Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Natalie Delgado alleges that Meta Platforms, Inc. created, collected, stored, or otherwise obtained her voiceprint and related biometric information without complying with Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). She uses Facebook and Messenger and alleges that she entered her voice into those services for personal purposes, including dictating messages, sending audio recordings, and making audio calls. She seeks to represent a proposed class of natural persons in Illinois from whom Meta created a voice profile.

After the court partly granted and partly denied Meta’s earlier motion to dismiss, the remaining claims were Counts I and II. Count I alleges that Meta violated BIPA section 15(a) by not publicly establishing a written policy for retaining and permanently destroying biometric information. Count II alleges that Meta violated section 15(b) by collecting or obtaining voiceprints and related biometric information without proper written notice and a written release.

Discovery Dispute

The parties reached an impasse over Meta’s responses to Interrogatories 4 through 7 and Requests for Production 3, 4, and 6. Delgado sought evidence about Meta’s ability to identify people using “Digital Voice Data,” including both what Meta’s technology could do and actual instances of identification during the class period.

Meta had limited its responses to situations in which its technology was specifically “set up” to use, process, or analyze voice recordings from Illinois Facebook or Messenger users. Meta argued that the requests improperly sought information about whether recordings could be used to create other data that might identify someone, rather than information about whether the recordings themselves were voiceprints under BIPA.

The court stated that these legal issues were better suited for summary judgment, which is a later-stage decision based on the developed factual record. The court discussed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a prior case involving Meta and “face signatures,” but emphasized that the decision followed discovery and a detailed review of Meta’s processes. The court concluded that whether the information at issue could identify a person was a fundamental issue for discovery.

Ruling

The court disapproved of Meta’s limitation of its responses to technology that had been specifically set up for Illinois Facebook or Messenger users. It ordered Meta to supplement its responses to Interrogatories 4 through 7 and Requests for Production 3, 4, and 6. The supplemental responses may not be limited to technology set up for that particular use or to Illinois Facebook and Messenger users. The court also overruled Meta’s objection insofar as it sought to exclude information about processing or analysis that did not involve biometrics.

The court agreed that the discovery responses could be limited to the class period. It did not decide whether the production requests could include information about voice recordings collected from users of Meta products other than Facebook and Messenger. Instead, it ordered the parties to meet and confer about remaining disputes, including how to limit or phase the discovery and address the burden on Meta.

Judge Susan Illston denied Delgado’s request for attorney fees and expenses at that time. The denial was without prejudice to a future request if circumstances warrant. Meta’s supplemental responses were due by February 14, 2025, unless the parties requested an alternative deadline.