Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-30-2018
Case Style:
Lindabeth Rivera and Joseph Weiss v. Google, LLC
Case Number: 1:16-cv-02714
Judge: Edmond E. Chang
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Cook County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Robert R Ahdoot, David P Milian, Katrina Carroll, Theodore Walter Maya, Bradley K King, Frank S Hedin, Kyle Alan Shamberg, Tina Wolfson,
Defendant's Attorney: Debra Rae Bernard, Frederick Liu, Neal Kumar Katyal, Nicola C Menaldo, Ryan Spear, Sara A. Solow, Sunita Bali, Susan D Fahringer, and Thomas P. Schmidt
Description:
Chicago, IL - Lindabeth Rivera, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, sued Google, LLC on civil rights theories claiming that Google's facial-recognition software violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
Plaintiffs claimed that Google violated the DIPA by collecting facila recognition data without express user consent, specifically by extracting millions of "face templates" from immages uploaded to the cloud-based Google Photos service.
Outcome: 12/29/2018 206 (SEALED) MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/29/2018. This is the under-seal version of the opinion. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Defendant Google's motion 151 for summary judgment is granted. The case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury-in-fact. The status hearing of 01/22/2019 is vacated. A separate AO-450 judgment will be entered. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 12/29/2018)
12/29/2018 207 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang on 12/29/2018. This is the public redacted version of the opinion. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, Defendant Google's motion 151 for summary judgment is granted. The case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because Plaintiffs have not alleged an injury-in-fact. The status hearing of 01/22/2019 is vacated. A separate AO-450 judgment will be entered. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 12/29/2018)
12/29/2018 208 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 12/29/2018. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 12/29/2018)
Judge Chang found that Plaintiffs had not alleged an injury in-fact and as a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
