Dior recently defeated an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) putative class action on the pleadings by arguing that BIPA’s exemption for patient data captured in a health care setting covered the plaintiff’s use of Dior’s virtual try-on tool while shopping for non-prescription sunglasses.  See Warmack-Stillwell v. Christian Dior, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-04633 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 10, 2023). 

The plaintiff, Delma Warmack-Stillwell, filed a putative class action against Christian Dior, Inc. (“Dior”), contending that Dior violated BIPA because it profits (by virtue of an improved shopping experience) from the collection, storage, and use of customers’ facial geometry scans generated by the virtual try-on tool hosted on Dior’s website.  The plaintiff also asserted that Dior violated BIPA by failing to have a publicly available written policy for the retention and destruction of biometric data, and by failing to get her informed consent before collecting her biometric data.

Dior moved to dismiss, arguing in relevant part that BIPA’s statutory exclusion for “information captured from a patient in a health care setting” applies to the facial scans that allegedly were captured while the plaintiff virtually tried on sunglasses.  The plaintiff argued that she does not qualify as a “patient” because she was shopping for non-prescription sunglasses, not prescription glasses, and that Dior’s website is not a “health care setting.” 

The district court agreed with Dior, holding that even though the plaintiff was not trying on prescription glasses with Dior’s virtual try-on tool, she was still a “patient” within the meaning of BIPA because the non-prescription sunglasses she tried on “protect one’s eyes from the sun and are Class I medical devices under the Food & Drug Administration’s regulations.”  The court further reasoned that Dior’s virtual try-on tool “facilitates the provision of a medical device that protects vision,” and therefore the tool captured her facial scans in a “health care setting,” regardless of whether she was motivated to shop for the sunglasses for fashion purposes or for health purposes.

This ruling from the Northern District of Illinois may prove useful to other defendants who similarly fall into the health care exemption for BIPA. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Alice Phillips Alice Phillips

Alice Phillips is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office, focusing her practice on complex product liability and mass tort litigation. She works with clients across a variety of industries, with particular experience representing technology and life sciences companies.

Alice is skilled…

Alice Phillips is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office, focusing her practice on complex product liability and mass tort litigation. She works with clients across a variety of industries, with particular experience representing technology and life sciences companies.

Alice is skilled in all phases of litigation, from drafting dispositive motions to preparing for trial. She is a stand-up litigator with experience conducting direct and cross examinations of fact and expert witnesses at trial and Daubert hearings. In her pro bono practice, Alice has first-chaired at trial, delivering the closing argument as a member of a team that secured their client’s acquittal on first-degree murder charges.

Previously, Alice clerked for Judge John M. Walker, Jr., on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge Carol Bagley Amon on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Photo of Kathryn Cahoy Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy uses her substantial class action experience to help clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging litigation matters. She regularly defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes involving privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection claims and has achieved significant victories…

Kate Cahoy uses her substantial class action experience to help clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging litigation matters. She regularly defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes involving privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection claims and has achieved significant victories for clients in the technology, entertainment, consumer product, and financial services industries. In addition, Kate has substantial experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.