- within Consumer Protection topic(s)
- in Canada
- within Consumer Protection and Compliance topic(s)
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
In this Consumer Counterpoint Quick Take episode, we discuss the Illinois Appellate Court's recent decision in Salinas, et al. v. Surestaff, LLC, et al., 2026 IL App (3d) 250239, which is a significant win for defendants navigating Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) litigation. The Third District Appellate Court affirmed summary judgment for the staffing‑agency defendants, holding that ministerial involvement with a biometric timeclock system is not enough to establish a Section 15(b) violation. The court emphasized that BIPA liability requires actual acquisition or control of biometric data, not merely proximity to or facilitation of another entity's collection. By rejecting plaintiffs' "conduit" theory and reaffirming that Section 15(b) applies only when a defendant collects, captures, receives, or otherwise obtains biometric information, the Court reinforced an important limiting principle—one that curbs expansive theories seeking to rope peripheral actors into BIPA suits. For companies that interact with biometric systems but do not access or control biometric data, this decision provides meaningful clarity and a much‑needed guardrail against overbroad liability.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
