A truck driver who accused tech firm Samsara of improperly collecting face scan data can keep pressing his class action claim in federal court under Illinois' biometrics privacy law.
David Karling’s lawsuit alleges Samsara violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act through the facial recognition technology it sells to industrial and logistics clients, ostensibly to monitor drivers for fatigue and distraction.
Karling drove for Lily Transportation, which installed Samsara dashboard cameras in its trucks in 2021. He said he never consented to collection and storage of his facial data, alleged Samsara never gave him a written release, disclosures or data retention policy, and further accused the company of violating BIPA by disseminating drivers’ personal information to third parties, including his employer.
Jason Lichtman
| Lieff Cabraser
Though Karling sued in Cook County Circuit Court, Samsara removed the complaint to federal court. In an opinion issued July 11, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis rejected Samsara’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
According to Ellis, Samsara argued federal regulations pre-empt BIPA and prevent Karling from applying the BIPA law to them as he seeks to do in his class action. Karling countered by saying the factual record in his litigation doesn’t yet support pre-emption, and further contended Samsara hasn’t invoked a specific federal law that supposedly supersedes BIPA.
Ellis agreed with Karling, saying Samsara hasn’t adequately defined its position under the Supremacy Clause, through which federal law pre-empts conflicting state law.
“Samsara does not argue that BIPA conflicts with a particular federal statute; rather, it urges the Court to find ‘a uniform scheme of federal regulation of truck safety technology’ disrupted by BIPA’s Illinois-specific requirements,” Ellis wrote. And although the company cited various Department of Transportation documents, a 2012 Congressional mandate for electronic logging device regulations and a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration privacy impact assessment, Ellis agreed with Karling that the “collection of references does not create a uniform regulatory scheme such that the clear, preemptive purpose of Congress is evident.”
The federal government focused on traffic safety, Ellis explained, and BIPA is aimed at personal privacy protection. The state law doesn’t disturb Congress’ regulatory objectives, and “theoretically, a company like Samsara could create truck safety technology that complies with BIPA,” Ellis wrote.
Although Samsara tried to compare its dash cameras, about which Karling sued, and other products such as its logging devices, the supporting evidence “only serves to highlight the fact-based nature of a conflict preemption inquiry and its usual inappropriateness on a motion to dismiss,” Ellis wrote.
Samsara also invoked the Dormant Commerce Clause, arguing a finding in Karling’s favor would mean BIPA substantially interfered with interstate commerce. But again Ellis said the factual record isn’t yet sufficient to make such a determination and said several courts have rejected implications the clause prevents applying BIPA to an out-of-state defendant.
“Without discovery into Samsara’s processes for scanning, storing and using biometrics with its dashcam system and the alleged burden of compliance with BIPA, the court cannot determine whether there is a dormant Commerce Clause violation,” Ellis wrote.
Ellis further agreed with Karling that his references to Samsara’s website concerning its camera technology do not defeat his BIPA claims, but underscore his position about the limitations of its written documents relative to legal requirements. She also rejected Samsara’s contention that Lily, Karling’s employer, is the only entity that could be held liable under certain BIPA sections.
“Karling asserts that Samsara collected his facial geometry through its dashcam system, used AI software to process that data to recognize him, stored his biometric information in its cloud-based dashboard and then provided access to that dashboard and services based on that data to his employer,” Ellis wrote. “Karling has sufficiently alleged Samsara’s active collection, storage, and use of his data.”
After further establishing Karling sufficiently pleaded several other claims under BIPA, she denied Samsara’s entire motion to dismiss.
Karling is represented in the action by attorneys Jason L. Lichtman and Sean A. Petterson, of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, of New York, and Gary M. Klinger, of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, of Chicago.
Samsara is defended by attorneys David C. Layden and Elena M. Olivieri, of Jenner & Block, of Chicago.