Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-01880
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Zellmer v. Facebook, Judge Donato dismissed Zellmer’s remaining biometric-privacy claim without prejudice because he lacked standing.
The ruling ended Clayton P. Zellmer’s case against Facebook and the putative class proceeding he sought to pursue; the opinion does not state that a class had been certified.
What happened
In Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., Clayton P. Zellmer sued Facebook under Illinois’s biometric privacy law. The court had previously rejected the part of his claim about collecting biometric information but left standing the claim that Facebook failed to publicly provide a policy for keeping and destroying biometric information.
The court ruled that Zellmer had not shown a concrete, personal harm from Facebook’s alleged failure to publish that policy. Because he lacked the constitutional standing required to sue in federal court, the court dismissed the remaining claim and closed the case.
Judge Donato dismissed the claim without prejudice. The ruling ended this case, and the opinion does not say that a class had been certified.
The detailed version
- Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-01880
- James Donato
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
Clayton P. Zellmer brought this putative class action against Facebook, Inc., alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. His single claim alleged violations of Section 15(a), which requires a private entity possessing biometric information to make public a written retention and destruction policy, and Section 15(b), which concerns collecting biometric information without prior written and informed consent.
In an earlier summary-judgment order, the court granted summary judgment for Facebook on the Section 15(b) portion of the claim and denied summary judgment on the Section 15(a) portion, largely because factual disputes remained. Section 15(a) was therefore the only claim still pending when the court addressed standing.
Standing Analysis
Article III standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an injury that is concrete and particularized, traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision. The court explained that standing must continue throughout the case and that it had an independent duty to consider whether Zellmer had standing.
The court concluded that Zellmer had not plausibly alleged or otherwise identified a concrete and particularized harm caused by the alleged Section 15(a) violation. His complaint alleged only that Facebook had not publicly disclosed its data-retention policies. The court viewed that disclosure duty as one owed to the public generally, rather than a duty whose violation necessarily caused a personal injury to Zellmer. His reference to injury to his BIPA rights was not tied specifically to Section 15(a) and did not identify a concrete, personal harm.
The court found persuasive a Seventh Circuit decision holding that a plaintiff lacked standing where the alleged Section 15(a) violation involved only the failure to make a retention policy public. It distinguished another Seventh Circuit decision in which the plaintiff alleged additional harms, including unlawful retention and sharing of biometric data. The court said those decisions were consistent because standing depends on the statutory violation and the plaintiff’s specific allegations.
Disposition
The court held that Zellmer lacked Article III standing to pursue the remaining Section 15(a) claim. It dismissed that claim without prejudice and ordered the case closed. The court also noted that Zellmer had not asked to amend his complaint or identified additional facts that might change the standing analysis.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.