Illinois Biometric Law Limitation Period Clarified by Illinois Court
Time 2 Minute Read
Categories: U.S. State Law

On September 17, 2021, in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers Inc., Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-20-563, the Illinois Appellate Court, in a case of first impression at the appellate level, addressed the statute of limitations under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), holding that a five-year period applies to BIPA claims that allege the failure to (1) provide notice of the collection of biometric data, (2) take care in storing or transmitting biometric data, or (3) develop a publicly-available retention and destruction schedule for biometric data. The Court also held that a one-year period applies to claims alleging the improper disclosure of, or improper sale, lease, trade or profit from, biometric data.

Defendant Black Horse Carriers and the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, which filed an amicus brief, argued that because BIPA concerns privacy, BIPA claims should be subject to a one-year limitation period, in accordance with 735 ILCS 5/13-201, a separate Illinois statute that sets forth the statute of limitation for claims involving the “publication of matter violating the right of privacy.” The plaintiff, however, argued that 735 ILCS 5/13-205 should govern, which prescribes a five-year limitation period.

In its opinion, the Illinois Appellate Court held that 735 ILCS 5/13-201 does not encompass all privacy actions, but “only those where publication is an element or inherent part of the action.” The Court held that because the improper disclosure or sale of biometric data entails an element of publication, the one-year statute of limitations period applies to such BIPA claims. Conversely, the court held that because the failure to provide written notice of the collection of biometric data, protect biometric data, or develop a retention and destruction schedule of biometric data do not entail an element of publication, such claims are subject to the five-year period prescribed in in 735 ILCS 5/14-205. Because many BIPA claims do not involve an element of publication, the five-year statute of limitations period likely will apply to the majority of BIPA claims that are brought against defendants.

The Tims case has frequently been cited in pending BIPA cases in Illinois as a basis for a stay of litigation while the appellate courts decided the statute of limitations period issue. The Tims decision may not, however, be the final word, as it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court of Illinois will take up further review of the issue.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the 2024 amendment to Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, limiting damages, applies retroactively to pending cases.

Time 3 Minute Read

The results are in: attorneys are filing more employment law cases in court.  Indeed, year-end reporting from legal databases like LexMachina confirm that the pace of filing new employment discrimination cases reached its highest level in 2025, surpassing 20,000 new filings nationwide.  Though overtime and minimum wage lawsuits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have continued to decline since 2015, discrimination cases under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act are on the rise.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court decision determined that documents created by a criminal defendant using AI and subsequently shared with legal counsel were not shielded by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In USA v. Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York compelled the disclosure of 31 documents created with Anthropic’s Claude. This order was issued despite the defendant including information from counsel in the AI tool’s input and later providing the resulting outputs to his attorneys. The ruling offers early judicial perspective on privilege concerns involving AI-generated materials, an area where case law remains sparse.

Time 1 Minute Read

A recent federal court ruling held that AI-generated documents prepared by a defendant and later shared with legal counsel were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page