Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-04181
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Delgado v. Meta, Judge Illston denied Meta’s motion to amend its answer because it did not show good cause for the eleven-month delay.
Meta Platforms, Inc. and Natalie Delgado; the proposed class of Illinois natural persons described in the complaint was also part of the case, but the order ruled only on Meta’s request to add defenses.
What happened
In Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Natalie Delgado alleges that Meta collected and stored her voiceprint and related biometric information without meeting Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act requirements. She brings the case for herself and a proposed class of people in Illinois whose digital voice data Meta allegedly handled.
Meta asked to add two defenses under Sections 25(c) and 25(e) of that law. Meta said one defense would concern its alleged connection to a financial institution regulated by federal law, and the other would concern alleged government-contracting activities. Delgado opposed the request.
Judge Susan Illston denied Meta’s motion. The court found that Meta had not shown the required good cause for seeking the amendment about eleven months after the deadline, and that allowing the new defenses would require additional discovery into facts within Meta’s possession.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-04181
- Susan Illston
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
Natalie Delgado alleges that Meta created, collected, captured, received, stored, or otherwise obtained her voiceprint and related biometric information through Facebook and Messenger without complying with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). She brings the case for herself and a proposed class of natural persons in Illinois from whom Meta allegedly obtained or stored digital voice data, voice characteristics, or a voice profile.
The court previously granted in part and denied in part Meta’s motion to dismiss. Delgado did not amend her complaint, so the remaining claims are Counts I and II, alleging violations of BIPA Sections 15(a) and 15(b). Meta answered the complaint on March 29, 2024. The scheduling order set July 17, 2024, as the deadline to amend pleadings.
Motion to Amend
On June 17, 2025, Meta moved for leave to amend its answer to add two affirmative defenses under BIPA Sections 25(c) and 25(e). Section 25(c) concerns financial institutions and their affiliates subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Section 25(e) concerns contractors, subcontractors, or agents of state or local governments working for those governments.
Meta said it intended to argue that it was not a “private entity” covered by BIPA because it was allegedly an affiliate of Meta Payments, Inc., a financial institution for certain products and services, and because its subsidiaries allegedly had government contracts. Meta planned to raise these issues in an early summary-judgment motion. Meta argued that the defenses were ordinary defenses that did not need to be pleaded, or alternatively that Ninth Circuit precedent allowed affirmative defenses to be raised later if the other side was not prejudiced.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the BIPA Sections 25(c) and 25(e) exceptions are affirmative defenses. An affirmative defense presents new facts or arguments that would defeat a claim even if the complaint’s allegations were true. The court held that Delgado did not have to anticipate or plead around these exceptions and that Meta was responsible for establishing that an exception applied.
Because the deadline to amend pleadings had passed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 required Meta to show “good cause” to modify the scheduling order. The court explained that this standard focuses mainly on the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Meta did not explain why it had omitted the defenses from its answer or why it waited so long to seek their addition.
The court also found that the proposed defenses would require additional discovery into Meta’s relationship with a financial institution and its subsidiaries’ alleged government contracts. Those facts had not previously been at issue and were uniquely within Meta’s possession. The court rejected Meta’s reliance on cases allowing late defenses where the opposing party was not prejudiced, explaining that those cases applied the more lenient amendment standard and did not eliminate Rule 16’s separate good-cause requirement.
Disposition
Judge Susan Illston denied Meta’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add the two defenses under BIPA Sections 25(c) and 25(e). The order did not decide whether either defense ultimately applies or whether Meta violated BIPA.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.