Hoskin v. PepsiCo, Inc.

What the document is

The document is a letter from counsel for William Hoskin responding to PepsiCo, Inc.’s anticipated motion to dismiss. It is not a full decision on that motion. At the end, the court ordered that the scheduled November 2, 2023 Rule 26 conference be converted into a pre-motion conference to discuss the proposed motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff’s allegations and arguments

Hoskin’s counsel stated that the complaint alleges PepsiCo collected his biometrics without consent, violating Section 15(b) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The complaint also allegedly claimed that PepsiCo failed to establish a retention and deletion schedule, violating Section 15(a), and failed to delete Hoskin’s biometric information after his employment ended.

The response argued that these alleged violations created a sufficiently concrete injury for federal standing. It also argued that the claims were not displaced by federal labor law because Hoskin was not a union member and was not subject to the collective bargaining agreement referenced by PepsiCo.

Counsel further argued that the complaint adequately alleged that PepsiCo collected Hoskin’s voiceprint through the Vocollect system. The response relied on the statute’s definition of a voiceprint as a biometric identifier and argued that the statute does not require the collected identifier to be used to identify a person, although the complaint allegedly also stated that Hoskin’s voiceprint was used to identify him.

Finally, Hoskin’s counsel argued that the claims were timely. The response relied on an Illinois Supreme Court decision stating that a Section 15(b) claim accrues with each scan or transmission without prior informed consent. Counsel asserted that Hoskin used his voiceprint each workday through August 2018 and filed suit within five years of the last alleged violation. Counsel also argued that the Section 15(a) claims were timely because the alleged duty to delete could not arise until his employment ended.

Court action and limits of the ruling

The court ordered conversion of the November 2 Rule 26 conference into a pre-motion conference. The document does not state that the court granted or denied the anticipated motion to dismiss, and it does not resolve standing, preemption, whether the complaint states a claim, or timeliness. The plaintiff’s request that the anticipated motion be denied appears in counsel’s letter and is not identified as a court ruling.

Classification rationale

This is a procedural order because the court addressed a conference and motion procedure without reaching the underlying legal merits. It did not enter a disposition on the anticipated motion to dismiss.