Client Alerts & Insights
IRPA Claims – A Troubling New Trend?
May 13, 2021
Authored By:
In recent weeks, a number of new class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting novel claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (“IRPA”), 765 ILCS 1075/1 et seq.
What is IRPA?
IRPA was enacted in 1999, replacing the prior common law right of publicity in Illinois. The main thrust of the statute is that a business may not use an individual’s “identity” for “commercial purposes” without prior written consent. “Identity” is defined broadly as “any attribute of an individual that serves to identify that individual to an ordinary, reasonable viewer or listener,” which can include a person’s name, signature, image, voice, or other identifying information. “Commercial purpose” is likewise defined broadly as “the public use or holding out of an individual’s identity (i) on or in connection with the offering for sale or sale of a product, merchandise, goods, or services; (ii) for purposes of advertising or promoting products, merchandise, goods, or services; or (iii) for the purpose of fundraising.” IRPA marked a departure from the prior common law right of publicity, which required that the plaintiff’s identity had commercial or intrinsic value. IRPA expressly provides plaintiffs a private right of action and does not require plaintiffs to prove any actual damages. Plaintiffs may obtain the greater of actual damages plus profits derived from an unauthorized use or $1000, as well as attorney fees, costs, and expenses. In other words, if a business uses anyone’s identity to sell a product or service without written consent, it violates IRPA regardless of any actual harm to the plaintiff.
What are the new cases about?
The new IRPA class actions target companies that sell access to online directories or databases – for example, websites that allow users to obtain background checks by searching for a person’s name. A search may yield the person’s name plus some additional information like location or links to social media accounts so that the user can tell that they have the right person. But to see the full report, the user must either pay a fee or buy a subscription to the website. Plaintiffs’ theory is that this – the offer to see more in exchange for payment – is an advertisement using an individual’s identity without written consent and thus violates IRPA.
How can this violate Illinois law?
It is not clear that it does. These cases are an effort to expand the scope of IRPA, similar to the expansive way that Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) has been used. Some of the new IRPA class actions were filed by a firm that was very active in BIPA litigation, including the $650 million Facebook BIPA settlement. Unfortunately, there are some striking similarities between IRPA and BIPA:
- Both provide a private right of action
- Both allow plaintiffs to recover $1000 even in the absence of actual damages
- Both allow successful plaintiffs to recover attorney fees.
- Both allow damages to be recovered without any proof of harm or damage to the plaintiff
Under both IRPA and BIPA, all a plaintiff needs to do to recover is prove a violation of the statute – there is no requirement to show malice, intent to harm, or even any harm at all. Given the striking resemblance to BIPA, IRPA is a new pathway for seemingly innocuous, everyday activity to subject companies to potential class action liability. Many companies – indeed, many industries – did not anticipate that the use of fingerprint-based timeclock systems would result in a flood of lawsuits and significant class action liability under BIPA. While IRPA does not yet have the reach and impact of BIPA, IRPA is another under-the-radar statute that could result in significant and unexpected exposure.
What will happen next?
All of these class actions are in the early stages. Benesch attorneys are closely monitoring developments. Meanwhile, clients are encouraged to review their marketing practices for potential IRPA concerns. The Benesch team stands ready to assist with compliance concerns or other questions about IRPA.
For more information, contact Craig Sanders at csanders@beneschlaw.com or 312.624.6332.
Latest News
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.
Key Considerations for Businesses facing Defamation Issues: Strategies for Protecting Your Reputation and Brand
Defamation risk for businesses has never been higher. Even five years ago, unfavorable press could be expected to fade from …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court Offers Further Direction on Default Interest and Fee Recovery
The SDNY Bankruptcy Court’s written decision in 1300 Desert Willow builds on the framework established in Mako, providing additional guidance on when a debtor can overcome the presumption that an oversecured creditor is entitled to post-petition default interest at the contractual rate.