AWS Says It ‘Contractually’ Requires Customers to Comply With BIPA
Plaintiff Cynthia Redd seeks to hold Amazon Web Services liable under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “merely because she interacted with Wonolo, a non-party who happens to use AWS’s cloud-based services to provide its own services,” said AWS’s reply…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Friday (docket 1:22-cv-06779) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois to Redd’s opposition to AWS’s motion to dismiss her claims. Redd also seeks an order remanding her BIPA class action to Cook County Circuit Court, where it originated before AWS removed it Dec. 2 (see 2302130041). “No court has ever endorsed such a sweeping interpretation of BIPA, and it has no basis in BIPA’s text or purpose,” said the AWS reply. “Redd’s novel attempt to hold AWS liable for providing back-end cloud services to a third party suffers from three fatal legal flaws, none of which her opposition brief can explain away,” it said. AWS says Redd didn’t allege facts or cite evidence showing AWS is subject to this court’s “personal jurisdiction,” it said. She also doesn’t “adequately allege the basic elements of her claims,” it said. Even if AWS is subject to BIPA in the context of Redd’s claims -- it’s not -- AWS “fulfilled any duties it may have under the law by contractually requiring its customers, including Wonolo, to comply with BIPA’s requirements,” it said.