In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 3:15-cv-03747-JD (N.D. Cal.); Patel v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-15982 (9th Cir. 2019)

Summary

Illinois Facebook users led by Nimesh Patel, Adam Pezen and Carlo Licata brought a class action, consolidated in the Northern District of California in 2015. They alleged that Facebook's Tag Suggestions feature created and stored face templates from their photos without the notice and written consent required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. On August 8, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification, holding that building a face template without consent is a concrete privacy injury sufficient for Article III standing. Judge James Donato gave final approval on February 26, 2021, to a $650 million settlement, among the largest privacy settlements to date.

Key dates

1. August 28, 2015Filed
2. February 26, 2021Resolved
3. October 16, 2026Checked against sources
4. October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: October 16, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

1. A federal judge gave his final blessing Friday to a $650 million deal to resolve claims that Facebook illegally collected and stored users’ facial data without consent

   Supports: Final approval and amount

   Judge Approves Historic $650M Facebook Privacy Settlement Courthouse News Service (February 26, 2021) Reporting or analysis

2. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

   Supports: Appeal No. 18-15982 (caption) from N.D. Cal. 3:15-cv-03747-JD

   The three named plaintiffs filed the operative consolidated complaint in a California district court in August 2015.

   Supports: Filing

   Because a violation of the Illinois statute injures an individual's concrete right to privacy, we reject Facebook's claim that the plaintiffs have failed to allege a concrete injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing.

   Supports: Standing holding

   Patel v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-15982, opinion filed 8 August 2019 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (copy via CourtListener) Primary source