Skip to content

Class Action

Rogers v. BNSF

SettledClass claims present

Rogers, et al. v. BNSF Railway Company

Where it stands

First BIPA case ever tried to a jury. On October 12, 2022 the jury found 45,600 reckless or intentional violations, producing a $228 million judgment at $5,000 per violation. The court later vacated the damages award and ordered a new trial on damages; the parties then settled for $75 million, with a final approval hearing on June 17, 2024.

Key ruling

October 12, 2022 jury verdict — the first BIPA trial verdict, establishing that a company can be liable under BIPA for biometric collection performed by a third-party vendor on its behalf, and demonstrating the aggregation risk that motivated the 2024 SB 2979 amendment.

Note on this record

Filing date and the exact date the damages award was vacated and the settlement approved were not verified; the June 17, 2024 date is the scheduled final approval hearing.

The record

Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Case number
1:19-cv-03083 (removed from Cook County No. 2019-CH-04393)
Filed
Filing date not established
Defendants
BNSF Railway Company
Plaintiffs
Approximately 45,600 truck drivers whose fingerprints were scanned at BNSF's automated gate systems at four Illinois rail facilities
Technology at issue
Remote-operated automated gate systems using fingerprint scanning to verify truck drivers entering BNSF intermodal facilities (vendor-operated on BNSF's behalf)
Relief sought
BIPA statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation (740 ILCS 14/20). The jury's reckless/intentional finding drove the $5,000 multiplier.
Settlement
$75,000,000 (approximately $1,000 per participating class member); the earlier $228,000,000 judgment was vacated
Counsel of record
McGuire Law, P.C.

Claims pleaded

Sources (3)

This page describes a publicly filed case. This site is not counsel on this matter, nothing here is legal advice, and the allegations described are allegations unless a court has said otherwise.

Back to the docketClaim encyclopedia