Home - Blank Rome LLP

Register to receive insights and analyses on breaking news and trends across varying industries.
<a class="link-primary mt-4" href="/subscribe">Subscribe</a>

Philadelphia, PA

New York, NY

Wilmington, DE

Cincinnati, OH

Princeton, NJ

Los Angeles, CA

Houston, TX

Tampa, FL

Shanghai

South Florida

Pittsburgh, PA

Washington, D.C.

Chicago, IL

Orange County, CA

Dallas, TX

Boston, MA

In a highly anticipated decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on April 1, 2026, that Illinois’ 2024 amendment to the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) applies retroactively, significantly limiting damages to one recovery per person.

core/paragraph

The Court’s Holding

For background, BIPA authorizes statutory damages of $1,000 for negligent violations and $5,000 for reckless or intentional violations. In Cothron v. White Castle, the Illinois Supreme Court held that for purposes the statute of limitations period claims under BIPA accrue each time biometric data is collected, not just the first time. That ruling triggered concern that damages could be multiplied by hundreds or thousands of scans per employee, potentially leading to billions of dollars in exposure. Directly responding to those concerns, the Illinois General Assembly amended BIPA in effective August 2024 to clarify that when a company repeatedly collects or discloses the same biometric data from the same person using the same method, it commits only a single violation for damages purposes, entitling the plaintiff to “at most, one recovery.”

The BIPA Amendment (the “Amendment”) spurred challenges by both plaintiffs and defendants in BIPA cases as to whether the Amendment applies retroactive to pending cases. Following the Amendment’s passage, various challenges moved through Illinois’s state and federal courts, and now the Seventh Circuit has finally weighed in. In a consolidated appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed three decisions by judges in the Northern District of Illinois and held that BIPA’s 2024 Amendment does &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;to pending cases.

The Court concluded the Amendment is remedial, not substantive, because it limits available damages without changing BIPA’s substantive compliance requirements. Therefore, it was a “procedural” change under Illinois law, which means it applies to cases pending at the time the statute was enacted. In Illinois, remedial changes apply retroactively absent constitutional concerns, which the Court found were not present here. The Court found applying the Amendment retroactively raises no constitutional concerns because it reduces, rather than increases, potential liability.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision is at odds with the majority of Illinois Circuit Court opinions, which are nearly unanimous that the Amendment does not apply retroactively. Appellant Union Pacific relied on one of the only state court decisions to apply the Amendment retroactively, obtained by Blank Rome on behalf of the defendant in Sellers v. DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC (Cir. Ct. Will County, Oct. 31, 2024). Together, these decisions end the exorbitant damages model spawned by the White Castle decision.

What This Means for Defendants

For employers and other businesses facing BIPA claims, the Seventh Circuit’s decision brings long‑awaited clarity and significantly limits damages exposure in pending cases, realigning BIPA enforcement with the Illinois legislature’s intent.

Reduced exposure and improved settlement posture. The decision curbs the “annihilative liability” concerns that followed the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Cothron v. White Castle. Claims alleging hundreds or thousands of scans are capped at a single statutory recovery per plaintiff.

core/list-item

Per‑scan damages are off the table in pending cases. The ruling applies to cases already on file. Plaintiffs may no longer seek statutory damages for every biometric scan or transmission, at least in federal court where there is an influx of litigation.

Potential jurisdictional consequences. Courts will need to consider also jurisdictional impact, which can be challenged at any time. For example, based on the inflated per-scan damages model, a single plaintiff case could end up in federal court despite raising only a state claim, including one of the cases that the court considered in the consolidated appeal. Now, federal litigation will likely be limited to class actions.

core/list

However, courts still retain discretion over whether and how much statutory damages to award, as noted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron.

Blank Rome’s <a href="https://www.blankrome.com/services-and-industries/class-action-defense/biometric-privacy/" id="33058">Biometric Privacy</a> team is prepared to assist you with all BIPA-related questions. Should you or your business require additional information or advice, please reach out to <a href="/people/daniel-r-saeedi/" id="18765">Daniel R. Saeedi</a>, <a href="/people/rachel-l-schaller/" id="18766">Rachel L. Schaller</a>, <a href="/people/amanda-m-noonan/" id="18939">Amanda M. Noonan</a>, <a href="/people/gabrielle-n-ganze/" id="18764">Gabrielle N. Ganze</a>, or another member of Blank Rome’s <a href="/services-and-industries/privacy-security-data-protection/" id="18538">Privacy, Security &amp; Data Protection</a> group.

Seventh Circuit Issues Seminal Decision Holding BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively

Offices

Stay Connected

Slide Menu

Slide Search

Seventh Circuit Issues Seminal Decision Holding BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively

Offices

Stay Connected