Rockford Sun

State Rep. Jeff Keicher (R-Sycamore) shared information on legislation he recently filed in a news release published Feb 22.

“It’s no secret Illinois is already one of the most difficult places in the country to start and grow a business," Keicher said. "The recent decisions by the Illinois Supreme Court concerning our biometric privacy law highlight just how bad the climate is for job creators and why we need to take action quickly to address the unintended consequences.”

The Biometric Information Privacy Act, which originated in October 2008, clarifies what does and does not count as a biometric identifier, including the following metrics: "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry; Biometric identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures, photographs, human biological samples used for valid scientific testing or screening, demographic data, tattoo descriptions, or physical descriptions such as height, weight, hair color, or eye color; and biometric identifiers do not include donated organs, tissues, or parts as defined in the Illinois Anatomical Gift Act or blood or serum stored on behalf of recipients or potential recipients of living or cadaveric transplants and obtained or stored by a federally designated organ procurement agency.

The first of two bills filed by Keicher, House Bill 3199, was assigned to the House Judiciary - Civil Committee on Feb. 28. It allows for electronic consent to be considered as written and establishes rules for how a person impacted by a supposed violation can act on it. The person must provide 15 days written notice and state which part of the act was violated. The bill also notes that, if the private entity works to resolve the violation, no action for damages against them can occur.

The second bill, House Bill 2335, establishes when a collecting entity must notify individuals of biometric information collection. "If the biometric identifier or biometric information is collected or captured for the same repeated process, the private entity is only required to inform the subject or receive consent during the initial collection," the bill reads.

In his release, Keicher refers to the recent Colthron v. White Castle ruling, in which the court ruled that a violation occurs anytime biometric data is collected without written release instead of only the first time the data is collected. White Castle uses a fingerprint-based time-clock system, which is used by many employers. The court ruling makes the company vulnerable to $17 billion in fines, which is well beyond the intended purpose of the BIPA.

Keicher also referenced Tims v. Blackhorse Carriers, Inc., noting that the court ruled that, because of the BIPA's ambiguity, the five-year statute of limitations applies for filing suit rather than only one year as specified under the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. Both rulings state that a plaintiff doesn't need to prove that they were harmed to seek damages, as is common practice under other circumstances.

Keicher is a DeKalb resident who was first elected to the Illinois House in 2018. His legislative experience includes serving on the Appropriations - Higher Education Committee and the Immigration & Human Rights Committee.