendants’ conduct. 

73. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members will suffer irreparable harm, as alleged herein, 

caused by Defendants if their conduct is not so restrained, requiring injunctive relief. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:18
19

74. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are likely to succeed on the merits because, as 

alleged herein, Defendants unlawfully collected, captured, obtained, disclosed, redisclosed, and/or 

disseminated Plaintiff’s and Putative Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information despite being prohibited from doing so. 

75. Plaintiff and Putative Class Members seek injunctive relief: 

(a) barring Defendants from any further use of Plaintiff’s and Putative Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; and 

(b) barring Defendants from continuing to collect, capture, obtain, disclose, 

redisclose, disseminate or profit from Plaintiff’s and Putative Class 

Members’ biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; (c) requiring 

Defendants to delete and destroy Plaintiff’s and Putative Class Members’ 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information; and (d) requiring 

Defendants to claw back the biometric identifiers and/or biometric 

information from any third parties to whom Defendants disclosed, 

redisclosed or disseminated it. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Putative Class, respectfully 

seeks from the Court the following relief: 

a. Certification of the Class as requested herein; 

b. Appointment of Plaintiff as Class representative and undersigned counsel 

as Class counsel; 

c. An award of damages for Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class, 

including statutory and punitive damages; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:19
20

d. An award of equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief for Plaintiff and 

members of the Putative Class, including an injunction (i) barring 

Defendants from any further use of individuals’ biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information; (ii) barring Defendants from continuing to collect, 

capture, obtain, disclose, redisclose, disseminate and/or profit from 

Plaintiff’s and Putative Class Members’ biometric identifiers and/or 

biometric information; (iii) requiring Defendants to delete and destroy all 

biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in its possession, custody 

and/or control; and (iv) requiring Defendants to claw back the biometric 

identifiers and/or biometric information from any third parties to whom 

Defendants disclosed, redisclosed, and/or disseminated it; 

e. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Plaintiff and 

members of the Putative Class, as permitted by law; 

f. An award for Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class of reasonable 

attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees; and 

g. An award for Plaintiff and members of the Putative Class of any further relief 

the Court deems proper. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims so triable. 

Dated: July 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Chavez 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:20
21

Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq. (6323726) 

Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. (06255735) 

Robert Foote, Esq. (03124325) 

FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O’NEIL, LLC 

10 W. State Street, Suite 200 

Geneva, IL 60134 

Tel. No.: (630) 232-7450 

Fax No.: (630) 232-7452 

Email: ecc@fmcolaw.com

 kcc@fmcolaw.com

rmf@fmcolaw.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AND THE 

PUTATIVE CLASS 

Case: 1:20-cv-04170 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/15/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:21