Match Urges Dismissal of BIPA Complaint for Agreement Breach
Plaintiff Marcus Baker’s complaint against Match Group for violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) should be dismissed because he breached his agreement to bring his claims exclusively in small claims court, said Match’s Friday response in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago (docket 1:22-cv-06924). Alternatively, Match moved for the class action to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas, said its memorandum of law in support of the motions.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
A July ruling from JAMS (formerly Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) said Baker and other claimants in the class action must file their claims in small claims court under JAMS consumer arbitration minimum standards, said the memo. Baker’s arbitration demand asserted two violations of the Illinois BIPA against Match services Tinder and OkCupid for maximum potential damages of $10,000 each. The claims fall within the Illinois small claims court’s $10,000 jurisdictional limit and the Texas small claims court’s $20,000 limit, the defendant said.
Plaintiffs’ counsel argued the defendants’ invocation of their contractual right to proceed in small claims court was invalid because the claims allegedly exceeded the small claims courts’ jurisdictional threshold. In July, JAMS granted Match’s request for administrative closure. Baker was ordered to file any further action in small claims court because that court “must determine whether it has jurisdiction before JAMS may proceed,” said the filing.
Baker ignored JAMS’ instruction and filed the class action instead, said Match, “breaching the agreements he purports to enforce.” The court should “reject this effort to circumvent the parties’ agreements and JAMS’ decision, and dismiss the case.”
Match called the complaint “the latest stage in a long-running effort” by plaintiff’s counsel, Labaton Sucharow, to “extract a settlement payment” from Match over “demonstrably false claims.” Labaton began recruiting claims to participate in a “mass arbitration campaign” by placing Facebook ads “wrongly asserting” that Match applies facial recognition technology to its users’ photos without consent in violation of BIPA, said the defendant.
The defendants have shown the claim is “meritless,” said the memo, but Labaton threatened to file thousands of arbitration demands in JAMS, costing defendants “millions of dollars in filing fees,” unless Match agreed to a settlement. Labaton began filing batches of arbitration demands against Match’s Tinder and OkCupid, including a demand on behalf of Baker, “insisting the onslaught would continue until Defendants paid up,” it said. Match Group removed the case from Cook County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court in Chicago in December (Ref:2212120046).