Wise v. Ring LLC
2:20-cv-01298
W.D. Wash.Aug 3, 2022Background
- Ring LLC (an Amazon subsidiary) sells video doorbells and cameras that record video and can store footage; Ring filed patent applications for facial-recognition features enabling matching/uploading of faces.
- Plaintiff Michelle Wise filed a first amended complaint alleging Ring collected, stored, and used "face templates" (biometric identifiers) of Illinois residents without BIPA-compliant written notice and consent, asserting violations of 740 ILCS 14/15(a) and 15(b).
- FAC alleges Ring created millions of face templates from footage, stored them unencrypted, allowed global staff access, and worked with law enforcement to identify people; plaintiff proposes an Illinois-by-stander class (excluding Ring camera purchasers).
- Ring moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing the alleged face scans are not identified biometric data and thus not covered by BIPA; it alternatively sought to strike the class as unknowable under Rule 12(f).
- The district court treated factual allegations as true, found plaintiff plausibly alleged Ring had the capacity to identify individuals and thus stated BIPA claims, and held that striking class allegations was premature because necessary information lay in Ring’s control and discovery was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC plausibly alleges violations of BIPA §§15(a) and 15(b) based on face templates | Ring collected and stored face geometry/face templates from videos and used them to build ID-capable databases without written notice or consent | The raw scans/face geometry without an attached name/contact do not create an identifiable biometric; BIPA should not reach unknown nonusers | Court: FAC plausibly alleges Ring has or had the capacity to identify individuals and enough factual matter was pleaded to state BIPA claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Whether class allegations should be stricken as unknowable under Rule 12(f) | Class is ascertainable and information to support class membership is within Ring’s control; discovery needed | Class is unknowable because Ring cannot identify all nonusers captured by cameras and thus class allegations should be stricken now | Court: Denied motion to strike as premature; discovery may uncover evidence necessary to develop class allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requiring plausible factual allegations)
- Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cnty., 487 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir.) (accept factual allegations as true and draw inferences in nonmovant’s favor on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Patel v. Facebook, Inc., 932 F.3d 1264 (9th Cir.) (context on BIPA claims where plaintiff had a relationship with the company and was a known user)
- Sanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (discusses use of Rule 12(f) to strike class allegations)
- Mantolete v. Bolger, 767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir.) (party should be afforded discovery to develop class allegations)