Bobro v. Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC
1:24-cv-10807
N.D. Ill.Jul 28, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, Anthony Bobro and Kevin Dennis, were truck drivers for Ryder Transportation Solutions, LLC and Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. in Illinois.
- Plaintiffs allege Ryder unlawfully collected and stored their biometric information (facial geometry, retina scans, iris scans) via in-cab cameras as a condition of employment.
- Plaintiffs claim Ryder failed to notify employees where their biometrics were stored, retention duration, or destruction guidelines, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
- Plaintiffs sued under BIPA sections 15(a) (retention/destruction policy) and 15(b) (notice and consent), seeking class certification; Ryder removed the case to federal court under CAFA.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand the 15(a) claim for lack of Article III standing; Ryder moved to dismiss all claims.
- The court granted remand as to the 15(a) claim and denied Ryder’s motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims (particularly the 15(b) claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal subject matter jurisdiction over 15(a) BIPA claim | Section 15(a) claims lack Article III standing per Bryant | Fox governs: policy development failure creates standing | No standing for 15(a) claim; remanded to state court |
| Sufficiency of BIPA 15(b) allegations | Direct allegations of biometric data collection and storage | Plaintiffs failed to allege actual biometric collection | Complaint sufficiently pleads collection |
| BIPA claims preempted by federal law (FMCSA/FAAAA) | BIPA only requires notice and consent; no conflict | BIPA impairs carrier operations and is preempted | No preemption; effects speculative/peripheral |
| BIPA's application extraterritorially | All relevant conduct and class limited to Illinois drivers | Claims improper for out-of-state drivers | Claims apply to Illinois conduct only |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Compass Group, 958 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2020) (no Article III standing for BIPA Section 15(a) policy publication duties)
- Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Sys., 980 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2020) (Article III standing where there is alleged unlawful retention of biometric data)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005) (statutory extraterritoriality presumption)