- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- in United States
- within Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Privacy and Transport topic(s)
Duane Morris Takeaway:This week's episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and senior associate Tyler Zmick with their analysis of a $12.1 million settlement resolving a BIPA class action following eight years of litigation.
Episode Transcript
Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers, for being here again for our next episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I'm Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Tyler Zmick. Thanks so much for being on our podcast today.
Tyler Zmick: Great to be here, Jerry. Thank you for having me.
Jerry: Today, we're diving into a recent class action settlement in Illinois under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, known as BIPA, and a case that centered around a dispute between 7,700 current and former employees of Speedway over biometric data collection. Last Wednesday, the court here in Chicago gave final approval to a class action settlement worth $12.1 million. Tyler, let's break it down and give our listeners a quick overview of what this litigation was all about.
Tyler: Sure thing. So, this is actually one of the older BIPA class actions that was filed back in 2017 by a lead plaintiff named Christopher Howe. Mr. Howe alleged that Speedway, the convenience store and gas station, required its employees to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out of work without providing informed consent, which is required by the statute. And so, therefore, the lawsuit claimed that Speedway violated BIPA, and the statute, as we all know, requires companies to get written, informed consent from individuals before it collects their biometric data, including fingerprints or facial scans. And the plaintiff alleged that he never received any kind of explanation about the biometric collection, and did not provide any written consent.
Jerry: So, this is a classic BIPA case, kind of that got-you situation, where either you did or you didn't provide informed consent to workers regarding the collection of their biometric data. But here, the settlement certainly is very significant from a monetary standpoint, and it follows on the heels of pretty extensive litigation, as you had mentioned, back to 2017. In your mind, what were some of the key turning points in the litigation that led to this settlement?
Tyler: Right, so, as you mentioned, getting to the settlement in this particular case was a very long journey. The case hit a major milestone last September of 2024, when the Northern District of Illinois denied Speedway's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs motion for class certification. In its summary judgment motion, Speedway had argued that the fingerprint scans used with the timekeeping system did not qualify as biometric data under BIPA, because they were just partial prints, not full fingerprints. The court rejected that argument, stating that partial fingerprints are still covered under the statute. And the court also dismissed Speedway's argument that its potential damages, which ranged from $14.4 million to $72 million, were disproportionate to the harm, and therefore, a class could not be certified. The court basically said that, look, if a company's misconduct is so extensive that the penalties may be high, that is still no excuse for a defendant to claim that its damages are so excessive just because it violated the statute that many times.
Jerry: Despite all that, Speedway, however, was able to settle the case for $12.1 million. What can you tell us from the public filings about the terms of the settlement?
Tyler: So, as you mentioned, Jerry, the settlement includes a $12.1 million settlement fund, which will be divided among the 7,700 class members who worked at Speedway gas stations in Illinois between 2012 and 2017. The class members will each receive an equal prorated share, minus administrative costs, attorneys' fees, and incentive award for the class representative, and importantly—and this is somewhat noteworthy—the settlement includes an attorney fee award of $4.5 million for the plaintiffs' counsel. The court approved that amount, saying that the amounts are reasonable given the complexity and length of the litigation.
Jerry: I know our listeners recognize your name for thought leadership in the BIPA area, probably knowing as much, if not more, about BIPA rulings and BIPA settlements than any attorney in the Chicago area. What is your take in terms of the value of the settlement, the amount of money that the plaintiffs were able to garner here, compared and benchmarked towards other BIPA-related settlements?
Tyler: In my opinion, this settlement is fairly typical of a large BIPA class action, especially one involving a fingerprint-based timekeeping system, which, is more straightforwardly biometric than maybe other fact patterns will present. But this is a typical settlement when you consider the risks and costs involved of continuing litigation and a potential appeal. As we've seen in this case, litigation can drag on for years, and there is a degree of unpredictability. So, in this case, for the plaintiff and class members, a $12.1 million settlement ensures that they get a large amount of compensation without any further risks, and without the expense of trial and potential appeal. And the fact that there were no objections to the settlement from class members is a strong indicator that the settlement was viewed as fair by those involved.
Jerry: Well, not unlike taxes, the cost of settlements and class action litigation keeps rising. What does this tell employers and companies dealing with BIPA-related litigation about the state of class action settlements in this area and what the plaintiffs' bar is trying to do with BIPA-related settlements?
Tyler: Well, that's a great question. BIPA class actions are not being filed to the extent that they have been filed in previous years. That being said, BIPA continues to be a major issue in Illinois, and we are still seeing many class actions come up under the statute. So, as always, companies that collect biometric data, or potentially biometric data, need to be very diligent about complying with the statute's notice and consent requirements. And this case really highlights the significant financial risks that companies face if they fail to follow the law to the T, especially since damages for these older cases can be awarded per violation.
Jerry: In sum, what would you say are the key takeaways for companies doing business in Illinois from this settlement, and what are the takeaways and learning lessons that they ought to have about it?
Tyler: Employers, I would say the key takeaway is simple: make sure you're getting informed written consent from employees before collecting any biometric data, ideally during onboarding, day one of an employee's work with the company. That means explaining how the data will be used, stored, and deleted, and informing employees of any changes in company policies or procedures regarding biometric data.
Jerry: Well, thanks so much, Tyler. We'll be watching this settlement and others, and in the upcoming Duane Morris Class Action Review to be published in the second week of January of 2026, you'll be one of our featured authors with your analysis of the state of BIPA litigation and settlements throughout the year. So, thanks so much for joining us on the podcast, and for giving us your insights to this particular settlement.
Tyler: Thank you, Jerry. Thank you, listeners. It was a pleasure to be here.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
