December 16, 2024

Schwartz and the Retroactivity of BIPA

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Newsletter


Ross Weiner

|

December 16, 2024

Dark blue slide with white text:

In August 2024, the Illinois legislature, with much fanfare , amended the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) to limit how much a plaintiff could recover each time its biometric information was inappropriately captured by a defendant.  The amendment explained that when an entity subject to BIPA “in more than one instance, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection” in violation of BIPA, the entity “has committed a single violation … for which [it] is entitled to, at most, one recovery.”  This amendment ensured that BIPA, which previously allowed for damages of either $1,000 or $5,000 per scan, would be less lucrative going forward.   Following the amendment, one question remained: should it apply retroactively?

Change vs. Clarification

In Schwartz v. Supply Network, Inc. d/b/a Viking SupplyNe t¹, which was filed pre-amendment in 2023, Judge Alexakis of the Northern District of Illinois answered this question.  According to the defendant, Viking SupplyNet (“Viking”), the amendment merely clarified that “BIPA does not— and never did —allow for an award of statutory damages on a ‘per-scan’ basis.”²  Conversely, the plaintiff, Jeffrey Schwartz, argued that Illinois law presumes that amendments are intended to change, not clarify, “the law as it previously existed,” and while that presumption “may be overcome” if the legislature declares it was clarifying a prior enactment, such a declaration must be about more than the public statements of a handful of lawmakers.³  The Northern District of Illinois sided with Schwartz.

Judge Alexakis discussed the 2023 Illinois Supreme Court decision, Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc. , which called on the Illinois legislature to review “policy concerns” regarding potentially excessive damages and “make clear its intent regarding the assessment of damages under the Act.”⁴  According to Judge Alexakis, Cothron was not discussing an ambiguity in the text; indeed, Cothron “found the statutory language here clear.”⁵ Absent an ambiguity, Judge Alexakis found that the amendment was a change , and thus, the only question is whether it should be applied retroactively.

Retroactive Application

Under Illinois law, the first question for retroactivity is “whether the legislature has clearly indicated the temporal reach of an amended statute.”⁶  Because the Illinois legislature did not, Juge Alexakis went on to the decisive issue: “whether the amendment is substantive or procedural.”⁷  In finding the amendment substantive, Judge Alexakis explained: “the basic question of whether Schwartz has been injured just once or injured more than a thousand times strikes the Court as a matter of substance, not of procedure.”⁸  Accordingly, the Northern District of Illinois held that “Illinois law compels that the amendment be applied prospectively, not retroactively.”⁹

Ramifications

For Schwartz, the ramifications are easy: he can proceed with his litigation against Viking and seek redress for the more than 1,000 times his biometric information was allegedly collected, seeking at least $1,000,000 in penalties.  More globally, however, it means that any and all plaintiffs who filed BIPA cases prior to the August 2024 amendment are not limited by the amendment.  That is, unless the Illinois legislature wants to revisit this once again.  Only time will tell.  

1  No. 23-cv-14319 (N.D. Ill.) (“ Schwartz ”).
2   Schwartz at 3.
3   Id. at 3-4.
4   Id. at 5.
5   Id. at 6.
6   Caveney v. Bower , 207 Ill. 2d 82, 91 (2003).  
7   Schwartz at 9.
8   Id. at 11.
9   Id. at 12.  

Certum Group Can Help

Get in touch to start discussing options.

Recent Content

By Certum Team March 5, 2026
Above the Law, a leading blog focused on the legal industry, recently highlighted Certum Group’s litigation finance fellowship, noting the opportunity for law students and business students to gain “a four-week, hands-on immersion in what it actually looks like when capital meets complex litigation.” “To succeed, lawyers need to understand not only doctrine but also finance. Law schools are beginning to reflect that shift, and students want to understand it,” Certum’s William Marra told Above the Law. “Our Summer Fellowship is about opening that door for both law and business students, and giving them meaningful exposure to the capital side of litigation.”  Applications for the fellowship are due on March 31, 2026, and should include a resume, law school transcript, and a brief 250-word statement of interest. Applications should be sent to SummerFellowship@CertumGroup.com . Above the Law’s coverage is available here , and Certum’s application page for the fellowship is available here .
By Certum Group March 2, 2026
For the third consecutive year, Certum Group will host one or more summer fellows, introducing accomplished law students and business students to the growing field of litigation finance. The Certum Group Litigation Finance Fellowship provides top law students with an opportunity to gain hands-on experience in the rapidly growing fields of litigation finance and litigation insurance. Fellows will evaluate litigation funding submissions, draft memoranda analyzing legal and damages issues, help structure and negotiate funding agreements, and contribute to marketing and business development initiatives. They will work closely with Certum’s experienced team of litigation finance, litigation insurance, and investment professionals. Throughout the program, Fellows will develop a practical understanding of how claimholders, law firms, insurers, and capital providers assess litigation risk — and how capital can be deployed as a strategic tool in complex disputes. Further information about the fellowship and instructions about how to apply are available here.
By Certum Group February 24, 2026
Columbia Law School’s blog on corporations and the public markets, The CLS Blue Sky Blog, recently featured the scholarly work on litigation finance written by Indiana University Business School Professor Suneal Bedi and Certum’s William C. Marra. In their blog post, Bedi and Marra discuss their article Litigation Finance in the Market Square , which was recently published in the Southern California Law Review. Their work reframes litigation finance as a capital markets innovation rather than solely a civil justice mechanism. While much of the public debate has centered on questions of disclosure, control, and settlement incentives, Bedi and Marra emphasize that legal claims often represent significant but illiquid contingent assets on a firm’s balance sheet. When policymakers regulate litigation finance, they are regulating not just the legal business but the capital markets. And they are regulating capital markets in a way that is more likely to harm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) while protecting large companies from competition.  The full blog post is available here.