ILCS » Chapter 740 · Act 14
Illinois Compiled Statutes

740 ILCS 14/25 (2026)

Construction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 14/25)
    Sec. 25. Construction.
    (a) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impact the admission or discovery of biometric identifiers and biometric information in any action of any kind in any court, or before any tribunal, board, agency, or person.
    (b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to conflict with the X-Ray Retention Act, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the rules promulgated under either Act.
    (c) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply in any manner to a financial institution or an affiliate of a financial institution that is subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the rules promulgated thereunder.
    (d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to conflict with the Private Detective, Private Alarm, Private Security, Fingerprint Vendor, and Locksmith Act of 2004 and the rules promulgated thereunder.
    (e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government.
(Source: P.A. 95-994, eff. 10-3-08.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: Mosby v. Ingalls Mem'l Hosp., 2022 IL App (1st) 200822 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mosby v. Ingalls Mem'l Hosp., 2022 IL App (1st) 200822 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “740 ILCS 14/25 (West 2018). ¶ 45 Northwestern’s inclusion of employee’s biometric information under the exclusion goes beyond the plain language of the Act.”
Enriquez v. Navy Pier, Inc, 2022 IL App (1st) 211414-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 740 ILCS 14/25(e) (West 2020). Thus, an entity is exempt under section 25(e) if it is (1) a contractor (2) of a unit of government and (3) was working for that unit of government at the time it collected or disseminated biometric information.”
Fluery v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. 2023). · cites it 4× “The limited disclosure and transfer of Confidential Information constituting or potentially constituting biometric information or biometric identifiers, as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10, is permitted under this Order pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/25(a), if done solely for purposes…”
Davis v. Jumio Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2023). · cites it 3× “stance, Section 25(a) provides that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to impact the admission or discovery” of biometric information in court proceedings; Section 25(b) establishes that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to conflict with,” inter alia, the federal Health Insurance…”
Delgado v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3× “10 740 ILCS 14/25 (c), (e). With these defenses, “Meta plans to contend that it is not a ‘private entity’ 11 under [BIPA] because it is (i) an affiliate of a financial institution whose licensed products are 12 subject to the GLBA (Section 25(c)) and (ii) a government contractor…”
Heard v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (N.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 2× “740 ILCS 14/25(b). HIPAA 7 See Peaks-Smith v.”
In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consum. Privacy Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2022). · cites it 2× “Discussion In the present motion, the Clearview defendants request the Court to reconsider the following: (1) defendants Thomas Mulcaire (“Mulcaire”) and Rocky Mountain Data Analytics, LLC (“Rocky Mountain”) waived their personal jurisdiction defenses; (2) Mulcaire and Rocky…”
Cullen v. Kunes Country Auto. Mgmt. Inc (C.D. Ill. 2025). · cites it 2× “Dismiss 3–8 (quoting 740 ILCS 14/25(c)), ECF No. 16. Further, Defendants ask for dismissal of the Complaint because it fails to comply with the pleading requirements under Rule 8(a).”
Thomas v. Cornerstone Servs., LLC, 2026 IL App (3d) 240568 (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). · cites it 2× “740 ILCS 14/25(e) (West 2024). We therefore answer the first certified question in the negative, holding that a contractor need not have an exclusive contractual relationship with a state agency or local government for the Act’s government contractor exemption to apply.”
Figueroa v. Kronos Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “See 740 ILCS 14/25(e) (“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government.”
Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “106–102; see also 740 ILCS 14/25(c) (specifically excluding institutions covered by the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act).”
In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consum. Privacy Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2022). “Last, defendants have waived their argument made for the first time in their reply brief that Mulcaire and Rocky Mountain are exempt based on 740 ILCS 14/25(e). See White, 8 F.4th at 552.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 740 ILCS 14/25(a) — 2 cases
Fluery v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “The limited disclosure and transfer of Confidential Information constituting or potentially constituting biometric information or biometric identifiers, as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10, is permitted under this Order pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/25(a), if done solely for purposes…”
Davis v. Jumio Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “stance, Section 25(a) provides that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to impact the admission or discovery” of biometric information in court proceedings; Section 25(b) establishes that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to conflict with,” inter alia, the federal Health Insurance…”
— 740 ILCS 14/25(b) — 1 case
Heard v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (N.D. Ill. 2021). “740 ILCS 14/25(b). HIPAA 7 See Peaks-Smith v.”
— 740 ILCS 14/25(c) — 14 cases
Mosby v. Ingalls Mem'l Hosp., 2022 IL App (1st) 200822 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “740 ILCS 14/25 (West 2018). ¶ 45 Northwestern’s inclusion of employee’s biometric information under the exclusion goes beyond the plain language of the Act.”
Davis v. Jumio Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2023). “stance, Section 25(a) provides that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to impact the admission or discovery” of biometric information in court proceedings; Section 25(b) establishes that BIPA “shall [not] be construed to conflict with,” inter alia, the federal Health Insurance…”
Cullen v. Kunes Country Auto. Mgmt. Inc (C.D. Ill. 2025). “Dismiss 3–8 (quoting 740 ILCS 14/25(c)), ECF No. 16. Further, Defendants ask for dismissal of the Complaint because it fails to comply with the pleading requirements under Rule 8(a).”
Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “106–102; see also 740 ILCS 14/25(c) (specifically excluding institutions covered by the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act).”
Heard v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. (N.D. Ill. 2021). “740 ILCS 14/25(b). HIPAA 7 See Peaks-Smith v.”
— 740 ILCS 14/25(e) — 10 cases
Enriquez v. Navy Pier, Inc, 2022 IL App (1st) 211414-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 740 ILCS 14/25(e) (West 2020). Thus, an entity is exempt under section 25(e) if it is (1) a contractor (2) of a unit of government and (3) was working for that unit of government at the time it collected or disseminated biometric information.”
In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consum. Privacy Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2022). “Discussion In the present motion, the Clearview defendants request the Court to reconsider the following: (1) defendants Thomas Mulcaire (“Mulcaire”) and Rocky Mountain Data Analytics, LLC (“Rocky Mountain”) waived their personal jurisdiction defenses; (2) Mulcaire and Rocky…”
Thomas v. Cornerstone Servs., LLC, 2026 IL App (3d) 240568 (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “740 ILCS 14/25(e) (West 2024). We therefore answer the first certified question in the negative, holding that a contractor need not have an exclusive contractual relationship with a state agency or local government for the Act’s government contractor exemption to apply.”
Figueroa v. Kronos Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2020). “See 740 ILCS 14/25(e) (“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government.”
In Re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consum. Privacy Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2022). “Last, defendants have waived their argument made for the first time in their reply brief that Mulcaire and Rocky Mountain are exempt based on 740 ILCS 14/25(e). See White, 8 F.4th at 552.”
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.