Joshua Gaertner and Carson Koy v. Commemorative Brands, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The court held that the proposed class was ascertainable and satisfied Rule 23’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, including because the alleged facial-recognition process was uniform and the relevant conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois.

Holdings

1. The court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because complete diversity existed and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000; jurisdiction could alternatively exist under the Class Action Fairness Act.
2. At the class-certification stage, the proposed Illinois class was not overbroad on extraterritoriality grounds because the alleged conduct occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois.
3. The revised class definition, based on objective criteria identifying individuals depicted in Illinois photographs submitted for facial recognition during the class period, was sufficiently definite and did not improperly incorporate the elements of BIPA liability.
4. The proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
5. Common questions predominated because the central liability issues—whether GradImages used a uniform facial-recognition process to obtain or possess biometric data and whether it violated BIPA—could be resolved with common evidence.
6. A class action was the superior method for adjudicating the dispute.
7. Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy their Rule 23 burden, including deposition testimony, interrogatory responses, document production, and GradImages's website explanation of its facial-recognition process.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the proposed class was ascertainable and not impermissibly overbroad, including whether BIPA could apply to the alleged conduct under Illinois's primary-and-substantial-relationship test.
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements.
3. Whether common questions predominated over individual questions under Rule 23(b)(3).
4. Whether a class action was superior to other methods of adjudication under Rule 23(b)(3).
5. Whether Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy their Rule 23 burden.
6. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) or the Class Action Fairness Act.

Disposition

other