Compliance Stuff

On January 30, 2026, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed summary judgment in  Salinas v. Arthur Schuman Midwest, LLC , in favor of staffing agencies accused of Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) violations, holding that the agencies did not “collect, capture, or otherwise obtain” biometric data simply by enrolling employees in a biometric time clock system and instructing them on its use. 00:00 10:28 Quick Hits O n January 30, 2026, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed summary judgment in  Salinas v. Arthur Schuman Midwest, LLC , in favor of staffing agencies accused of BIPA violations, holding that the agencies did not “collect, capture, or otherwise obtain” biometric data simply by enrolling employees in a biometric time clock system and instructing them on its use. The court emphasized that each operative verb in Section 15(b) of BIPA—collect, capture, purchase, receive, and obtain—“presupposes that a defendant acquires the biometric data, not merely that its...

Biometric technologies—such as fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems, and retina scans—are now commonplace in modern business operations. From employee timekeeping systems to facility security and customer-facing applications, these tools offer efficiency and convenience for many businesses. But these same conveniences have sparked backlash in the form of privacy litigation. In Illinois especially, companies are facing a surge of class-action lawsuits under the state’s  Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) , a pioneering law that imposes strict requirements on the use of biometric data and hefty penalties for companies failing to adhere to the law. This trend is not confined to Illinois: a growing patchwork of similar laws in other states means that using biometrics without proper safeguards can expose companies nationwide to significant statutory damages and legal risks. Illinois BIPA: A Trailblazer with Teeth Illinois’ BIPA, enacted in 2008, was the first U.S. la...