Seventh Circuit Holds Illinois BIPA's 2024 Damages Amendment Applies Retroactively to Pending Cases

The nation's most consequential biometric privacy statute just got far less expensive to violate retroactively. On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a 2024 amendment limiting damages under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act applies to cases that were already pending when the amendment took effect.

The ruling came in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, No. 25-2185, an opinion that consolidated three separate appeals raising the same question. Chief Judge Brennan wrote for the court.

Information last verified on June 20, 2026.

What the Court Decided

The question before the Seventh Circuit was narrow but high-stakes: does the 2024 BIPA amendment apply retroactively to lawsuits filed before it became law? The court answered yes.

According to the court's opinion, "this amendment applies retroactively because it impacts only the statutory damages available to plaintiffs. It does not change BIPA's substantive standards of liability." The court reversed the contrary rulings of three district courts and remanded the cases.

The practical effect is large. A plaintiff who alleges thousands of biometric scans is now, in the court's words, "entitled to, at most, one recovery under" Section 20, even for conduct that predates the amendment.

How BIPA's Damages Got So Large

To understand the amendment, you have to understand the ruling that prompted it. The Biometric Information Privacy Act, codified at 740 ILCS 14, regulates how private entities collect, store, and disclose biometric identifiers such as fingerprints, face geometry, and voiceprints. You can read a full primer on the statute on our explainer for the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

In Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc., 216 N.E.3d 918 (Ill. 2023), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a separate BIPA claim accrues "with every scan or transmission" of biometric information, not just the first one. Because a fingerprint timeclock can scan an employee thousands of times, that reading multiplied potential liability dramatically.

The Cothron defendant argued class-wide damages in that single case could exceed $17 billion. The Illinois Supreme Court acknowledged the concern about "annihilative liability" but said "policy-based concerns about potentially excessive damage awards under the Act are best addressed by the legislature," and it expressly invited lawmakers to clarify the statute.

What SB 2979 Changed

The Illinois General Assembly accepted that invitation. As the Seventh Circuit recounted, "less than a year and a half after the Cothron decision," the legislature passed Senate Bill 2979, enacted as Public Act 103-0769, 2024 Ill. Laws 6788. It took effect on August 2, 2024, the same day the governor signed it.

The amendment added two clauses to Section 20. The first provides that an entity that collects biometric information "in more than one instance ... from the same person using the same method of collection in violation of subsection (b) of Section 15 has committed a single violation" for which "the aggrieved person is entitled to, at most, one recovery under this Section," now codified at 740 ILCS 14/20(b). The second clause applies the same rule to unlawful disclosures under Section 15(d), at 740 ILCS 14/20(c).

Critically, the legislature did not change the text of Section 15 or the core damages provision in Section 20(a), and it did not include an express retroactivity clause. That silence on retroactivity is exactly what the litigation in Clay was about. Our breakdown of how BIPA damages are calculated walks through the per-violation framework that remains in force.

Why the Court Called the Change Remedial

Illinois retroactivity law turns on whether a statutory change is substantive or procedural. The Seventh Circuit explained that under Illinois precedent, remedial changes are treated as procedural and apply retroactively, while substantive changes that create new rights or liabilities apply only prospectively.

The court found two features made the amendment remedial. First, it changed Section 20, the remedies provision, rather than Section 15, "the one setting substantive standards for liability under the Act." Second, the new text "simply cabined the recovery available against defendants," without altering what conduct counts as a violation.

The court also leaned on the discretionary nature of BIPA damages. Because trial courts have discretion over whether to award statutory damages at all, the amendment "simply changed the statutory award of damages available to plaintiffs, cabining the discretion of trial court judges when they fashion the remedy."

The Cases Behind the Ruling

The opinion consolidated three interlocutory appeals from the Northern District of Illinois. The lead case, Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, was joined by Willis v. Universal Intermodal Services and Gregg v. Central Transport LLC. Each involved workers who alleged their fingerprints or hand geometry were collected without the notice and written consent BIPA requires.

In all three, the district courts had ruled that the 2024 amendment did not reach conduct predating its effective date. The Seventh Circuit held that each "erred by holding otherwise" and reversed.

The court added that on remand the district courts "may need to reevaluate how this holding affects other aspects of these cases, including subject matter jurisdiction," since shrinking the damages at stake can affect federal jurisdiction in class litigation. For broader context on biometric rules beyond Illinois, see our overview of biometric privacy laws across the states.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following analysis reflects the views of the Recording Law Editorial Team.

Clay closes a loop that began with Cothron. The Illinois Supreme Court read Section 15 literally, warned about ruinous damages, and handed the problem to the legislature. The legislature responded with SB 2979, and the open question was always whether that fix would reach the enormous backlog of cases filed during the per-scan era. The Seventh Circuit has now answered that question in defendants' favor for federal courts within its jurisdiction.

The reasoning is as important as the result. By framing the amendment as a remedial, procedural change rather than a rewrite of liability, the court avoided the harder constitutional and separation-of-powers arguments plaintiffs raised. It also rejected the argument that the legislature overturned Cothron, noting that Cothron interpreted Section 15 while the amendment changed only Section 20. That distinction lets the court honor the accrual rule and the damages cap at the same time.

The stakes for ongoing litigation are hard to overstate. Plaintiffs who once leveraged the threat of per-scan, billion-dollar exposure to force settlements now face a ceiling of a single recovery per person, per method, per violation type. That is a structural shift in negotiating power, though the underlying $1,000 and $5,000 per-violation figures and the availability of attorney fees mean BIPA remains a serious compliance obligation, not a dead letter.

Readers should remember that this is the view of one federal appeals court applying its prediction of Illinois law. Illinois state courts are not bound by it, and the contours of "same method of collection" will be litigated for years. Anyone facing or considering a BIPA claim should consult a licensed Illinois attorney rather than treat this article as legal advice.