Rosenbach v. Six Flags — Illinois Supreme Court Foundational BIPA Standing Decision
IL · Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197
The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in January 2019 that a BIPA plaintiff does not need to plead actual injury to be 'aggrieved' under the statute — a violation of BIPA's notice/consent requirements is itself the injury. This made BIPA the most consequential biometric-privacy statute in the U.S. and triggered a wave of AI-faceprint, voiceprint, and fingerprint litigation.
Technical detail
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019). Holding: 'aggrieved' under 740 ILCS 14/20 does not require allegation of actual injury; a violation of BIPA § 15 by itself confers private right of action.
Who is protected: Illinois residents subject to biometric data collection without statutory consent
Who must comply: Private entities collecting biometric identifiers in Illinois
Key facts
| Jurisdiction | IL |
|---|---|
| Level | State |
| Status | In effect |
| Protection strength | Stronger protection |
| Effective date | 2019-01-25 |
| Citation | Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entm't Corp., 2019 IL 123186, 129 N.E.3d 1197 |
| Topics | biometric data · consumer data privacy |
| Last verified | 2026-06-17 |
| Official source | Rosenbach v. Six Flags — Illinois Supreme Court opinion ↗ |
More AI rules in IL
- IL DOI AI Bulletin · In effect
- IL EO 2024-01 · In effect
- IL AI Video Interview Act (2019, first-in-nation) · In effect
- IL BIPA (2008, first-in-nation biometric law) · In effect
- IL Digital Voice/Likeness Act · In effect
- IL WOPR (AI therapy ban) · In effect
Related biometric data rules elsewhere
- COPPA + 2025 Rule (childrens data) · In effect
- BIPA · In effect
- TRAIGA · In effect
- My Health My Data Act · In effect
- SF Facial Recognition Ban · In effect
- Boston Face Surveillance Ban · In effect
See something wrong or out of date? Submit a correction — every entry must carry a verifiable official source.