Illinois Legislature Passes Bill Amending BIPA’s Right of Action
Time 2 Minute Read

On May 16, 2024, the Illinois House of Representatives passed S.B. 2979, following the bill’s passage in the Illinois Senate in April. S.B. 2979 next goes to Governor J.B. Pritzker for signature. S.B. 2979 would amend the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) definitions and limit liability for businesses with multiple duplicative BIPA violations that relate to the same individual.

S.B. 2979 would amend BIPA’s definitions section by adding a definition for “electronic signature” and clarifying that an electronic signature is a means of providing a “written release”, i.e., written consent.  “Electronic signature” is defined as “an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record.”

The bill also would amend BIPA’s contentious private right of action provisions; S.B. 2979 clarifies that an individual bringing an action against an entity that has obtained the “same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection” is entitled to at most a single recovery under BIPA. Similarly, S.B. 2979 clarifies that only a single recovery for a violation of Section 15(d) of BIPA is allowed for an individual bringing a claim against an entity that has disclosed, redisclosed, or disseminated the “same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person to the same recipient using the same method of collection”.

The private right of action stands, but its effects may be somewhat lessened as a result of the S.B. 2979 amendments, which would prevent multiple recoveries in certain circumstances.

Update: On August 2, 2024, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed S.B. 2979 into law.

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 1 Minute Read

As reported on the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives blog, SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making.

Time 3 Minute Read

SB 574 is a California bill that would set specific duties for attorneys who use generative artificial intelligence and would restrict how arbitrators may use such tools in decision-making. It would amend provisions in the Business and Professions Code and the Code of Civil Procedure to address confidentiality, accuracy, bias, and citation verification for attorneys, and to prohibit delegation of arbitral decision-making to AI while adding disclosure and responsibility requirements for arbitrators.

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.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Archives

Jump to Page