Sosa v. Onfido, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s action under Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act that alleged that defendant’s technology contained in TruYou feature in marketplace application OfferUp improperly used facial recognition technology to collect plaintiff’s biometric identifiers without his consent. Instant arbitration clause was contained in Terms of Service contract between plaintiff and OfferUP to which defendant was not signatory, and plaintiff failed to establish any exception to general rule that non-signatory to contract containing arbitration clause cannot enforce said clause. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly used Illinois law to resolve instant dispute, even though Terms of Sale contract contained choice of law provision naming State of Washington as applicable law to be enforced, since defendant was unable to identify any outcome determinative difference between Washington and Illinois law, and thus Dist. Ct. was required to use Illinois law as law of forum state. Also, Ct. rejected defendant’s contention that even though it was not signatory to Terms of Service contract, it could nevertheless enforce arbitration clause, where, according to defendant: (1) it was third-party beneficiary of Terms of Service contract; or (2) it could enforce arbitration provision either as agent of OfferUp or on equitable estoppel grounds.