Summary
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed rulings in a putative class action alleging that Amazon Web Services and Pindrop Security violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting callers’ voiceprints without consent. The court held that Pindrop fell within BIPA’s financial-institution exemption, upheld the denial of expanded discovery and voluntary dismissal, and concluded that BIPA’s extraterritoriality doctrine barred the claims against Amazon. The court also affirmed judgment on the pleadings concerning the renewed Illinois BIPA Section 15(d) claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Pindrop was subject to BIPA's financial-institution exemption because its authentication services qualified as financial activities under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and related Federal Reserve regulations.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiffs' requests for broad extensions of discovery.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying the newly added plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
- Whether Amazon was entitled to summary judgment because the conduct underlying Plaintiffs' BIPA claims occurred primarily and substantially outside Illinois.
- Whether Amazon was entitled to judgment on the pleadings on Plaintiffs' renewed Section 15(d) claim because Plaintiffs repleaded a claim that had previously been dismissed without prejudice.
Holdings
- Pindrop qualified for BIPA's financial-institution exemption because its authentication of John Hancock customers conducting financial transactions fell within the incorporated definition of financial activities.
- Even assuming the financial-institution exemption was an affirmative defense, the District Court properly resolved it on a motion to dismiss because the complaint itself established the facts implicating the exemption.
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiffs' broad requests to extend discovery because Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence and disregarded the court's instructions to seek narrowly tailored extensions.
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the newly added plaintiffs' eleventh-hour motion for voluntary dismissal because the record supported a finding of prejudice and forum shopping.
- BIPA does not apply to Plaintiffs' claims because the alleged misconduct occurred primarily and substantially outside Illinois.
- The District Court properly entered judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiffs reasserted the previously dismissed Section 15(d) claim in their second amended complaint.
Key quotations
“The Federal Reserve Board determined by regulation that “authenticating the identity of persons conducting financial and nonfinancial transactions” is an “activity that . . . [is] so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto.”” (at 5)
“It is a “long-standing rule of construction” that Illinois state laws are “without extraterritorial effect unless a clear intent in this respect appears from the express provisions of the statute.”” (at 10)
“Lacking evidence, Plaintiffs fail to create a genuine dispute of material fact that the relevant activities here occurred outside of Illinois.” (at 11)
Factual background
The Illinois plaintiffs called John Hancock to discuss their retirement accounts. John Hancock routed the calls through Amazon Connect, Amazon Web Services's cloud-based product, and Pindrop used voiceprint technology to authenticate the callers. Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon and Pindrop collected, used, or disseminated their biometric voiceprints without the written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Amazon processed the calls on servers in Northern Virginia, Pindrop was located in Georgia, and John Hancock was located in Massachusetts; Amazon had no employees or servers in Illinois involved in the processing.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs first filed a putative BIPA class action in Illinois state court, but the case was removed and dismissed by the Southern District of Illinois for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then filed a similar action in the District of Delaware, which initially dismissed the claims on extraterritoriality grounds. After amendment, the District Court dismissed Pindrop under BIPA's financial-institution exemption, dismissed most claims against Amazon, later entered judgment on the pleadings on the renewed Section 15(d) claim, and granted Amazon summary judgment on the Section 15(b) claim. The Third Circuit affirmed.