152 F. Supp. 3d 1103
N.D. Ill.2015Background
- Plaintiff brings a diversity class action under BIPA against Shutterfly and ThisLife seeking statutory damages and an injunction.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) and (6); motion denied.
- Court first addresses personal jurisdiction to determine if it can reach the Rule 12(b)(6) issue.
- Defendants are Delaware corporations with California headquarters; their Websites target Illinois residents and ship products there.
- Illinois is the governing venue for the biometric statute; Plaintiff is an Illinois resident and not a user of the Websites.
- Court finds sufficient minimum contacts and analyzes due process for specific personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. | Norberg (Illinois resident) | Defendants lack minimum contacts with Illinois | Specific jurisdiction found; motion denied. |
| Whether BIPA claim is plausibly stated against Defendants. | Defendants collect, store, use biometric data without consent | Biometric identifiers defined narrowly; alleged activity outside statute | Plaintiff plausibly states a BIPA claim. |
| Whether the claim survives Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility review. | Complaint alleges collection of facial biometrics without consent | Statutory scope may exclude website-based collection | Plaintiff's claim survives plausibility standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional analysis guidance in diversity cases)
- Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004) (state long-arm due process outer boundary standard)
- Philos Techs., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 802 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2015) (minimum contacts; due process limits on jurisdiction)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (multi-factor analysis for jurisdictional burdens)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (classic due process framework for specific jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (general rule for in personam jurisdiction)