The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes specific rights for individuals regarding the collection, use, and storage of their biometric identifiers and information. A key provision of BIPA is the requirement for private entities to inform individuals in writing that their biometric data is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which it will be used, and to obtain a written release. Furthermore, BIPA mandates that entities must develop and make publicly available a publicly accessible retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data when the initial purpose for collection has been satisfied or within a reasonable period, whichever comes first. The Act also specifies that entities must use a reasonable standard of care to store, transmit, and protect from disclosure all biometric data. A private entity that violates BIPA is liable for damages, including actual damages, statutory damages of \(1,000 for each negligent violation and \(5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, or the greater of the preceding amounts or actual damages, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The Act does not preempt other laws that provide greater privacy protection.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes specific obligations on private entities that collect, use, store, and disseminate biometric identifiers or information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before such collection can occur. This consent must be written and obtained in a manner that clearly informs the subject of the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric data will be used or stored. Furthermore, BIPA mandates that a publicly available policy must be established that includes guidelines for permanent or indefinite retention and destruction, as well as data security practices. When a private entity fails to adhere to these consent and policy requirements, individuals have a private right of action to sue for damages. The Illinois Appellate Court, in cases such as *Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.*, has affirmed that a violation of BIPA’s consent provisions, even without proof of actual harm, is sufficient to establish standing for a claim. The damages under BIPA are statutory, allowing for \( \$1,000 \) for each negligent violation and \( \$5,000 \) for each intentional or reckless violation. In this scenario, the company collected biometric data without obtaining the required written consent, a direct contravention of BIPA’s core provisions. This constitutes a negligent violation. Therefore, the statutory damages for each instance of such collection, absent proof of intent or recklessness, would be \( \$1,000 \). The question asks for the minimum statutory damages per violation, which is tied to negligent conduct.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes specific requirements for the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is granted to individuals whose rights under BIPA are violated. The Illinois Supreme Court, in the case of *Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.*, clarified that a plaintiff does not need to demonstrate actual harm or injury to bring a claim under BIPA. The mere violation of the statutory requirements, such as failing to obtain informed consent before collecting biometric data or failing to provide a data retention policy, is sufficient to establish a claim. The court reasoned that the BIPA itself defines the harm by creating specific obligations that, when breached, constitute a violation. Therefore, for each instance of unlawful collection or use of biometric data, a statutory damage amount can be sought. If a plaintiff proves that a private entity intentionally or knowingly violated the Act, they are entitled to liquidated damages of $5,000 per violation. If the violation is found to be negligent, the plaintiff is entitled to actual damages or liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater. In this scenario, the data breach occurred on January 15, 2023, and the company failed to inform individuals and obtain consent for the collection of their fingerprints. The court found the company acted intentionally in its violation of BIPA. Therefore, the statutory damages are $5,000 per violation. Assuming each of the 100 individuals represents a distinct violation due to the lack of consent at the time of collection, the total liquidated damages would be \(100 \text{ individuals} \times \$5,000/\text{violation} = \$500,000\). This interpretation aligns with the Illinois Supreme Court’s emphasis on statutory compliance and the private right of action provided by BIPA, which aims to deter unauthorized collection and misuse of sensitive biometric data. The Act’s purpose is to protect privacy rights by mandating transparency and consent, and the damages are intended to reflect the gravity of such breaches.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. Section 20(a) of BIPA states that a person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation of the Act may bring a civil action for actual damages, statutory damages, or injunctive relief. Statutory damages are set at a minimum of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. The question asks about the potential damages for a negligent violation of BIPA. If a company negligently collected biometric data from 500 individuals without obtaining informed consent, and each instance is considered a separate violation, the total statutory damages would be the number of violations multiplied by the statutory minimum for negligence. Therefore, 500 individuals * $1,000/violation = $500,000. This calculation reflects the statutory damages available under Illinois law for a negligent breach of BIPA. The explanation of BIPA’s private right of action and the specific statutory damage amounts for negligent versus intentional/reckless violations is crucial for understanding the legal framework and potential liabilities for businesses operating in Illinois that handle biometric data. The Act’s emphasis on informed consent and the potential for significant financial penalties underscore the importance of compliance.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) mandates specific notice and consent requirements before a private entity can collect, capture, purchase, obtain, or otherwise acquire a person’s biometric identifiers or biometric information. Section 15-120(a) of BIPA requires that a private entity that has a biometric identifier or biometric information in its possession or kept or stored by its agents must: (1) inform the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; (2) inform the subject of the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored; and (3) obtain an informed written consent from the subject. The question describes a scenario where a retail establishment in Illinois uses facial recognition technology to monitor customer behavior and identify potential shoplifters. This technology inherently captures biometric identifiers (facial geometry). The scenario states that the establishment has posted a sign at its entrances and on its website informing customers that facial recognition technology is in use for security purposes. However, it does not mention obtaining explicit written consent from each individual customer before collecting their biometric data. This lack of individual, informed written consent directly violates the explicit requirements of BIPA. Therefore, the establishment is likely in violation of BIPA’s consent provisions.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. Section 20 of BIPA specifies the statutory damages for each violation. For negligent violations, the damages are \$1,000 per violation. For intentional or reckless violations, the damages are \$5,000 per violation. The question asks for the maximum statutory damages a plaintiff could recover if a company intentionally and recklessly collected biometric data without consent over a period of 18 months, with 500 distinct instances of such collection. The statute defines “per violation” as each instance of collection, use, or disclosure. Therefore, to calculate the maximum statutory damages for intentional or reckless violations, we multiply the \$5,000 per violation by the total number of violations. Calculation: Number of violations = 500 Damages per intentional or reckless violation = \$5,000 Maximum statutory damages = Number of violations × Damages per intentional or reckless violation Maximum statutory damages = 500 × \$5,000 = \$2,500,000 This calculation demonstrates the potential financial exposure for a company that intentionally or recklessly violates BIPA’s consent requirements. The law aims to deter such practices by imposing significant financial penalties for each instance of non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of obtaining informed consent before collecting or using biometric data. The distinction between negligent and intentional/reckless violations is crucial in determining the applicable statutory damages, with the latter carrying a significantly higher penalty. This framework underscores the stringent privacy protections afforded by BIPA to Illinois residents regarding their biometric information.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collecting such data, and the establishment of specific policies regarding retention schedules and destruction of biometric data. Section 15(a) of BIPA mandates that a private entity must inform the subject in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information are being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of term for which they are being collected or stored, and obtain a written release. Section 15(b) requires the entity to develop and make publicly available a written policy establishing guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information when the initial purpose for collecting or storing them has been satisfied or within a reasonable period, whichever occurs first. Furthermore, Section 15(e) prohibits the sale, lease, trade, or otherwise profiting from biometric data. A private entity must not transfer or disclose biometric data to a third party unless specific conditions are met, including consent, legal obligation, or a contractual obligation to protect the data in a manner consistent with BIPA. In the scenario presented, the company’s practice of sharing anonymized but still potentially identifiable biometric data with a third-party marketing analytics firm without explicit consent for that specific disclosure, and without a clear policy on retention and destruction that covers such transfers, would likely violate BIPA. The critical element is the lack of a written release for the disclosure to the analytics firm, even if the data was presented as “anonymized,” as BIPA’s consent requirements are broad and aim to protect individuals’ biometric privacy. The retention policy must also address the lifecycle of the data, including transfers.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collecting such data. Specifically, Section 15-120(a) of BIPA mandates that a private entity may not capture, obtain, store, or otherwise possess a person’s biometric identifier or biometric information unless the entity informs the person in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, and obtains a written release executed by the person. This means that a proactive, written consent, detailing the purpose and duration of storage, is a prerequisite for lawful collection. Without this explicit written consent and disclosure, any subsequent use or disclosure of the biometric data would be in violation of BIPA. The law focuses on the initial collection and the subsequent handling of this sensitive data, emphasizing transparency and individual control. The scenario describes a company that collected biometric data without obtaining a written release, thus failing to meet the foundational requirements of BIPA for informed consent and disclosure of purpose and retention period. This failure to obtain the required written release at the point of collection is a direct contravention of the statutory obligations.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to develop a publicly accessible written policy, established and provided to the public, that includes a schedule for retaining and destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. Specifically, BIPA mandates that such policies must be followed. The Act does not specify a precise retention period, but it requires a schedule and adherence to it. Therefore, the core requirement is the existence and implementation of such a policy. The other options represent potential but not mandated elements of a BIPA compliance strategy. A data breach notification requirement is a separate legal obligation, not directly a component of the biometric data retention policy itself, though it is related to data protection. The requirement for explicit consent before collecting biometric data is a fundamental BIPA principle, but it pertains to the collection phase, not the retention policy’s content. Similarly, the obligation to notify individuals of their rights under BIPA is crucial for compliance but distinct from the specific mandate for a retention and destruction policy.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. The Act specifies that a person aggrieved by a violation of BIPA may recover statutory damages of \(1,000 for each negligent violation and \(5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Additionally, a court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. In this scenario, the company’s failure to obtain informed consent before collecting fingerprints and its subsequent failure to implement a reasonable data retention policy constitute violations. The question asks for the *maximum* potential statutory damages for a single instance of a violation, assuming it was intentional or reckless. Therefore, the maximum statutory damages per violation are \(5,000. The question implies a single, distinct violation for the purpose of calculating the per-violation damage. The scenario describes two distinct violations (lack of consent and improper retention policy), but the question focuses on the statutory damage amount for *a* violation, implying a single instance of such a violation. Thus, the highest statutory damage per occurrence is \(5,000.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes strict requirements on private entities that collect, capture, store, or use biometric identifiers or biometric information. A key provision of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collecting such data. The Act specifies that a private entity must inform the subject in writing that biometric data is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric data will be collected, stored, and used, and obtain a written release executed by the subject. Failure to obtain this consent can lead to statutory damages. In this scenario, the retail establishment collected fingerprints for employee timekeeping without providing the required written notice and obtaining a written release from each employee. This directly contravenes the consent provisions outlined in Section 15-120 of BIPA. The Illinois Supreme Court in *Rosenbach v. Dada Enterprises, LLC* established that a plaintiff need not demonstrate actual harm or injury to bring a claim under BIPA; a violation of the statutory requirements, such as the lack of consent, is sufficient to establish a cause of action. Therefore, the retail establishment has violated BIPA by failing to obtain the necessary consent and written release before collecting employee fingerprints. The Act does not permit implied consent or waivers of these rights through general employment agreements if the specific BIPA requirements are not met.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to develop a publicly accessible written policy, established and followed, establishing a data retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. Specifically, Section 15(a) of BIPA mandates that private entities must inform the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of term for which it is being collected or stored, and the type of algorithm used to convert the biometrics into a template. Section 15(b) requires the private entity to obtain a written release from the subject. Section 15(e) mandates the development of a publicly accessible written policy, established and followed, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. This policy must be followed. Therefore, a private entity that collects biometric data in Illinois must have a policy that includes a retention schedule and destruction guidelines. The question asks about the requirement for a written policy regarding retention and destruction. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) mandates this.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes specific rights and obligations concerning the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A key provision of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before a private entity can capture or possess a person’s biometric data. This consent must be in writing and clearly inform the subject about the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric data will be used, stored, and how it will be destroyed. Furthermore, BIPA mandates that private entities develop a publicly available policy that establishes guidelines for the permanent retention and destruction of biometric data. This policy must specify a retention schedule, and biometric data must be destroyed when the initial purpose for collecting it has been satisfied or within a reasonable period, whichever occurs first. The Act also requires that data be destroyed within three years of the date the individual’s last interaction with the entity, or when the data is no longer needed for the disclosed purpose, whichever occurs first. This ensures that biometric data is not held indefinitely. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in cases like *Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.* and *Treyton v. Life Time Fitness*, has clarified that a violation occurs even without actual harm or financial loss, focusing on the statutory requirements themselves. Therefore, a company failing to obtain written consent and establish a retention schedule before collecting biometric data for employee timekeeping purposes is in violation of BIPA.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes strict requirements on entities that collect, use, and store biometric identifiers and information. A key aspect of BIPA compliance involves obtaining informed consent from individuals before collecting their biometric data. Section 15(b) of BIPA specifically mandates that a private entity must inform the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of term for which it is being collected or stored, and obtain a written release. The Act further requires that the entity develop a publicly available written policy, made available to the public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and biometric information. This policy must also be followed. Failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to statutory damages, as established in cases interpreting BIPA, which often involve class action lawsuits. The damages are typically calculated per violation. For negligent violations, the statutory damages are \$1,000 per violation. For intentional or reckless violations, the statutory damages are \$5,000 per violation. In this scenario, the company’s actions of collecting fingerprints without prior written consent and failing to have a publicly available retention policy constitute violations of BIPA. Assuming the court finds these violations to be intentional or reckless, the \$5,000 per violation statutory damages would apply. If a class of 10,000 individuals was affected, and each collection instance or policy omission is considered a separate violation for each individual, the total potential statutory damages would be \(10,000 \text{ individuals} \times \$5,000/\text{violation}\), which equals \$50,000,000. This highlights the significant financial implications of non-compliance with BIPA.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes specific obligations on entities that collect, use, or store biometric identifiers or information. A critical aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent and the provision of a written policy. Section 15(a) of BIPA mandates that a private entity may not collect, obtain, or possess a biometric identifier or biometric information unless it first informs the person in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, and of the specific purpose and length of term for which it is being collected or stored. Section 15(b) requires that a private entity may not collect, obtain, or possess a biometric identifier or biometric information unless it first develops and makes publicly available a publicly traded company’s policy, established and followed in compliance with BIPA’s requirements, that describes its data retention and destruction schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying a person’s biometric identifier or biometric information. The scenario describes a company that collects facial geometry for access control but fails to provide a written notice detailing the purpose and retention period, nor does it have a publicly available policy regarding data retention and destruction. This direct contravention of Sections 15(a) and 15(b) constitutes a violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted BIPA to allow for statutory damages for each violation, with the statutory damages for each violation being \(1,000 for negligent violations and \(5,000 for intentional or reckless violations. While the question does not specify intent or recklessness, the failure to meet the foundational notice and policy requirements suggests a systemic disregard that could be argued as intentional or reckless. However, the core violation is the *failure to comply with the notice and policy requirements*, regardless of the exact intent behind that failure. The damages are tied to the number of times a person’s biometric data is collected without proper notice and policy. If a single individual’s biometric data is collected without the required notice and policy, that is one instance of violation for that individual. The question asks about the *minimum* statutory damages for a single instance of non-compliance for one individual. Therefore, the minimum statutory damages for a negligent violation of BIPA’s notice and policy requirements for a single individual would be \(1,000. The explanation focuses on the legal requirements and the basis for statutory damages under BIPA, emphasizing the importance of written notice and public policies for biometric data handling.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) mandates specific notice and consent requirements before a private entity can collect, store, or use a person’s biometric identifiers or information. Section 15(b) of BIPA states that a private entity in possession of biometric data must inform the subject in writing that biometric data is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which the biometric data will be collected, stored, and used, and obtain a written release executed by the data subject. This means that for each distinct collection, storage, or use of biometric data, a separate written release, informed by a clear disclosure of purpose and duration, is required. Failing to obtain this consent for each instance constitutes a violation. In this scenario, although an initial consent was obtained for facial geometry scanning for building access, the subsequent use of that same biometric data for employee timekeeping, without a new, specific disclosure and written release for this distinct purpose and duration, violates BIPA. The law requires informed consent for each distinct processing activity. Therefore, the company is in violation of Section 15(b) for the timekeeping use.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to develop a publicly accessible written policy, established and maintained in accordance with BIPA, that includes retention schedules and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. Specifically, Section 15(a) of BIPA mandates that a private entity in possession of biometric identifiers or biometric information must adhere to a publicly available, reasonable retention schedule and destruction policy. This policy must outline how long the biometric data will be stored and when it will be permanently destroyed. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the indefinite storage of sensitive biometric data, thereby mitigating the risk of misuse or unauthorized access. A failure to establish and adhere to such a policy constitutes a violation of BIPA, leading to potential statutory damages. For instance, if a company collects fingerprints and fails to have a documented policy on how long it will keep them and when they will be deleted, it is in violation of the law, irrespective of whether the data itself was misused. The law focuses on the procedural safeguards in place to protect this unique personal information.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes strict requirements on private entities that collect, obtain, or use biometric identifiers or biometric information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collection. Specifically, Section 15-120 of BIPA states that a private entity must inform the subject in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information are being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which they are being collected or stored, and obtain a written release. This consent must be affirmative and voluntary. Failure to obtain this consent can lead to statutory damages. In the scenario provided, the retail establishment failed to obtain a written release from its customers before collecting their fingerprint data for loyalty program participation. This direct contravention of the BIPA’s consent provisions triggers liability. The law does not require a specific number of days for notice or a particular method of data destruction beyond the purpose for which the data was collected; rather, it mandates the consent process itself. Therefore, the most accurate legal conclusion is that the establishment violated BIPA by failing to obtain the requisite written consent. The Illinois Attorney General’s office enforces BIPA, and private citizens can also bring a cause of action. The statute of limitations for BIPA claims is generally five years from the date of the alleged violation.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A key provision within BIPA, specifically 740 ILCS 14/15(b), addresses the requirement for data retention and destruction. This section mandates that a private entity in possession of biometric data must develop and make publicly available a written policy that establishes a definitive retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data. The policy must specify the particular circumstances under which biometric data will be permanently destroyed. This is crucial for ensuring data minimization and protecting individuals’ privacy by preventing indefinite storage of sensitive biometric information. The act emphasizes a proactive approach to data lifecycle management. Therefore, the core requirement is the establishment and public availability of a written policy detailing retention periods and destruction protocols for biometric data.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. The statute provides for statutory damages of \$1,000 for each negligent violation and \$5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. The question asks for the maximum potential statutory damages an individual could recover if a company engaged in a single instance of a negligent violation of BIPA’s disclosure and consent requirements concerning their biometric data. The calculation for negligent violations is \$1,000 per violation. Therefore, for one negligent violation, the maximum statutory damages are \$1,000. This highlights the importance of strict adherence to BIPA’s consent and disclosure mandates to avoid significant financial penalties, even for single instances of non-compliance. The act emphasizes informed consent and transparent practices regarding biometric data, which are crucial for protecting individual privacy in Illinois.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes specific obligations on entities that collect, use, or store biometric identifiers or information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collection. Specifically, Section 15-120(a) of BIPA mandates that a private entity may not collect, obtain, or possess a person’s biometric identifier or biometric information unless it first provides a written notice and obtains a written release. This notice must inform the subject of the specific purpose and length of term for which the biometric data will be collected, stored, used, and shared. The Illinois Appellate Court, in cases such as *Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.*, has emphasized that even a single violation of these notice and consent provisions can give rise to a cause of action under BIPA, allowing for statutory damages. The Act also outlines requirements for data retention schedules and the prohibition of selling or trading biometric information. Therefore, a company that collects biometric data without adhering to these initial notice and consent requirements, even if it later implements robust security measures or has a legitimate business purpose, has already committed a violation under BIPA. The question hinges on the timing and nature of the initial collection and consent process.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) imposes specific obligations on entities that collect, use, or store biometric identifiers and information. A key provision of BIPA, particularly relevant to data retention and destruction, is the requirement for entities to develop and adhere to a publicly available written policy that outlines a schedule for the permanent destruction of biometric data. This policy must specify a retention schedule, ensuring that biometric information is not kept indefinitely. The Act mandates that biometric data must be destroyed when the primary purpose for collecting it has been satisfied or within a reasonable period, whichever occurs first. Furthermore, BIPA requires entities to inform individuals, in writing, of the specific purposes and length of term for which their biometric data is being collected or stored, and to obtain a written release. The Act also establishes a private right of action, allowing individuals to sue for violations. The damages for a violation include statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation, or actual damages, whichever is greater, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. Therefore, if a company fails to adhere to its own stated retention schedule or destroys data prematurely without fulfilling the initial purpose, it would be a violation. Conversely, if the company has a policy, informs the individual, and adheres to the policy, even if the data is retained for a period, it is compliant. The scenario describes a company that collected biometric data for employee timekeeping, informed employees of the purpose and retention period, and established a policy for destruction after the data was no longer needed for payroll processing. This aligns with BIPA’s requirements.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) establishes specific requirements for entities that collect, use, and store biometric identifiers and information. A critical aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collection. This consent must be in writing and clearly inform individuals about the specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric data will be used and stored. Furthermore, BIPA mandates the development of a publicly accessible written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data when the underlying purpose has been satisfied or within a reasonable period, whichever comes first. The Act also requires that entities exercise a reasonable standard of care to protect biometric data from unauthorized access or disclosure. The question asks about the most crucial proactive step an Illinois-based company, “Prairie Tech Solutions,” must take *before* collecting biometric data from its employees for access control. Based on BIPA’s provisions, obtaining informed written consent that details the purpose and duration of data use, along with providing the retention policy, are paramount. However, the *initial* and most fundamental requirement before any collection occurs is securing this informed consent. The other options, while important compliance measures, are either subsequent to initial collection or address different aspects of data handling. Developing a retention policy is a prerequisite to collection but is part of the broader consent process. Implementing security measures is an ongoing obligation. Offering an opt-out is a privacy right, but the core BIPA mandate for collection is consent. Therefore, the most critical *pre-collection* step is the informed written consent.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) mandates specific notice and consent requirements before a private entity can collect, capture, purchase, receive, or otherwise obtain a person’s biometric identifiers or information. Section 15-120(a) of BIPA states that a private entity in possession of biometric data must develop a publicly accessible written policy, made available to the data subject, establishing a data retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric data. This policy must ensure that biometric data is not collected or possessed longer than necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in the case of *Rosenbach v. Dada Enterprises, Inc.*, clarified that a violation of BIPA occurs when a private entity collects biometric information without first obtaining informed consent and providing the required disclosures. Furthermore, the court in *Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.* affirmed that a violation occurs even if no actual harm is demonstrated, focusing on the statutory rights conferred by BIPA. Therefore, the core obligation is to have a policy for retention and destruction, and to adhere to the notice and consent requirements, regardless of whether the data is actively being used or has been deleted. The question asks about the specific requirement for handling biometric data *after* it has been collected and the purpose for its collection has been fulfilled. BIPA requires a publicly accessible written policy that includes a data retention schedule and guidelines for permanent destruction. This policy must ensure that biometric data is not retained longer than necessary. This proactive approach to data lifecycle management is a cornerstone of BIPA’s privacy protections, aiming to prevent indefinite storage and potential misuse of sensitive biometric information. The absence of such a policy, or failure to adhere to its provisions, constitutes a violation of the Act.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. Specifically, Section 15(e) of BIPA states that a person or entity that violates any provision of BIPA is liable for statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation and $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. The Act also permits recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. In this scenario, the company’s failure to obtain informed consent before collecting fingerprints and its subsequent improper storage of this biometric data constitute violations of BIPA. The question asks for the maximum potential statutory damages per violation, assuming the violations are deemed intentional or reckless. Therefore, the maximum statutory damages per violation under BIPA is $5,000. This reflects the legislative intent to impose significant penalties for serious breaches of privacy. The Act’s framework encourages compliance through the threat of substantial financial repercussions, thereby protecting Illinois residents’ biometric privacy. Understanding the distinction between negligent and intentional/reckless violations is crucial for determining potential liability.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) mandates specific notice and consent requirements before a private entity can collect, capture, purchase, obtain, or otherwise acquire a person’s biometric identifiers or biometric information. Section 15-120(a) of BIPA states that a private entity “may not possess a biometric identifier or biometric information” unless it first informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of time for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is being collected or stored, and obtains a written release from the subject. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in *Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp.*, established that a violation of BIPA occurs upon the mere collection of biometric data without the requisite notice and consent, regardless of whether the data is subsequently misused or causes actual harm. This ruling emphasizes a strict liability standard for the procedural requirements of BIPA. Therefore, the scenario presented, where a company collects fingerprints for employee timekeeping without providing the written notice and obtaining the written release as required by BIPA, constitutes a violation of the Act, irrespective of the security measures employed or the absence of actual data misuse. The correct response identifies this violation of the statutory notice and consent provisions.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is explicitly provided under Section 15-110 of BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. The statutory damages for a violation are \(1,000 for each negligent violation and \(5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. In this scenario, the company’s policy of retaining biometric data indefinitely, without a documented retention schedule or destruction policy, constitutes a violation of BIPA’s requirement for a publicly available, written policy. This policy must specify the length of time biometric data is retained and guidelines for permanent destruction. The question focuses on the potential damages an individual could recover for such a violation. Since the scenario does not specify whether the violation was negligent or intentional/reckless, the statute provides for either \(1,000 or \(5,000 per violation. Therefore, the potential recovery per violation is up to \(5,000. The explanation does not involve a calculation in the sense of a numerical problem to solve, but rather an interpretation of statutory damages.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A key aspect of BIPA is the requirement for informed consent before collecting such data. Specifically, Section 15(b) of BIPA mandates that a private entity must inform the subject in writing that biometric identifiers or biometric information are being collected or stored, the specific purpose and length of term for which they are being collected or stored, and obtain a written release executed by the subject. The question concerns a scenario where a company collects biometric data for employee access control without providing the required written disclosure and obtaining a written release. This directly violates the consent requirements outlined in BIPA. The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, in cases such as *Rosenbach v. Dada Enterprises, LLC*, has affirmed that a violation of BIPA occurs upon the mere collection of biometric data without the statutorily mandated disclosures and consent, even if no actual harm or data breach has occurred. The statutory damages for each violation under BIPA are \(1,000 for each negligent violation and \(5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. Therefore, for each employee whose biometric data was collected without proper consent, the company is liable for these statutory damages. The scenario describes a company collecting biometric data for access control for its employees without the necessary written disclosures and consent as required by BIPA. This constitutes a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The law requires entities to inform individuals in writing about the collection and storage of biometric data, the purpose and duration of storage, and to obtain a written release. The absence of these steps means the company has contravened the consent provisions of BIPA. Illinois law, as interpreted by its courts, holds that a violation occurs at the point of collection if the statutory requirements are not met, regardless of whether a data breach or actual harm has taken place. This principle is crucial for understanding the scope of liability under BIPA.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) governs the collection, use, and storage of biometric identifiers and information. A private right of action is established under BIPA, allowing individuals to sue for violations. Specifically, Section 20 of BIPA outlines the remedies available to a prevailing plaintiff. For each violation, a plaintiff can recover statutory damages of \$1,000 for negligent violations and \$5,000 for intentional or reckless violations. Alternatively, a plaintiff may recover actual damages, which could be higher than statutory damages if proven. The Act also permits a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The question asks about the potential damages for a company found to have intentionally or recklessly violated BIPA. Therefore, the correct answer reflects the higher statutory damages for intentional or reckless conduct. The calculation of potential damages for a single intentional or reckless violation under BIPA is a fixed amount for each violation. The statute provides for a specific monetary award per instance of violation, not a calculation based on a percentage of revenue or a variable formula. The statutory damages for an intentional or reckless violation are \$5,000 per violation.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to develop a publicly accessible written policy, established and followed, establishing a data retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and information. Specifically, BIPA mandates that such policies must be implemented and adhered to. The law does not specify a fixed number of years for retention but requires a schedule. Therefore, the core requirement is the existence and adherence to a policy that includes a retention schedule and destruction guidelines. This proactive approach to managing biometric data is central to BIPA’s purpose of protecting individuals’ privacy rights concerning their unique biological characteristics. The act aims to prevent the misuse and unauthorized retention of sensitive biometric data by imposing these obligations on entities that collect it. The concept of a “retention schedule and guidelines for permanent destruction” is the key element, rather than a specific time frame for destruction.