Illinois might be leading the way in protecting individual privacy rights in the market place in the digital age.
While most people don’t think twice about it, there are significant numbers of people who approach Facebook and other social media platforms with some cautious trepidation. For some, the fear is that their privacy rights could be violated. Of course, the primary use of Facebook has been people sharing their lives with the world in a very public manner. So, for most people, the privacy concerns are not of the highest importance.
However, there are some who object to Facebook’s use of facial recognition software, and the Illinois legislature might be on the cutting edge of protecting people’s privacy rights in this regard.
Is Facebook violating your privacy rights?
According to a recent article in Forbes, Facebook has been named defendant in a class action lawsuit based on Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) of 2008.
Facebook uses “tags” that identify people in photographs uploaded to the platform. Recently, Facebook began using tag suggestions that use facial recognition applications to identify people in future pictures that are uploaded.
According to BIPA, individuals must grant permission before their biometric information is obtained, stored or used by a private entity. So, under the Act, people are protected against private parties using information like fingerprints or face recognition software.
This class-action lawsuit against Facebook comes alongside similar claims against Snapchat and Shutterfly.
Will Facebook have to stop using tag suggestions?
These claims against Facebook and related social media entities are among the first of their kind, and Illinois is one of only a few states with these types of laws on the books. It will be interesting to see how the Illinois courts decide on these issues and the scope that these decisions will have.
Quick Navigation
Free Consultation
"*" indicates required fields
Undisclosed
Settlement
TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.
TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.
Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.
TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.
TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.
Class-wide settlement in wage and hour independent contractor misclassification class action on behalf of approximately 1,800 valet employees. Final approval granted.
Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.
$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.
One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.
Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.
Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.
With so many law firms in Southern California and throughout the United States, why choose the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman?
Todd Friedman has been named a 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 Super Lawyer, a distinction of professional achievement and peer recognition.
Speak directly with attorney Todd Friedman about your case. Todd will evaluate your situation and provide prompt and straightforward feedback, saving you time and alleviating uncertainty.
Our firm has earned an A+ Rating from the Better Business Bureau, and has been accredited since 2010.
We are strong advocates for our clients and have the resources necessary to take on powerful opponents and win.
Contact Us
and start fighting back
We offer Free Initial Consultations.
If you have experienced a violation of your rights, call us at 323-690-1688 or fill out the form to the right →
Not ready to commit yet? Check out our Testimonials page and see what others have said about their experience working with us!
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site, including collecting and providing that information to third party vendors to improve our experience, and for marketing purposes. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
