Illinois Woman Sues Apple Over Face ID, Alleging Hidden Eye Scans Violate State Biometric Law

Illinois Woman Sues Apple Over Face ID, Alleging Hidden Eye Scans Violate State Biometric Law

A newly filed class action accuses Apple of collecting iris and retina scans through Face ID without the specific written consent Illinois law requires, according to a complaint filed in federal court. Apple has not responded, and the claims remain unproven allegations.

Information last verified on July 10, 2026.

Status: The complaint was filed July 4, 2026. The allegations described below are unproven claims taken from the plaintiff's filing. Apple has not yet responded in court, and no class has been certified as of July 10, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This story concerns Illinois state law, the Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, applied in a federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois. BIPA's private right of action and consent requirements are specific to Illinois; residents of other states are governed by different, and often weaker, biometric-privacy statutes. For biometric-privacy rules across the states, the legal landscape varies significantly by jurisdiction.

What Happened

On July 4, 2026, Samantha Mettler filed a putative class-action complaint against Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. Mettler, a resident of DeKalb County, Illinois, is represented by attorney Blake Hunter Yagman. The lawsuit targets Apple's Face ID facial-recognition feature, which is used to unlock iPhones and authenticate purchases.

The complaint alleges that Face ID does more than analyze the general geometry of a user's face. According to the filing, Face ID necessarily captures and analyzes scans of the user's irises and/or retinas, the physical structures of the eye, in order to function. The plaintiff argues that Apple cannot determine where to project and read its infrared dot pattern without locating and tracking the position of the iris and retina, meaning eye-scan data is allegedly collected every time a user unlocks a device with Face ID.

The complaint further alleges that Apple's consent flow and disclosures address facial-geometry data broadly but do not specifically inform users that iris or retina scans, a distinct category of biometric identifier, are being collected. Because of this, the plaintiff claims Apple's data-collection practices fall short of what Illinois's biometric-privacy statute requires.

If certified, the class could potentially include a large number of Illinois residents who have used Face ID on an Apple device. The complaint seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief. None of these allegations have been proven, tested at trial, or ruled on by any court, and Apple had not filed a public response as of July 10, 2026.

What the Law Actually Says

The lawsuit is built around the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, a statute that governs how private companies collect, store, and use biometric data belonging to Illinois residents. Understanding how Illinois's biometric-privacy law works is central to evaluating the complaint's legal theory, separate from whether its factual allegations about Face ID hold up.

Under 740 ILCS 14/10, "biometric identifier" is defined to include a retina or iris scan, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, or a scan of hand or face geometry. The statute treats these categories as distinct types of data, which is the basis for the plaintiff's argument that iris and retina scans require their own disclosure, separate from consent covering facial geometry generally.

Section 14/15(b) sets out the informed-consent requirement at the heart of the case. Before collecting or storing a person's biometric identifier or biometric information, a private entity must first inform the person in writing that the data is being collected or stored, inform them in writing of the specific purpose and length of time the data will be used or stored, and obtain a written release from the person. The complaint alleges Apple's disclosures do not satisfy this standard for eye-scan data specifically.

Section 14/20 is what allows an individual to bring this kind of suit at all. It creates a private right of action for any person aggrieved by a violation of the statute and sets liquidated damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, along with the possibility of attorneys' fees and other relief. To understand what a BIPA violation can be worth, it helps to know that these are statutory figures set by the legislature, not amounts a plaintiff must separately prove as actual harm, which is part of what makes BIPA cases financially significant when a large class is involved.

BIPA applies specifically to biometric identifiers collected from Illinois residents, and Illinois has its own detailed framework of Illinois's biometric collection and consent rules that goes beyond what most other states currently require of companies handling facial or eye-scan data.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

This case turns on a narrow but potentially consequential distinction: whether courts will treat iris and retina scans as legally separate from the facial-geometry data that Face ID is more commonly understood to use. BIPA's definition of "biometric identifier" lists retina and iris scans and facial geometry as separate items, which gives the plaintiff's theory a textual foothold, but it does not resolve the underlying factual question of what Face ID actually captures and stores, a question the complaint has raised but not proven.

BIPA litigation against large technology companies operating in Illinois is not a new phenomenon, and Apple has faced other biometric-privacy claims in Illinois courts involving different features. This Face ID case is a separate and distinct matter from those, with its own facts, its own procedural posture, and no established outcome. Readers should not assume any connection between how other Apple biometric cases have proceeded and how this one might.

At this stage, the complaint represents one side's version of events. Apple has not yet answered the allegations, has not conceded any factual claim about how Face ID processes eye data, and retains every defense available under the law. No judge has certified a class, and no discovery record yet exists to test the plaintiff's technical claims about iris and retina scanning.

How This Affects You

BIPA generally applies to private companies that collect biometric identifiers, including retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, or face and hand geometry, from Illinois residents without following the written notice and consent process in Section 14/15(b). The statute's private right of action means individuals, not just regulators, can bring claims and seek the statutory damages set out in Section 14/20.

This article does not evaluate whether any particular Face ID user has a claim, and readers should not treat it as legal advice about their own situation. Anyone with questions about how BIPA might apply to their own use of biometric technology should consult a licensed attorney, since the answer depends on individual facts this article does not, and cannot, address.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations in Mettler v. Apple Inc. are unproven claims made in a civil complaint; Apple has not been found liable for any violation of law. Readers with questions about their own legal rights should consult a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction.

Related Coverage

• How Illinois's biometric-privacy law works
• What a BIPA violation can be worth
• Biometric-privacy rules across the states
• Illinois's biometric collection and consent rules

Last updated: July 10, 2026. This is a developing story; details verified as of July 10, 2026.