Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Defense Victories in Genetic and Biometric Privacy Class Actions

September 5, 2018 by Carlton Fields

In what may be a glimpse into the next frontier in class action litigation, two federal courts recently disposed of putative class actions alleging violations of state privacy laws involving genetic and biometric data.

In a rare defense victory in a circuit favored by the plaintiff’s bar, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Alaska denying plaintiff’s motion for certification of claims under  Alaska’s Genetic Privacy Act. Plaintiffs in that case alleged that defendant, a company that sells DNA testing kits, disclosed customers’ DNA results without their consent. The plaintiff brought the putative class action lawsuit on behalf of nearly 1,000 residents of the state. The Ninth Circuit panel agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to meet the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), as common questions did not predominate over individual issues. In particular, the court found that individualized issues predominated with regard to disclosure, consent, and damages. Because customers were involved in various of the defendant’s “projects,” they signed different releases and had chosen different privacy settings. Whether customers had consented to disclosure of their information, and whether such information had actually been disclosed, differed based on these privacy terms. Furthermore, the court noted that although variations in class member damages alone were not sufficient to preclude certification, these differences supported the district court’s holding. Additionally, the court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff also failed to prove superiority under the circumstances, as it would be difficult to adjudicate a class action with so many individualized issues and only limited resources would be saved in doing so. Thus, the Ninth Circuit panel agreed that individual litigation was more appropriate than a class action.

In addition, an Illinois federal district court dismissed putative class claims by airline employees for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) based on their employer’s alleged use of a biometric timekeeping system. The court reasoned that such claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), which applies to collective bargaining agreements in the airline and railroad industries.  Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant airline violated their privacy rights by requiring them to scan their fingers to sign in and out at work without providing an appropriate notice or obtaining their consent. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the airline to destroy their biometric data and cease its unlawful conduct as well as monetary damages. Defendant airline moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficient injury under BIPA, and for improper venue, asserting the claims were preempted by the RLA. With regard to the former, the court held that plaintiffs had alleged a concrete injury based on their claim that that defendant airline shared employees’ biometric data with third party vendors without employees’ knowledge or consent. However, the court agreed that the RLA preempted plaintiffs’ claims because those claims required an interpretation of the relevant collective bargaining agreements, and were therefore subject to mandatory arbitration under the RLA. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for improper venue.

Cole v. Gene by Gene, Ltd., No. 17-35837 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018).

Miller v. Southwest Airlines Co., 18 C 86 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2018).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Seventh Circuit Approves Cy Pres Settlement

Next Article »

Volkswagen Passes Fairness Test for Class Settlement in Dispute Over “Defeat Devices” to Bypass Emission Tests
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.