Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in remanding back to state court plaintiff’s action, alleging that defendant violated section 15(c) of Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) that precluded defendant from selling, leasing, or otherwise profiting from person’s/customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information, where Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring her case in federal court. Burden was on defendant to establish plaintiff’s standing in federal court, where defendant had removed action to federal court, and Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff alleged only bare statutory violation that did not demonstrate any kind of concrete or particularized injury that would support standing, and where complaint conceded that neither plaintiff nor any class member suffered any injury as result of violation of section 15(c) of BIPA. Fact that plaintiff could have alleged concrete injury arising out of defendant’s alleged sale of her data to others did not require different result. As such, plaintiff was entitled to have her case remanded back to state court, where Illinois standing requirements are more liberal, and choose to have her case rely exclusively on state law.