Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
Bonilla v. Ancestry.Com Operations, Inc. et al
Case Number:
1:20-cv-07390
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Multi Party Litigation:
Class Action
Judge:
Firms
- Clifford Law Offices
- King & Spalding
- Law Office of Benjamin R. Osborn
- Quinn Emanuel
- Strauss Borrelli
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
January 30, 2025
Ancestry.com Beats Proposed Privacy Class Action, Again
An Illinois federal judge granted summary judgment Wednesday to Ancestry.com in a proposed class action accusing the online company of stealing yearbook photos and identities to advertise its services without consent, finding no evidence that the information was publicly used or displayed.
-
May 24, 2023
Ancestry.com Avoids BIPA Time Limit In Publicity Suit
An Illinois federal judge has refused to revive claims that Ancestry.com unlawfully used Illinois residents' names and photos in its advertising, rejecting their contention that recent precedent giving state biometric privacy claims a five-year time limit should apply to their case as well.
-
February 24, 2023
Privacy Claims Should Get BIPA's Time Limit, Judge Told
Illinois residents accusing Ancestry.com of unlawfully using their names and likenesses in subscription advertising argued Friday that recent precedent giving state biometric privacy claims a five-year time limit warrants a federal judge's reconsideration of whether their now-tossed claims had only a one-year limit.