An arbitration agreement signed by a rental car customer does not apply to a company that collected his biometric data, a federal district court ruled.
Domen i Johsua Johnson et al. v. Mitek Systems Inc. involved a suspected class action lawsuit that violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Joshua Johnson registered with the car rental company HyreCar Inc., a customer of the company Mitek Systems Inc. for biometric verification services, according to a ruling by the US District Court in Chicago on Wednesday.
After registering on the HyreCars app with his email address, Mr. was redirected. Johnson to a page where he had to upload his driver’s license and photograph, according to the verdict. San Diego-based Mitek used its face recognition technology to verify its age and identity.
Mr. Johnson signed an arbitration agreement with Los Angeles-based HyreCar when he rented his car, according to which he agreed to mediate all disagreements with the car rental company.
After Mr Johnson filed a presumed class action lawsuit in the district court, accusing HyreCar of violating BIPA, which limits the collection of biometric information, Mitek filed a motion to enforce arbitration based on the arbitration agreement.
The court rejected the motion. According to Mitek, it is a beneficiary of the arbitration agreement because it “receives money from HyreCar to perform services necessary for the contractual relationship”; between HyreCar and its customers, it is stated in the judgment.
“The court is not convinced,” the decision said. If HyreCar ”intended Mitek to be part of the parties to which the arbitration clause applies, it could easily have expressed it. It did not, ”the court said when it rejected Mitek’s claim.
Lawyers in the case had no comments or did not respond to a request for comment.
Last week, another U.S. district court in Chicago ruled that a plaintiff could continue with his alleged class action lawsuit against another facial recognition software company that he alleged violated BIPA.