Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801

Plaintiff Jorome Tims (later joined by Isaac Watson) sued former employer Black Horse Carriers under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleging violations of §15(a), §15(b), and §15(d) for using fingerprint timeclocks without required policies, notice/consent, or improper disclosure.
Black Horse moved to dismiss as time-barred, arguing a one-year statute of limitations for privacy/publication torts (735 ILCS 5/13-201) applied; plaintiffs argued the five-year catchall (735 ILCS 5/13-205) governed because BIPA contains no limitations clause.
The trial court denied dismissal and certified the limitations-question for interlocutory appeal under Supreme Court Rule 308.
The appellate court held BIPA claims were governed by two different limitations periods: one year for claims involving “publication” (§15(c) and §15(d)) and five years for the other subsections (§15(a), §15(b), §15(e)).
The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and held that a single limitations period should apply to all §15 claims; because BIPA contains no express limitations period and uniformity/predictability are required, the five-year catchall in §13-205 governs all §15 claims; the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute of limitations governs BIPA §15 claims?	§13-205 (five-year catchall) because BIPA is silent and claims are "not otherwise provided for"	§13-201 (one-year) because BIPA is a privacy statute and some subsections involve publication/disclosure	Held: §13-205 (five years) applies to all §15 claims
May different subsections of §15 carry different limitations periods?	No — bifurcating periods would cause uncertainty and conflict with legislative intent	Yes — subsections using terms like “sell,” “disclose,” or “disseminate” involve publication and thus fit §13-201	Held: No bifurcation; single uniform five-year period applies
Do §15(c) and §15(d)’s words (sell, disclose, disseminate) create a publication-based claim fitting §13-201?	Even if those words suggest publication, legislative purpose and discovery concerns favor the longer period	Those words show publication/disclosure and should trigger the one-year privacy/publication limitation	Held: Court acknowledges possible publication meaning but rejects applying one-year because statutory silence and policy favor §13-205

Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of Du Page, 195 Ill. 2d 257 (applies §13-205 where statute is silent and rejects split time-bar approach)
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (interpreting BIPA’s remedial scheme and scope)
West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978 (definition/meaning of “publication” in privacy contexts)
Seaman v. Thompson Electronics Co., 325 Ill. App. 3d 560 (applying §13-205 to statutes lacking a limitations period)
People ex rel. Dep’t of Labor v. Tri State Tours, Inc., 342 Ill. App. 3d 842 (same: §13-205 governs when statute is silent)
In re Marriage of Goesel, 2017 IL 122046 (statutory construction presumption against interpretations producing absurd or inconsistent results)