ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 14
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 14/20 (2026)

Right of action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 14/20)
    Sec. 20. Right of action.
    (a) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act shall have a right of action in a State circuit court or as a supplemental claim in federal district court against an offending party. A prevailing party may recover for each violation:
        (1) against a private entity that negligently
    
violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater;
        (2) against a private entity that intentionally or
    
recklessly violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater;
        (3) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including
    
expert witness fees and other litigation expenses; and
        (4) other relief, including an injunction, as the
    
State or federal court may deem appropriate.
    (b) For purposes of subsection (b) of Section 15, a private entity that, in more than one instance, collects, captures, purchases, receives through trade, or otherwise obtains the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 has committed a single violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section.
    (c) For purposes of subsection (d) of Section 15, a private entity that, in more than one instance, discloses, rediscloses, or otherwise disseminates the same biometric identifier or biometric information from the same person to the same recipient using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (d) of Section 15 has committed a single violation of subsection (d) of Section 15 for which the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section regardless of the number of times the private entity disclosed, redisclosed, or otherwise disseminated the same biometric identifier or biometric information of the same person to the same recipient.
(Source: P.A. 103-769, eff. 8-2-24.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (55 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 15× “The purpose of the Act is to provide an "individual" with protections against his or her biometric information becoming "compromised" ( 740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2016) ), and the Act expressly authorizes a suit by "[a]ny person" who has been "aggrieved by a violation of this Act" (…”
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. 2019). · cites it 3× “The following two questions of law were identified by the circuit court: (1) "[w]hether an individual is an aggrieved person under § 20 of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/20, and may seek statutory liquidated damages authorized under § 20(l) of the…”
Christine Bryant v. Compass Grp. U.S.A., Inc., 958 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “See 740 ILCS 14/20; Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp.”
Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. 2023). · cites it 2× “See 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2018) (detailing the amounts and types of damages that a “prevailing party may recover” (emphasis added)); see also Watson, 2021 IL App (1st) 210279 , ¶ 66 n.”
Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “, 2019 IL 123186 , ¶ 1 (quoting 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2016)). ¶ 25 The Act works “by imposing safeguards to insure that individuals’ and customers’ privacy rights in their biometric identifiers and biometric information are properly honored and protected” and by “subjecting…”
Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). · cites it 12× “The purpose of the Act is to provide an “individual” with protections against his or her biometric information becoming “compromised” (740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2016)), and the Act expressly authorizes a suit by “[a]ny person” who has been “aggrieved by a violation of this Act”…”
McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511 (Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “” 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2016). Section 20 of the Privacy Act further provides: “[a] prevailing party may recover for each violation: (1) against a private entity that negligently violates a provision of this Act, liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is…”
Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Fin. Servs., LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 210279 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “¶ 11 In relief, plaintiff seeks, among other things, the statutory damages provided by the Act (740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2018)) and certification as a class action.”
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. 2019). · cites it 3× “The following two questions of law were identified by the circuit court: (1) “[w]hether an individual is an aggrieved person under §20 of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/20, and may seek statutory liquidated damages authorized under §20(l) of the Act…”
West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978 (Ill. 2021). “Sekura’s prayer for relief sought “statutory damages of $1,000 for each of Krishna Tan’s violations of the Act pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1) (West 2020).” ¶6 B. West Bend’s Policies ¶7 West Bend issued two businessowners’ liability policies to Krishna.”
Rivera v. Google Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “740 ILCS 14/20(l)-(2) (authorizing recovery of damages only where there is negligence, recklessness, or intent).”
Barnett v. Apple Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 220187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2020). Plaintiffs allege that section 20 applies because they were “aggrieved by a violation” of the Act, while Apple argues that there is no violation.”
Show all 76 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 14/20(1) — 22 cases
Christine Bryant v. Compass Grp. U.S.A., Inc., 958 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2020). “See 740 ILCS 14/20; Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm’t Corp.”
West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2021 IL 125978 (Ill. 2021). “Sekura’s prayer for relief sought “statutory damages of $1,000 for each of Krishna Tan’s violations of the Act pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1) (West 2020).” ¶6 B. West Bend’s Policies ¶7 West Bend issued two businessowners’ liability policies to Krishna.”
Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “The purpose of the Act is to provide an "individual" with protections against his or her biometric information becoming "compromised" ( 740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2016) ), and the Act expressly authorizes a suit by "[a]ny person" who has been "aggrieved by a violation of this Act" (…”
Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “The purpose of the Act is to provide an “individual” with protections against his or her biometric information becoming “compromised” (740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2016)), and the Act expressly authorizes a suit by “[a]ny person” who has been “aggrieved by a violation of this Act”…”
Bayeg v. The Admiral at the Lake, 2024 IL App (1st) 231141 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(1)(2) — 1 case
Wilk v. Brainshark, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(2) — 13 cases
McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 192398 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Barnett v. Apple Inc., 2022 IL App (1st) 220187 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2020). Plaintiffs allege that section 20 applies because they were “aggrieved by a violation” of the Act, while Apple argues that there is no violation.”
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2017 IL App (2d) 170317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 192398 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2017 IL App (2d) 170317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(3) — 7 cases
Sekura v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2018 IL App (1st) 180175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “The purpose of the Act is to provide an "individual" with protections against his or her biometric information becoming "compromised" ( 740 ILCS 14/5(c) (West 2016) ), and the Act expressly authorizes a suit by "[a]ny person" who has been "aggrieved by a violation of this Act" (…”
Rowe v. Papa John's Int'l, Inc., a Delaware Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2024).
Brandenberg v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Hayes v. CGB Enter., Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2024).
Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(4) — 4 cases
Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. 2023). “See 740 ILCS 14/20 (West 2018) (detailing the amounts and types of damages that a “prevailing party may recover” (emphasis added)); see also Watson, 2021 IL App (1st) 210279 , ¶ 66 n.”
Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. 2023).
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Ent. Corp., 2017 IL App (2d) 170317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Brandenberg v. Meridian Senior Living, LLC (C.D. Ill. 2021).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(a) — 5 cases
Reginald Clay v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (7th Cir. 2026).
John Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC (7th Cir. 2026).
Brandon Willis v. Universal Intermodal Servs., Inc. (7th Cir. 2026).
Hartman v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2024).
Johns (S.D. Ill. 2026).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(a)(1) — 3 cases
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2025).
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2026).
Howe v. Speedway LLC (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(a)(2) — 1 case
Hartman v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (S.D. Ill. 2024).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(a)(3) — 3 cases
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2025).
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2026).
Howe v. Speedway LLC (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(b) — 7 cases
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2025).
Reginald Clay v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (7th Cir. 2026).
John Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC (7th Cir. 2026).
Brandon Willis v. Universal Intermodal Servs., Inc. (7th Cir. 2026).
Tanya Svoboda v. Amazon.com Inc. (7th Cir. 2026).
— 740 ILCS 14/20(l) — 1 case
Rivera v. Google Inc., 238 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017). “740 ILCS 14/20(l)-(2) (authorizing recovery of damages only where there is negligence, recklessness, or intent).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.