What lawsuits or legal actions were filed against EES biometric collection in 2024–2025 and what courts handled them?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Lawsuits over biometric collection in 2024–2025 concentrated on U.S. private-sector exposures under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and at least one major state enforcement settlement against Meta; courts ranged from Illinois state trial and federal courts to the 7th Circuit and state attorney‑general fora (examples: Biometric Impressions settlement proceedings in Illinois courts (notice/claims deadlines noted) and Texas v. Meta settled in Harrison County, Texas) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The legal battleground: BIPA remains the focal point
Most high‑profile litigation in 2024–2025 involved claims under Illinois’s BIPA, which authorizes private suits for collection, storage and disclosure of biometric identifiers without required notice and written consent; filings surged after courts interpreted BIPA as allowing recovery without proof of actual harm and Illinois amended BIPA in August 2024 to cap certain damages, a change that courts and litigants continue to dispute in multiple venues [5] [6] [7].
2. Representative private class actions and settlements in Illinois courts
Several class actions and settlements cite typical BIPA claims. Biometric Impressions agreed to a $10.85 million settlement resolving a class action alleging unlawful fingerprint collection; that settlement generated court‑supervised notice, opt‑out deadlines and claim submission windows in early 2024 and 2025 court proceedings (court notice deadlines included Jan. 8, 2024 exclusion and Feb. 22, 2024 claim form deadlines) [1] [8]. Corporate defendants also moved to dismiss BIPA suits in federal courts — for example, Estee Lauder prevailed on a motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) after a judge found plaintiffs had not shown facial scans were linked to identities [2].
3. State enforcement and the Meta settlement handled in Texas court
Beyond BIPA private suits, state enforcement litigation produced one of the largest outcomes: Texas Attorney General litigation against Meta (alleging collection of Texans’ biometric data via features like Tag Suggestions) culminated in a reported $1.4 billion settlement handled in state court — cited as State of Texas v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Cause No. 22‑0121 in the 71st Judicial District, Harrison County, Texas — where the settlement included non‑monetary terms and reporting obligations [3] [4].
4. Courts and forums handling biometric litigation: a fractured landscape
Biometric disputes were litigated across multiple forums in 2024–2025: Illinois state circuit courts supervised large class settlements and fights over BIPA’s reach (e.g., Biometric Impressions and numerous named suits) while federal district courts (including in the Northern District of Illinois and other districts) considered motions to dismiss and class‑certification disputes; state courts also handled attorney‑general enforcement actions such as Texas’s case versus Meta [1] [2] [3] [6].
5. Key procedural flashpoints courts are deciding
Courts split on remedies and application of the 2024 BIPA amendment and on standing and linkage between biometric data and identity. Some federal courts applied the 2024 amendment to pending cases; several Illinois state courts have held otherwise — an ongoing issue already producing divergent rulings that will drive appeals and shape where plaintiffs seek forums [6] [5].
6. What these cases signal for companies and travelers
The litigation wave has prompted settlements, dismissals and legislative change. Companies face costly class settlements (as with Biometric Impressions) and state enforcement risks (as with Texas v. Meta), even where courts sometimes favor defendants on factual linkages or standing [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, Illinois’s amendment narrowed damage exposure for many claims, changing plaintiffs’ calculus and inviting further litigation over retroactivity — a dynamic reported by legal observers and firms [5] [6].
7. Limitations of available reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources catalog many BIPA cases, major settlements and reform but do not provide a single master list of every suit against “EES biometric collection” specifically (the EU Entry/Exit System (EES) litigation activity is covered elsewhere and most EES reporting relates to policy and rollout rather than U.S. lawsuits) — current reporting in our sources does not list specific 2024–2025 lawsuits challenging the EU EES in court, nor a complete docket list for every biometric case [9] [10] [11]. If you want a court‑by‑court docket map for a particular defendant or technology (for example, all suits against a named vendor), specify that target so I can extract cases and the courts named in the provided reporting.
8. Bottom line — law, money and forum shopping
Biometric litigation through 2024–2025 combined large state enforcement actions (e.g., Texas v. Meta in Harrison County, Texas) with a stream of BIPA private suits and class settlements overseen by Illinois courts and federal judges; the legal landscape remains unsettled on damages, retroactivity and standing, producing continued litigation across state and federal courts [3] [1] [2] [6].