The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving Gunnar Optiks, a company that sells glasses designed to relieve eye strain from digital devices. The court's decision could have significant implications for how companies handle biometric data, particularly under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). This ruling affects consumers and businesses that collect biometric information, as it clarifies the legal boundaries of data collection and consent.
The case, William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks, LLC, was filed under docket number 25-1890. It centers on allegations that Gunnar Optiks violated BIPA by collecting images of potential customers' faces without proper consent. The court's decision on July 10, 2026, has brought attention to the responsibilities companies have when handling sensitive biometric data.
Background
William Clements, the plaintiff in this case, argued that Gunnar Optiks collected biometric identifiers, specifically facial images, when users utilized its “virtual try on” feature. This feature allowed users to see how the glasses would look on their faces by scanning their images. Clements claimed that this collection of data violated BIPA, which requires companies to obtain consent before collecting biometric information.
Gunnar Optiks, the defendant, did not dispute that facial images fall under the definition of biometric identifiers as outlined in BIPA. However, the company argued that its data collection was exempt from BIPA because it claimed the information was gathered for health care purposes. This argument was based on a specific exclusion in the law that states biometric identifiers do not include information captured from patients in a health care setting.
The case initially began in state court, where a judge ruled against Gunnar's argument for exemption. However, when the case moved to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), the district court sided with Gunnar, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim. Clements appealed this decision, leading to the current ruling from the Seventh Circuit.
The Ruling
The Seventh Circuit, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, vacated the district court's dismissal of Clements' complaint. The court found that the district court had made errors in its reasoning regarding the applicability of the health care exemption in BIPA. Judge Easterbrook stated, “Even if Gunnar’s glasses reduce digital eye strain, how does collecting data about facial shapes come within the exclusion in the state statute?”
The ruling emphasized that the data collected by Gunnar was primarily for marketing purposes, not for medical treatment. The court pointed out that the “virtual try on” service was aimed at enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the glasses rather than providing any medical benefit. The opinion noted that “better-appearing glasses are not medical treatment,” highlighting the distinction between aesthetic and medical purposes.
Furthermore, the court raised concerns about whether Gunnar complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which sets strict guidelines for handling health-related data. The court remarked that the complaint did not provide sufficient information to determine if Gunnar followed these regulations. The judges concluded that the case needed further examination, stating, “Discovery and summary-judgment proceedings may be needed to sort this out.”
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for businesses that collect biometric data. It clarifies that companies cannot easily claim exemptions under BIPA by categorizing their data collection as health care-related without clear evidence. The decision reinforces the importance of obtaining user consent before collecting biometric identifiers, which is a critical aspect of BIPA.
Moreover, this case sets a precedent for future disputes involving biometric data collection and privacy laws. Companies must now be more cautious in how they classify their data collection practices, especially when they involve biometric identifiers. The ruling may encourage consumers to be more aware of their privacy rights regarding biometric data and the importance of consent.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Seventh Circuit's opinion. It remains to be seen whether Gunnar Optiks will appeal this decision or if further legal challenges will arise from this case. The outcome could influence similar cases involving biometric data collection across the country.