FOLLOW US

A federal judge in Illinois has granted final approval to Clearview AI’s contentious $51.75 million settlement, bringing an end to years of litigation over its biometric data collection practices. The ruling, delivered by U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, dismissed fierce objections from 22 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia, who argued that the deal offered insufficient relief to those affected by the company’s controversial facial recognition technology.

A High-Stakes Legal Battle Over Digital Privacy

The lawsuit, spanning five years, challenged Clearview AI’s practice of scraping facial images from the internet without consent, amassing a vast biometric database. The final settlement encompasses up to 125,000 individuals, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over privacy rights in the digital age.

Despite pushback from multiple states, Judge Coleman deemed the deal “fair, reasonable, and adequate”, asserting that Clearview’s violations fell primarily under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) rather than a broad federal framework.

"Even if plaintiffs succeeded in their BIPA claim, the statute does not expressly intend to operate extraterritorially," she ruled, stating that nationwide or state-specific injunctive relief would likely be unenforceable.

The Settlement: A Stake in the Company, Not Just Cash

The deal includes an unconventional payout structure, granting the affected class a 23% ownership stake in Clearview AI, based on the company's September 2023 valuation. If Clearview goes public or is acquired, that stake could yield approximately $52 million. Alternatively, the class members may opt to receive 17% of the company’s revenue through 2027.

Critics, including the attorneys general, have questioned the uncertainty of financial compensation, arguing there is no concrete evidence that Clearview is on the verge of an IPO or acquisition.

Meanwhile, class counsel defended the agreement, arguing that Clearview lacks the cash reserves to pay a lump sum settlement. One attorney emphasized that this structure allows victims to reclaim some control over their biometric data—an innovative yet controversial remedy.

Attorney Fees and Class Objections

A 39% attorney fee award—totaling roughly $20 million—was another point of contention. The objecting states called it excessive, but Judge Coleman disagreed, citing precedent in the Seventh Circuit that commonly awards fees above 30% in complex class actions.

Beyond legal fees, objections also surfaced over class notification methods. Some argued that digital advertising and a dedicated settlement website were insufficient, but Judge Coleman pushed back.

"To accept the contention that it is impossible to provide meaningful notice to nationwide classes would be to foreclose class action as a method of litigation despite the increasing interconnection of our digital society," she wrote.