City Of Chicago v. Marriott International, Inc., 8:19-cv-00654

Background

Marriott disclosed a massive data breach in Nov. 2018 affecting Starwood guest database; ~133.7 million U.S. records were impacted, ~2.4 million associated with the City of Chicago.
Chicago sued Marriott under the Chicago Municipal Code (MCC) § 2-25-090, alleging violations based on ICFA and PIPA: failure to safeguard data, misrepresentations about security, and delayed notice.
MCC § 2-25-090(g) authorizes fines of $500–$10,000 per "offense" and states that "each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate and distinct offense."
Marriott moved for partial summary judgment to limit fines Chicago may seek, arguing (1) daily fines apply only to ongoing violations (not past conduct) and (2) fines should be per "practice," not per compromised record.
The Court declined to rule on damages at this stage, holding the motion premature because discovery (including expert merits discovery) is incomplete and Chicago has not committed to which fines it will pursue.
Court denied Marriott’s motion without prejudice and permitted renewal after discovery concludes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCC § 2-25-090(g)’s "each day that a violation continues" permits daily fines for past (no-longer-ongoing) violations	Chicago interprets the provision to allow separate fines for each day the underlying violation persisted (including past exposure period)	Marriott contends "continues" limits daily fines to ongoing/active violations, not to past conduct already ended before suit	Denied as premature — court declined to decide now; issue reserved until after discovery
Whether fines may be assessed per affected record (per-record) vs per "practice"	Chicago may seek per-record fines (each compromised Chicago-associated record could be a discrete offense)	Marriott argues fines should be per unlawful practice, not per record, to avoid astronomical aggregate penalties	Denied as premature — court concluded factual development needed to evaluate viability and proofs for a per-record theory
Whether deciding damages now would be an improper advisory ruling / procedurally premature	Chicago argues damages issues are advisory while liability and discovery remain unresolved and it has not chosen which theories it will actually pursue	Marriott urges judicial efficiency and case management support early resolution of damages scope	Court agreed with Chicago: motion is premature and may produce unnecessary rulings; denied without prejudice
Constitutional (Eighth Amendment) excessive-fines concern as a basis to construe ordinance now	Chicago did not press a resolution now; issues contingent on which fines sought	Marriott argued a construction avoiding unconstitutional results (e.g., trillions in fines) is required now	Court found Eighth Amendment arguments premature and reserved them for later proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (court must view facts and inferences in the light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (mere scintilla of evidence insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (nonmoving party must show evidence for each essential element)
Pulliam Inv. Co. v. Cameo Props., 810 F.2d 1282 (movant bears initial burden to show absence of genuine dispute)
Casey v. Geek Squad Subsidiary Best Buy Stores, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 334 (summary judgment standards and burdens summarized)
Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310 (nonmoving party must produce admissible evidence to carry burden at trial)
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654 (principle on viewing evidence in light most favorable to party opposing motion)
St. Louis I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (aggregate statutory damages may face constitutional limits in extreme cases)
Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (statutory construction avoiding serious constitutional problems when possible)