BIPA Compliance: A Guide for Vehicle Dealerships to Mitigate Litigation Risks

Sarah J. Reusche and Nathan Toy • April 30, 2024
A person is pressing a button on a virtual screen.

In this era of technological innovation, the adoption of biometric data for various applications in the workplace has surged. From fingerprint scans for timekeeping to facial recognition for access control, biometric technology has become a key aspect of modern business operations. However, this integration has also raised privacy and security concerns, leading to legislative responses aimed at protecting individuals' biometric information. At the forefront of this is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). 


Vehicle dealerships particularly have recently found themselves needing to navigate the complex terrain of adhering to the BIPA’s stringent requirements to avoid being targeted through lawsuits. There has been a recent noticeable uptick in class action lawsuits under the BIPA, serving as a critical wake-up call for the automotive retail industry, highlighting the need for dealerships to review and enhance their practices if they are using biometric technology. 


Class Action Suits Under the BIPA


BIPA class action lawsuits have targeted employers who use biometric systems to track workers’ paid hours or to control access to secured or sensitive areas in a workplace. An example of this can be seen in this class action lawsuit filed in September of 2023, in which a Chicago area car dealership was accused of violating the BIPA by requiring workers to access a secure vehicle key box at the dealership. Along with granting the employee access to a key, the system created audit trails to identify the employees, and the employees’ biometric information was enrolled and retained in the dealership’s database and cloud system. 


The suit noted that this could expose employees to serious and irreversible privacy risks due to the potential danger of the database being breached, and the employees having no means by which to prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking. The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants violated the BIPA by not properly informing employees of the collection and storage, not providing a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for the destruction of the fingerprint information, and not obtaining a written release from the employees authorizing the collection and storage of their biometric information. Another example of biometric system usage that could result in such a lawsuit is collecting and storing employee fingerprints for timekeeping purposes. 


How Dealers Can Protect Themselves 


The most effective way for a vehicle dealership to protect themselves is to ensure compliance by being aware of the following issues: 


What disclosures are being made? The BIPA requires a written notice explaining that biometric information will be collected, the purpose for doing so, and the length of time the information will be retained. Creating a clear company policy concerning the collection, use, retention, and security of biometric information will, if done properly and provided to employees, satisfy notice requirements and may also help ease some concerns from employees.


Is a written release being obtained? In addition to providing notice, a “written release” must be obtained prior to collecting and storing an individual’s biometric information to serve as written consent. 


Is there a written policy for retention and deletion? If a company collects or stores biometric data, then it must have a written policy for handling such data. This written policy must include a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the data when required. 


Enforcement 


The BIPA carries a private right of action for harmed individuals and includes statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater. Additionally, successful plaintiffs may receive reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and courts can issue an injunction to order the offending party to change their practices to comply with the Act’s requirements. 


Given these harsh penalties and the risk of non-compliance, dealers should contact legal counsel for advice on how to best navigate the BIPA. For further inquiries or questions, please contact attorney Sarah Reusche at sreusche@lavellelaw.com or (847) 705-7555. 


More News & Resources

Lavelle Law News and Events

Judge Says “You’re Out!” to Stalker Ex  - a Lavelle Law Success Story
By Family Law Practice Group July 28, 2026
A client came to us needing protection from an ex-boyfriend who wouldn’t take no for an answer. She broke up with him after he used her indoor pet camera to spy on her without her permission, then surveilled her at her home and chased her through a parking lot.
Type F Reorganization
By Frank J. Portera July 28, 2026
Thinking about selling your business? In this video, Lavelle Law attorney Frank Portera explains how a Type F Reorganization can create tax efficiencies and simplify the sale process by reducing the need for third-party consents.
6 reasons why you shouldn’t rely on AI for legal advice.
By Sarah J. Reusché and Shelley McCarthy July 17, 2026
Thinking about using AI to represent yourself in litigation? Think again. It is well-documented that pro se litigants are less likely to prevail compared to their represented counterparts. Regardless, AI has provided people with a false sense of security, tempting them to represent themselves regardless.
Representation and Warranties Insurance Democratization: A Game Changer for Many Deals
By Steven A. Migala July 13, 2026
Representations and warranties insurance (“RWI”) for mergers and acquisitions (“M&A”) is more accessible than ever due to increasing democratization in the market. Now, RWI can be a viable option for smaller, mid-market deals.
IRS Announces Simplified Penalty Relief
By Timothy M. Hughes July 10, 2026
On July 8, 2026, the Internal Revenue Service announced a new automatic process to provide penalty relief for taxpayers with a history of filing and paying on time, reducing the need for those taxpayers to request assistance in addressing penalty relief.
NDAs in the Spotlight: What Swift and Kelce’s Wedding Reveals About Protecting Your Privacy.
By Theodore M. McGinn June 30, 2026
High-profile couples like Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are taking strict steps to protect their privacy. Reports confirm that wedding guests must sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before receiving event details. This highlights how NDAs help individuals and businesses safeguard sensitive information.
Gross Lease vs. Net Lease: Which is Better for Your Business?
By Theodore M. McGinn June 29, 2026
For many businesses, the commercial lease is the largest single expense each year. But are you actually getting the best deal, or are you unknowingly paying for hidden costs? In this Lavelle Law Minute, Attorney Ted McGinn breaks down the two most common commercial leases: Gross Leases and Net Leases.
Cubs Legend Ryne Sandberg’s Family Heads to Court Over Mishandling of Trust
By Brian I. Warens June 25, 2026
Cubs Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg, affectionately known as “Ryno,” is forever remembered for his legendary “Sandberg Game.” Sadly, his death last July has since triggered a bitter family dispute, with his children now suing his widow, Margaret Sandberg, over alleged violations of his trust.
Success Story - $7.5 Million Ukrainian Village Commercial Land Sale
By Commercial Real Estate June 23, 2026
This transaction highlights Lavelle Law’s deep expertise in managing complex commercial real estate deals in Chicago’s dynamic market, delivering efficient, client-focused outcomes even under accelerated timelines.
SCOTUS Rules SEC Can Seek Disgorgement Without Proving Victim Financial Loss
By Steven A. Migala June 22, 2026
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on June 4, 2026, in Sripetch v. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, clarifying a significant question in securities enforcement. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) does not need to identify victims who suffered actual financial harm to pursue disgorgement of ill-gotten gains.
More Posts