Latrina Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.
20f4th1156
7th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiff Latrina Cothron, a White Castle manager in Illinois, was required to scan her fingerprint to access the restaurant’s computer system; each scan was transmitted to a third‑party vendor for authentication.
- BIPA (740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq.), effective 2008, requires written notice and consent before collecting or disclosing biometric identifiers and authorizes private suits for “each violation,” with statutory damages available per violation.
- Cothron alleges White Castle failed to obtain consent until 2018 and sued as a putative class action for violations of §§15(b) (collection) and 15(d) (disclosure/redisclosure).
- White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing BIPA claims accrued at the first post‑2008 scan/transmission (making the suit time‑barred); Cothron argued each scan/transmission is a separate violation and accrual event.
- The district court denied judgment on the pleadings and certified the accrual question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b); the Seventh Circuit held §15(d) violations confer Article III standing but declined to decide accrual, certifying the accrual question to the Illinois Supreme Court and staying further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §15(d) disclosure violation gives Article III standing | §15(d) invasion of biometric privacy is a concrete, particularized injury | (not disputed) | Court: §15(d) violations inflict a concrete and particularized injury; Article III standing exists |
| Whether BIPA §§15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue with each scan/transmission or only at the first | Each unlawful "collection" or "disclosure/redisclosure" is a separate violation and accrues each time | A single initial collection/disclosure fully injures the right to privacy/control so accrual is one‑time only (single‑publication analogy) | Court: Issue is unsettled under Illinois law; declined to decide and certified the question to the Illinois Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2020) (§15(b) collection violation causes Article III injury)
- Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Sys., LLC, 980 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2020) (unlawful retention under BIPA inflicts Article III injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standards for concrete injury in fact)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (distinguishing concrete injuries and trad'l harms supporting Article III standing)
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019) (a statutory violation of BIPA §15 suffices to make a plaintiff "aggrieved")
- Reliable Money Ord., Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 704 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2013) (each unsolicited fax accrues a separate claim—analogy invoked)
- Pippen v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 734 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2013) (single‑publication rule for defamation accrual—analogy invoked)
- Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 798 N.E.2d 75 (Ill. 2003) (Illinois accrual principle: cause of action accrues when facts authorize suit)
- Khan v. Deutsche Bank AG, 978 N.E.2d 1020 (Ill. 2012) (same accrual principle)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (Article III case/controversy requirement)