EAST ST. LOUIS – On November 14, Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, launched a constitutional challenge against the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act during proceedings at the U.S. district court.
In its defense, Meta contended against accusations that its applications, Facebook Messenger and Messenger Kids, had wrongfully collected and retained users’ facial recognition data.
Meta’s legal representative, Matt Provance from New York City, argued that awarding statutory damages would amount to an unconstitutional punishment based on the circumstances surrounding the case.
The Illinois statute stipulates fines of $1,000 for each violation and escalates to $5,000 for violations deemed reckless.
Provance asserted that these penalties would be excessively severe, particularly as the plaintiffs and potential class action members allegedly experienced no actual harm.
He claimed that the financial repercussions contravene due process, equal protection, and other essential rights detailed in the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Illinois Constitution.
Furthermore, he argued that the language of the statute is unconstitutionally vague according to both constitutions.
Last year, Rebecca Hartman, Joseph Turner, and their minor children filed a lawsuit against Meta in the St. Clair County circuit court.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Ryan Keane of St. Louis County, alleged that Meta collected private data using augmented reality features without securing the necessary consent from users.
He proposed to seek class-action status for every Illinois resident who has used Messenger or Messenger Kids since 2018, suggesting that this could encompass thousands, if not millions, of individuals.
Meta subsequently moved the case to federal court, asserting that the financial stakes surpassed the $5 million threshold for class action lawsuits in state courts.
In its defense, Meta sought to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the national Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act overrides the Illinois law.
Chief District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel decided against Meta’s motion to dismiss in September, permitting the case to proceed.
Provance acknowledged that Messenger Kids is accessible for parents to download and configure for their children in various jurisdictions outside the U.S.
Tens of millions of minors globally are able to utilize Messenger Kids, as confirmed by Provance.
He emphasized that the augmented reality features available on Messenger and Messenger Kids are presented as voluntary options for users.
He maintained that Meta acted in good faith and did not engage in negligent or reckless behavior, which should preclude the claims from standing completely or partially.
He further claimed that, to the extent the statute is applicable to Meta, the company relied on a reasonable understanding of its provisions in good faith.
Provance stated that Meta was under the belief that it did not capture, collect, or utilize any biometric identifiers or related information belonging to its users.
He contended that plaintiffs had consented to Meta’s terms of service as a prerequisite for using Messenger and Messenger Kids.
Meta claimed that the parties involved had agreed to California law governing their claims against the company.
Judge Rosenstengel has scheduled a bench trial for December 2026, setting the stage for a pivotal legal battle.
How could the potential class-action lawsuit impact Meta Platforms and its users in terms of liability and privacy practices?
**Interview with Matt Provance, Legal Representative for Meta Platforms**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Matt. Let’s dive right into the pressing issues surrounding Meta’s recent legal challenge against the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Can you briefly explain what prompted this challenge?
**Matt Provance:** Thanks for having me. Our challenge stems from accusations that Meta has unlawfully collected and retained facial recognition data through our apps, specifically Facebook Messenger and Messenger Kids. We believe these claims are unfounded and that the consequences enforced by the Illinois statute, both in terms of penalties and overall application, are excessive and unconstitutional.
**Editor:** That’s intriguing. You mentioned the potential penalties could amount to severe constitutional violations. Can you elaborate on that?
**Matt Provance:** Absolutely. The Illinois law imposes fines of $1,000 for each violation, escalating up to $5,000 for actions deemed reckless. We argue this creates a significant financial burden, especially when there has been no demonstrable harm experienced by the plaintiffs. This situation raises serious due process concerns under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as equal protection issues.
**Editor:** It sounds like the legal ambiguities in the statute are a central point of your argument as well.
**Matt Provance:** Yes, the language in the Illinois statute is notably vague, which is another key element of our defense. Vague laws can lead to arbitrary enforcement, which goes against the fundamental rights enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois Constitution. We need clarity in legal standards to ensure fair treatment under the law.
**Editor:** And in terms of the class-action lawsuit, how significant do you believe the potential implications could be for Meta and its users?
**Matt Provance:** If this class-action status is granted, it could encompass a vast number of Illinois residents—potentially thousands or even millions who have used our products. The scale of potential liability is genuinely concerning, especially given our stance that the allegations lack merit. We are confident that our defense will clarify our practices regarding user data and privacy.
**Editor:** Thank you, Matt. This legal challenge certainly sheds light on the complexities of privacy laws in the digital age. We appreciate you sharing your insights with us today.
**Matt Provance:** Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important matter.
**Editor:** Thank you to our audience for tuning in. Stay informed as this case develops!
