FOLLOW US

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that Travelers insurance units are not required to cover software provider Ackercamps.com LLC in its nearly $3 million class action settlement over alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

U.S. District Judge David Dugan granted summary judgment Tuesday to Travelers, citing two recent Seventh Circuit decisions that confirmed exclusions for the “access or disclosure” of personal information apply squarely to biometric data claims, including facial recognition identifiers.

“The exclusion language here is nearly identical to those cases, and it clearly encompasses claims tied to facial geometry,” Judge Dugan wrote.

How Ackercamps Got Pulled Into the Privacy Storm

The coverage dispute stemmed from an underlying 2022 lawsuit filed by Lynae Vahle, individually and as guardian for a minor identified as K.V. The case alleged Ackercamps violated BIPA by using its “Bunk 1” camp software, powered by Amazon’s facial recognition, to capture and distribute children’s images without proper consent.

According to filings, the software automatically sent parents photos of camp activities featuring their children. Roughly 12,000 class members claimed their biometrics were collected and shared without permission. Ackercamps agreed in September 2023 to a $2.9 million settlement fund without admitting liability.

Why Travelers Walked Away From the Claim

Travelers launched the coverage litigation a month later, arguing exclusions in Ackercamps’ policies barred coverage. The ruling confirmed Travelers’ stance, finding the BIPA-related claims were unambiguously excluded as involving personal identifiers.

Judge Dugan pointed to two controlling appellate cases: Thermoflex Waukegan LLC v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance USA Inc. (2024), which held that “confidential or personal information” includes biometric identifiers, and Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. Mullins Food Products Inc., which ruled that exclusions apply to BIPA claims.

“The underlying Vahle suit specifically alleged biometrics—facial geometry—were captured and used. That is enough to trigger the exclusion,” the court concluded.

Ackercamps’ Illusory Coverage Argument Fails

Ackercamps argued its insurance policies explicitly covered “photographs or likeness,” making the exclusions contradictory and coverage illusory. Judge Dugan rejected that reasoning, stating that the provisions relate strictly to publications of images, not biometric capture.

“Ackercamps does not point to any allegation … that suggests the claims were based on publication, whether to one person or many,” he ruled, finding no potential coverage existed from the start.

As a result, Travelers cannot be estopped from asserting its defenses.