February 02, 2023

Illinois Supreme Court Eliminates Possibility of One-Year Statute of Limitations for BIPA Claims

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled out the possibility of a one-year statute of limitations for claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Tims v. Blackhorse Carriers, Inc., No. 127801 (Feb. 2, 2023).

In answer to the certified question of whether the limitations period under section 13-201 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure for claims involving "actions for slander, libel or for publication of matter involving the right of privacy" or the five year "catchall" limitations period for personal actions codified in section 13-205 of the Code governs claims under BIPA, the Court found that, because the statute does not have its own limitations period, the "catchall" five-year statute of limitations period must apply.


On January 26, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal the ruling from the Illinois Appellate Court for the First Judicial District that claims brought under sections 15(a), (b), and (e) of BIPA are subject to a five-year limitations period.

As the Illinois Supreme Court articulated in Tims, those sections of BIPA regulate the "establishment, maintenance, and adherence to a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying collected biometric information" (section 15(a)), require "entities to provide notice and obtain written consent before collecting or storing biometric information" (section 15(b)), and regulate "the proper storage and protection of collected biometric information" (section 15(e)).

The First District held that BIPA claims brought under sections 15(c) and (d) of the BIPA are subject to a one-year statute of limitations because publication is "clearly an element" of those claims. Section 15(c) of BIPA prohibits the sale, lease, trade, or profit from a biometric identifier or biometric information. Section 15(d) prohibits the disclosure, redisclosure, or dissemination of a biometric identifier or biometric information without consent.

Illinois Supreme Court Decision

In its ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court opined that the one-year limitations period applicable to "actions for slander, libel or for publication matter violating the right of privacy," codified in section 13-201 of the Code, does not apply to BIPA claims.

The Court acknowledged "an argument can be made" (as the Illinois Appellate Court for the First Judicial District had found) that claims arising under sections 15(c) and 15(d) of BIPA — which govern the sale, lease, trade, disclosure, redisclosure, and dissemination of biometric information — could be interpreted as "involving publication" and, therefore, fall within the purview of the one-year limitations period in section 13-201 of the Code. However, the clarity of having just one limitations period and accomplishing what the Court said was the Illinois General Assembly's public policy goals in enacting BIPA (as expressed in the text of the statute) led the Court to apply a single, uniform limitations period with respect to claims arising under all subsections of BIPA.

Therefore, the Court found that the longer, catchall, five-year limitations period should be applied to all BIPA claims to "ensur[e] certainty and predictability."


In Tims, the Illinois Supreme Court was not asked, nor did it decide, the issue of when a claim under the BIPA accrues. However, on December 20, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Illinois) certified the question of when claims under sections 15(b) and 15(d) of BIPA accrue to the Illinois Supreme Court in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. The Illinois Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will issue its ruling in Cothron.

The impact of the Tims decision, and eventually Cothron, will need to be assessed in pending and new BIPA cases. Jackson Lewis attorneys will monitor and report developments in the case. If you have questions or need assistance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work or a member of the Biometrics Group.

©2023 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

Labor Department Releases New Guidance on Agency Enforcement of PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

By Patricia Anderson Pryor Jackson Lewis P.C. May 19 , 2023

The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has published guidance for agency officials responsible for enforcing the “pump at work” provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including those enacted under the 2022 Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act).

EEOC Classwide Subpoena Based on Individual Allegations Too Broad, Federal Appeals Court Rules

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. May 17 , 2023

Denying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) request to enforce a subpoena that would have expanded the agency’s investigation on a classwide basis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held the EEOC did not have the authority to expand the investigation beyond the individual allegations in the charge.

More From Litigation

The New York Court of Appeals: A Triumph of Merit Selection

By Henry M. Greenberg Greenberg Traurig May 25 , 2023

The current court is a triumph of the merit selection process that New Yorkers voted for in 1977.

Guilty! Criminal Convictions In The First Ever NFT And Cryptocurrency Insider Trading Cases

By Kimberly L. Barcella Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti May 25 , 2023

Last year, we discussed the NFT-related criminal charges filed against Nathaniel Chastain, OpenSea’s former product manager.

Attorney Fees Awards Under the Clean Streams Law

By David Mandelbaum Greenberg Traurig May 24 , 2023

In February, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that the Environmental Hearing Board could award attorney fees and litigation costs to a prevailing third-party appellant under the Clean Streams Law.

Featured Stories