The Privacy Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 21
predictability in the administration of justice. Id. ¶ 20 (citations omitted). The Illinois
Supreme Court thus held that, “applying two different limitations periods or time bar
standards to different subsections of § 15 of the Act would create an unclear,
inconvenient, inconsistent, and potentially unworkable regime as it pertains to the
administration of justice for claims under the Act.” Id. ¶ 21.
Having decided that a singular uniform statute of limitations should apply, the Illinois
Supreme Court next analyzed whether the statute of limitations should be five years or
one year. Analyzing the plain language of the BIPA statute, the Illinois Supreme Court
held that all five subsections of § 15 of the Act prescribe rules to regulate the collection,
retention, disclosure, and destruction of biometric identifiers and biometric information.
Id. ¶ 29. In regard to the Illinois Appellate Court’s holding that §§ 15(a), 15(b), and 15(e)
of the Act contained no words that could be defined as involving “publication,” the Illinois
Supreme Court held that the Illinois Appellate Court correctly found that subsections (a),
(b), and (e) are subject to the five-year “catchall” limitations period codified in § 13-205
of the Code. Id. ¶ 30.
Turning to subsections (c) and (d), the Illinois Supreme Court acknowledged that the
one-year statute of limitations could be applied. Id. ¶ 32. However, the Illinois Supreme
Court held that, “when we consider not just the plain language of § 15 but also the intent
of the legislature, the purposes to be achieved by the statute, and the fact that there is
no limitations period in the Act, we find that it would be best to apply the five-year
catchall limitations period codified in § 13-205. Id. ¶ 30. The Illinois Supreme Court
explained that this outcome would further its goal of ensuring certainty and predictability
in the administration of limitations periods that apply to causes of actions under the
BIPA. Id. ¶ 32. In support of its conclusion, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois
courts have routinely applied this five-year catchall limitations period to other statutes
lacking a specific limitations period, such as the BIPA. Id. ¶ 34.
Finally, the Illinois Supreme Court examined the Illinois General Assembly’s goals in
enacting the BIPA statute. The Illinois Supreme Court opined that in light of the
extensive consideration the General Assembly gave to the fears of and risks to the
public surrounding the disclosure of highly sensitive biometric information, “it would
thwart legislative intent to (1) shorten the amount of time an aggrieved party would have
to seek redress for a private entity’s noncompliance with the Act and (2) shorten the
amount of time a private entity would be held liable for noncompliance with the Act.” Id.
¶ 39. The opinion also noted that defamation torts such as libel and slander are subject
to a short limitations period because aggrieved individuals are expected to quickly
become apprised of the injury and act quickly when their reputation has been publicly
compromised, while it would be uncertain as to whether an individual would ever
become aware of their biometric being improperly disclosed or misappropriated. Id.
The Illinois Supreme Court concluded its opinion by holding that the five-year limitations
period contained in § 13-205 of the Code controls claims under the BIPA. Therefore, the
Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the
Appellate Court, and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.
20
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review – 2023
