Illinois
BIPA Explained: Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 14, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 14, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14, is the strictest biometric privacy law in the United States. Enacted in 2008, it requires written consent before a private company collects your fingerprint, face scan, or voiceprint, and it is the only such law that lets individuals sue on their own.
Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14) as of 2026, including the 2024 amendment. It is general legal information, not legal advice. For Illinois biometric rules in the broader state-privacy context, see our Illinois data privacy guide.
What Is BIPA?
The Biometric Information Privacy Act is an Illinois statute, 740 ILCS 14, that the General Assembly passed in 2008. Its purpose is straightforward: a biometric identifier is biologically unique and, unlike a password or a credit card number, cannot be changed if it is leaked. The law therefore regulates how private companies handle that data and gives Illinois residents enforceable rights over it.
BIPA covers four kinds of biometric identifiers: a retina or iris scan, a fingerprint, a voiceprint, and a scan of hand or face geometry. It also covers biometric information, meaning any data based on one of those identifiers that is used to identify a person. The statute deliberately excludes some things, including photographs, written signatures, physical descriptions such as height or eye color, and health-care data already governed by HIPAA.
What BIPA Requires
BIPA's core duties live in Section 15. A private company that handles biometric data must do all of the following.
- Get informed written consent first (Section 15(b)). Before collecting a biometric identifier, the company must tell the person in writing that the data is being collected and stored, explain the specific purpose and how long it will be kept, and obtain a written release. After the 2024 amendment, an electronic signature counts as that written release.
- Publish and follow a retention and destruction schedule (Section 15(a)). The policy must be publicly available, and the data must be destroyed when the purpose is satisfied or within three years of the person's last interaction, whichever comes first.
- Never sell or profit from the data (Section 15(c)).
- Limit disclosure (Section 15(d)). Biometric data cannot be shared without consent, unless a narrow exception applies, such as completing a financial transaction the person requested or authorized, or responding to a valid warrant or subpoena.
- Store it securely (Section 15(e)), using at least the reasonable standard of care for the industry.
Who BIPA Covers (and Who It Does Not)
BIPA applies to a "private entity," which includes companies, partnerships, and associations. It expressly excludes state and local government agencies and any court, clerk, or judge in Illinois, so public bodies are not subject to its private right of action. The biometric-timeclock vendor that builds the system is itself a private entity and can be sued directly, which is why technology providers, not just employers, are frequent BIPA defendants.
Penalties and the Right to Sue
Section 20 is what makes BIPA so consequential. Any person aggrieved by a violation can sue in state court, or as a supplemental claim in federal court, and recover the greater of liquidated or actual damages: $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. The Illinois Supreme Court has clarified that these statutory damages are discretionary rather than automatic, giving trial courts room to avoid ruinous awards.
The Cases That Shaped BIPA
Three Illinois Supreme Court decisions define how BIPA works today.
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (2019 IL 123186). The court held that a person does not need to allege any injury beyond the statutory violation to be aggrieved. The violation of the right is itself the harm. This opened the door to the wave of BIPA class actions.
- Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (2023 IL 127801). The court held that a single five-year limitations period applies to all BIPA claims, settling earlier uncertainty about the filing deadline.
- Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (2023 IL 128004). The court held that a separate claim accrues every time a company scans or transmits biometric data without consent, not just the first time. Because White Castle's system required employees to scan their fingerprints to access their pay stubs and computers, and they scanned frequently, per-scan accrual created enormous potential damages (White Castle estimated class-wide damages could exceed $17 billion), and the court suggested that the legislature review these damages concerns.
A related ruling, Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital (2023 IL 129081), held that BIPA's health-care exemption is not limited to a hospital's own patients.
The 2024 Amendment
In response to Cothron, the Illinois legislature amended BIPA through Senate Bill 2979, enacted as Public Act 103-0769 and effective August 2, 2024. The amendment made two important changes:
- A single recovery for repeated collection or disclosure. When a company repeatedly collects the same biometric identifier from the same person using the same method in violation of Section 15(b), that counts as a single violation with at most one recovery. The same limit applies to repeated disclosures under Section 15(d), but only when the disclosures go to the same recipient using the same method. This directly overrides Cothron's per-scan multiplication of damages.
- Electronic signatures count. The amendment confirms that an electronic signature satisfies BIPA's written-release requirement.
One open question remains unsettled: whether this damages limit applies to claims that arose before August 2024. The federal Seventh Circuit has applied the amendment retroactively, but Illinois state courts have not uniformly resolved the issue, so treat retroactivity as evolving.
BIPA in the Workplace
The largest share of BIPA litigation comes from the employment context, where companies use fingerprint or hand-geometry timeclocks without completing the notice-and-consent steps. Rosenbach involved a theme-park fingerprint, and Cothron, Tims, and the BNSF case all involved worker biometric scans. For an employer, compliance means giving each employee written notice and obtaining a signed or electronically signed release before the first scan, publishing a retention and destruction policy, never selling the data, controlling disclosures to the timeclock vendor, and securing the data.
Major BIPA Settlements
| Company | Amount | Year | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facebook / Meta (face tagging) | $650 million | 2021 | Final |
| Google (Google Photos face grouping) | $100 million | 2022 | Final |
| TikTok | $92 million | 2022 | Final |
| Clearview AI (face-scraping) | About $51.75 million, paid as an equity stake | 2025 | Final |
| BNSF Railway (fingerprint timeclocks) | $75 million settlement (an earlier $228 million jury verdict was vacated) | 2024 | Settled |
Explore BIPA in Detail
- BIPA damages: what a violation is worth
- BIPA statute of limitations: the 5-year deadline
- BIPA compliance for employers (with a free self-check)
- Do you have a BIPA claim? (eligibility checker)
Related Guides
- Illinois Biometric Privacy (state context): how BIPA fits within Illinois data privacy law.
- Biometric Privacy Laws by State: how Illinois compares to Texas, Washington, and every other state.
- Illinois Data Privacy Laws: the full Illinois consumer privacy picture.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)?
BIPA (740 ILCS 14) is a 2008 Illinois law that regulates how private companies collect, store, use, and destroy biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, face and iris scans, and voiceprints. It requires written notice and consent and gives individuals a private right of action with statutory damages.
How much can you recover for a BIPA violation?
Section 20 allows the greater of liquidated or actual damages: $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, plus attorney fees, costs, and injunctive relief. The damages are discretionary, not automatic, and a 2024 amendment limits repeated collections by the same method to a single recovery.
Do you have to prove harm to sue under BIPA?
No. Under Rosenbach v. Six Flags (2019 IL 123186), a bare violation of BIPA's notice-and-consent rules makes you an aggrieved person who can sue, even without separate injury.
What did the 2024 BIPA amendment change?
Effective August 2, 2024, Public Act 103-0769 limits repeated Section 15(b) collections using the same method, and repeated Section 15(d) disclosures to the same recipient using the same method, to a single recovery per person, overriding the per-scan damages rule from Cothron v. White Castle, and confirms that an electronic signature satisfies the written-consent requirement.
What is the deadline to file a BIPA claim?
Five years, under Tims v. Black Horse Carriers (2023 IL 127801), which applied the catch-all limitations period in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 to all BIPA claims.
Does BIPA apply to government agencies?
No. BIPA regulates only private entities and expressly excludes state and local government agencies and the courts, so public bodies are not subject to its private right of action.
Can my employer make me clock in with a fingerprint?
Yes, but only after giving you written notice of what is collected, the purpose, and the retention term, and obtaining your signed or electronically signed consent, plus following a published retention and destruction schedule. Most BIPA lawsuits come from employer fingerprint timeclocks that skipped these steps.
Affected by a data breach or biometric privacy violation?
If your personal data was exposed in a breach, or your fingerprint or face scan was collected without your consent, you may be eligible to join a claim for compensation. Find out for free, with no obligation.
Updates
Corrected the description of Cothron v. White Castle to the facts and damages discussion the Illinois Supreme Court actually set out.
Corrected the Section 15(d) disclosure exception: BIPA permits disclosure to complete a financial transaction requested or authorized by the person, not any transaction.
Replaced a dead statute citation link with a working one, corrected the TikTok settlement table to its 2022 final-approval year, and clarified that BIPA's single-recovery rule requires repeated disclosures to reach the same recipient, not just use the same method.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 740, Act 14 (Biometric Information Privacy Act)
§ 15Retention; collection; disclosure; destructionIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
(a) A private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must develop a written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or within 3 years of the individual's last interaction with the private entity, whichever occurs first. Absent a valid warrant or subpoena issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, a private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must comply with its established retention schedule and destruction guidelines.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 208 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 85)“…15(d) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (Act) (740 ILCS 14/15(b), (d) (West 2018)) in an action…”
- Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 12)“…15(a) of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (Act) (740 ILCS 14/15(a) (West 2018)), providing for the rete…”
- Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC (Appellate Court of Illinois 2021, 458 Ill. Dec. 267)“…d, and (4) to obtain his or her written consent. 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b) (West 2018). The complaint alle…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: BIPA Compliance for Employers (2026): Step-by-Step, Do You Have a BIPA Claim? Check Your Eligibility (2026), Illinois Data Privacy Laws: BIPA, Consumer Rights & Penalties (2026)
§ 20Right of actionIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(a) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act shall have a right of action in a State circuit court or as a supplemental claim in federal district court against an offending party. A prevailing party may recover for each violation: (1) against a private entity that negligently violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater; (2) against a private entity that intentionally or recklessly violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater; (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses; and (4) other relief, including an injunction, as the State or federal court may deem appropriate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (Illinois Supreme Court 2019, 2019 IL 123186)“…Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/20, and may seek statutory liquidated…”
- Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 85)“…scretionary rather than mandatory under the Act. See 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2018) (detailing the amounts and…”
- Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2021, 451 Ill. Dec. 879)“…ainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, ¶ 1 (quoting 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2016)). ¶ 25 The Act works…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: BIPA Damages: What a Violation Is Worth (2026), BIPA Statute of Limitations: The 5-Year Deadline (2026), Illinois AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 5Legislative findings; intentIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The General Assembly finds all of the following: (a) The use of biometrics is growing in the business and security screening sectors and appears to promise streamlined financial transactions and security screenings. (b) Major national corporations have selected the City of Chicago and other locations in this State as pilot testing sites for new applications of biometric-facilitated financial transactions, including finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations, and school cafeterias. (c) Biometrics are unlike other unique identifiers that are used to access finances or other sensitive information. For example, social security numbers, when compromised, can be changed. Biometrics, however, are biologically unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated transactions. (d) An overwhelming majority of members of the public are weary of the use of biometrics when such information is tied to finances and other personal information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 91 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 85)“…he legislative findings in the Act confirm this. See 740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2018) (“[S]ocial security numb…”
- Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 12)“…struction of biometric identifiers and information.” 740 ILCS 14/5(g) (West 2018). The Act defines “biomet…”
- Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC (Appellate Court of Illinois 2021, 458 Ill. Dec. 267)“…section entitled “[l]egislative findings” and “intent.” 740 ILCS 14/5 (West 2018); Sekura v. Krish…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 1Short titleIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
This Act may be cited as the Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 223 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. (Illinois Supreme Court 2019, 2019 IL 123186)“…ON ¶1 The Biometric Information Privacy Act (Act) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2016)) imposes nume…”
- McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC (Illinois Supreme Court 2022, 456 Ill. Dec. 845)“…under [the Biometric Information Privacy Act (Privacy Act) (740 ILCS 14/1 et seq. (West 2016))] where an employer…”
- Walton v. Roosevelt University (Illinois Supreme Court 2023, 466 Ill. Dec. 692)“…2018)]) preempt [Biometric Information Privacy Act] claims (740 ILCS 14/1 [(West 2018)]) asserted by bar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 735, Act 5 (Code of Civil Procedure)
§ 13-205Five year limitationIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Except as provided in Section 2-725 of the "Uniform Commercial Code", approved July 31, 1961, as amended, and Section 11-13 of "The Illinois Public Aid Code", approved April 11, 1967, as amended, actions on unwritten contracts, expressed or implied, or on awards of arbitration, or to recover damages for an injury done to property, real or personal, or to recover the possession of personal property or damages for the detention or conversion thereof, and all civil actions not otherwise provided for, shall be commenced within 5 years next after the cause of action accrued.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 400 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of Du Page (Illinois Supreme Court 2001, 195 Ill. 2d 257)“…n period on "all civil actions not otherwise provided for." 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 1996). The county argued that the…”
- Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy (Illinois Supreme Court 2016, 2016 IL 119518)“…vely, that the five-year statute of limitations (see 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 2012)) barred plaintiffs’ claims…”
- Armstrong v. Guigler (Illinois Supreme Court 1996, 174 Ill. 2d 281)“…tations for "all civil actions not otherwise provided for" (735 ILCS 5/13-205 (West 1992)), applies to a cause of act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report, Your Right to Sue (2026), Illinois Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Illinois Debt Collection Laws: The 15% Wage Cap, 2026 Exemption Increases, and Debt Deadlines
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14(ilga.gov).gov
- 740 ILCS 14/15 - Collection, Retention, Disclosure, Destruction(ilga.gov).gov
- 740 ILCS 14/20 - Right of Action and Damages(ilga.gov).gov
- Public Act 103-0769 (SB 2979) - 2024 BIPA Amendment(ilga.gov).gov
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186(illinoiscourts.gov).gov
- Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 2023 IL 128004(courtlistener.com)
- Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2023 IL 127801(courtlistener.com)
- 740 ILCS 14/15 - Retention; collection; disclosure; destruction(ilga.gov)
- 740 ILCS 14/20 - Right of action(ilga.gov)