Vance v. Google LLC

Background

Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk sued Google LLC under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA. The complaint alleged that IBM obtained photographs from Flickr, extracted facial geometry and other biometric information, and included images in a dataset called “Diversity in Faces.” Vance alleged that IBM passed the dataset to Google and that Google used the biometric information in violation of BIPA.

The complaint sought to represent a class of Illinois residents whose faces appeared in photographs in the dataset. It asserted four claims against Google: violating BIPA’s provisions concerning collection of biometric identifiers and profiting from them, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

Vance was also pursuing an earlier related case against IBM in the Northern District of Illinois, along with related BIPA cases against Microsoft, Amazon, and FaceFirst. The earlier IBM case involved overlapping questions about how the photographs and biometric information were obtained and used. The court noted that the IBM case’s discovery was scheduled to end on July 28, 2021.

Judicial Notice

The court granted both sides’ requests for judicial notice of court filings and other public records from the related proceedings. Neither side opposed the requests or disputed the documents’ authenticity.

Motion to Stay

Google asked the court to stay, or pause, all proceedings until the earlier IBM case was resolved. The court applied the factors used to decide whether a discretionary stay would promote fairness and efficiency: possible harm to the party opposing the stay, hardship or unfairness from requiring the case to continue, and the orderly administration of justice.

The court found that any harm to Vance from delay was marginal. Vance was also a plaintiff in the IBM case, the IBM case was moving forward, and Google agreed to preserve relevant evidence. The court limited the stay rather than allowing an indefinite pause, noting that Vance had not identified specific witnesses or testimony requiring preservation and had not requested limited discovery during the stay.

The court found that requiring Google to proceed could create additional expenses and duplicative discovery. The two cases presented substantial overlapping factual and legal questions, including whether Vance’s photographs were included in the dataset, the parties’ contractual relationships, whether IBM violated BIPA, and whether Vance consented to the use of his photographs. The court also noted overlapping constitutional questions and a risk of inconsistent rulings.

The court concluded that judicial efficiency supported a stay because resolving overlapping issues in the IBM case could help avoid duplicative work and rulings on issues that might later become unnecessary. It therefore found that the relevant factors favored staying the case.

Motion to Dismiss

Google had filed a motion to dismiss at the same time as its motion to stay. The court decided to address the stay first and terminated the motion to dismiss rather than ruling on the pleadings. The court stated that the motion was terminated without prejudice to refiling after the stay if the stay was lifted. The court also observed that the plaintiffs might amend their complaint after the IBM court ruled on overlapping issues.

Disposition

Judge Beth Freeman granted Google’s motion to stay and stayed the case until February 12, 2022, or sooner if the IBM case was resolved earlier. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report within 14 days after the IBM case was resolved or on February 12, 2022, whichever came first. The court terminated Google’s pending motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide the merits of the BIPA claims.