488 F.Supp.3d 714
S.D. Ill.2020Background
- Illinois residents McGoveran, Valentine, and Rodriguez filed a putative class action under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) against Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS) and Pindrop Security, Inc., alleging collection, possession, disclosure, and profiting from voiceprints generated during calls to John Hancock call centers that use Amazon Connect and Pindrop technology.
- Plaintiffs allege call audio is routed to Pindrop for voiceprint analysis and results are stored on AWS; the proposed class includes Illinois callers to entities using Amazon Connect with Pindrop from December 17, 2014 to present.
- Defendants are Delaware corporations with principal places of business outside Illinois; the case was removed under CAFA.
- Both defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) (alternative Rule 12(b)(6) failure-to-state claim argument reserved); the court addressed jurisdiction first.
- Plaintiffs argued defendants purposefully reached into Illinois by collecting Illinois callers’ voiceprints; defendants argued any contacts with Illinois flowed from John Hancock’s choice to use their services and that no relevant acts occurred in Illinois.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of personal jurisdiction by AWS’s motion to compel discovery (re: arbitration) | AWS sought discovery and thus gave plaintiff reasonable expectation it would defend merits here, waiving jurisdiction | AWS sought only limited discovery relevant to a possible arbitration defense and did not undertake merits discovery or otherwise invoke the district court on the merits | No waiver — AWS did not concede personal jurisdiction |
| Specific jurisdiction over Pindrop | Pindrop intercepted and processed Illinois callers’ voiceprints and thus purposefully directed conduct at Illinois | Pindrop has no offices/servers in Illinois; any contacts with Illinois resulted from John Hancock’s use of Pindrop’s services, not Pindrop’s purposeful targeting | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing |
| Specific jurisdiction over AWS | AWS stored/processes biometric data from Illinois callers via Amazon Connect and thus purposefully directed activities at Illinois | AWS provided services to a third-party (John Hancock); its data centers are outside Illinois; contacts are not defendant-created | No specific jurisdiction — plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing |
| Disposition of the action | Plaintiffs sought to proceed in Illinois federal court | Defendants sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction | Case dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction: corporation is "at home" only in state of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific jurisdiction requires defendant-created contacts and purposeful direction at the forum)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and foreseeability for specific jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Due Process limits on personal jurisdiction)
- Felland v. Clifton, 682 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. example where defendant’s repeated communications into forum supported jurisdictional analysis)
- Matlin v. Spin Master Corp., 921 F.3d 701 (plaintiff’s burden when personal jurisdiction is contested)
- Purdue Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773 (forum jurisdiction evidentiary and pleading standards)