Preview
Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled
Location: <>
FILED
Judge: Calendar, 8 10/23/2023 12:20 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 2023CH08949
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION Calendar, 8
24898169
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
REGINALD DUCKSWORTH )
individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
) Case No. 2023CH08949
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
RADARIS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801, Plaintiff Reginald Ducksworth (“Plaintiff”), respectfully
moves the Court to enter an Order certifying the Class proposed below, appointing Plaintiff as
Class Representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel. Alternatively, to the
extent the Court determines further evidence is necessary to prove any element of 735 ILCS 5/2-
801, Plaintiff requests that the Court defer consideration of this Motion pending a reasonable
period to complete discovery. See, e.g., Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll’s Pharmacy &
Homecare, Inc., 2015 IL 118644, ¶¶ 42-43 (citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896-97 (7th Cir. 2011)). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This Court should certify a class of Illinois residents whose identities were used by
Defendant Radaris, LLC (“Radaris”) to market paid subscriptions to its background check service
without first obtaining their written consent. In so doing, Radaris violated the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act (“IRPA”), which safeguards the intellectual property and privacy rights of Illinois
residents in controlling the use of their names, voices, photographs, images, and personas for
commercial purposes.
After Plaintiff learned of this wrongful conduct, he commenced suit on behalf of a class of
202180
similarly-situated individuals in order to bring an end to Radaris’s unauthorized commercial
exploitation of his identity, and to obtain redress for all similarly-situated persons injured by
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
Radaris’s conduct.
THE ILLINOIS RIGHT OF PUBLICITY ACT
Illinois law recognizes that everyone has the “right to control and choose whether and how
[his or her] identity [is used] for commercial purposes ….” 765 ILCS 1076/10; Compl., ¶ 12.
To that end, the Illinois Legislature enacted the IRPA in 1999, which expressly prohibits
one from using “an individual’s identity for commercial purposes during the individual’s lifetime
without having obtained previous written consent from the appropriate person ….” 765 ILCS
1075/30; Compl., ¶ 13. This broad prohibition protects Illinois residents from the unauthorized
use of any of their attributes, including, but not limited to, their names, signatures, likenesses, or
voices in the sale or advertisement of goods, merchandise, products, and services. See 765 ILCS
1075/5; Compl., ¶ 14.
To give the law teeth, the IRPA provides that any person who violates its requirements
may be liable for the greater of: (a) actual damages; or (2) $1,000 in statutory damages per
violation. See 765 ILCS 1075/40; Compl., ¶ 15.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Radaris’s Underlying Misconduct
Radaris owns and operates a website through which the general public can obtain unlimited
background reports on people in exchange for a monthly fee. Compl., ¶ 16.
Upon accessing Radaris.com, visitors are encouraged to perform a “fast people search” on
a particular individual via a search bar on the home page. Id., ¶ 17. After entering an individual’s
-2-
202180
name in the search bar, the visitor is provided with a list of search results, all of which correspond
to an actual person Radaris located in its database. Id., ¶ 18.
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
Upon clicking on the desired search result, the visitor is taken to a marketing page
("Marketing Page") that provides a “free preview” of a background report on the searched
individual, which includes that individual’s full name (including middle initial, if applicable), as
well as his or her age, relatives, and current and former cities and states of residence. This “free
preview” provides enough information to identify the individual. Id., ¶ 19.
Clicking on “unlock report” takes the visitor to Radaris’s payment portal, which presents
the visitor with the option to purchase a monthly subscription to the website, whereby he or she
can access and obtain unlimited background reports on anyone in Radaris’s database. Id., ¶ 20.
-3-
202180
Thus, the “free preview” shown on the Marketing Page is designed to entice visitors to purchase a
paid monthly subscription to Radaris’s background report service. Id., ¶ 21.
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
Significantly, Radaris does not obtain written consent from Illinois residents (or anyone
else, for that matter) before using their names and other personally-identifiable information to
market its monthly subscription service. Id., ¶ 22.
Plaintiff is one such individual. Plaintiff is an Illinois resident who, in 2023, discovered
Radaris was using his identity to solicit the purchase of paid subscriptions to Radaris.com. Id., ¶¶
10, 23. As shown on the Marketing Page set forth above, Radaris specifically identified Plaintiff
by his first and last name, along with his age, known relatives, and current and former cities and
states of residence. Id., ¶ 24.
It is reasonable that others could identify Plaintiff based on this information, as the
Marketing Page contains accurate details about Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 25. Indeed, Plaintiff can confirm
he is the individual identified by Radaris in the Marketing Page shown above. Id.
At no point did Plaintiff provide Radaris with consent (written or otherwise) to use any
attribute of his identity to advertise paid subscriptions to Radaris.com, or for any other commercial
purposes. Id., ¶ 26. Plaintiff is not, and has never been, a Radaris customer. Id., ¶ 27. He has never
subscribed to Radaris.com or had a relationship of any kind with Radaris. Id. Radaris has never
compensated Plaintiff in any way for the use of his identity. Id., ¶ 28.
B. The Proposed Class
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly-situated individuals pursuant
to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (“Section 2-801”). Plaintiff seeks to
represent a Class defined as follows:
All Illinois residents whose identities were displayed on Radaris’s Marketing Page
within one year of the filing of the complaint.
-4-
202180
Compl. ¶ 29. As explained below, the proposed Class satisfies each of the four requirements for
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
certification under Section 2-801: numerosity; commonality; adequacy of representation; and fair
and efficient adjudication. Here, a class action is not only appropriate, but it is the only way that
the members of the putative Class can effectively redress Radaris’s ongoing unlawful conduct.
ARGUMENT
A. Legal Standard for Class Certification
To obtain class certification, a plaintiff does not need to establish that she will prevail on
the merits of the action. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (“[T]he question
is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits,
but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). In determining whether to certify a proposed class, the Court should accept the
allegations of the complaint as true. Ramirez v. Midway Moving & Storage, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d
51, 53 (1st Dist. 2007).
To proceed with a class action, the movant must satisfy the “prerequisites for the
maintenance of a class action” set forth in Section 2-801:
An action may be maintained as a class action in any court of this State and a party
may sue or be sued as a representative party of the class only if the court finds:
(1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.
(2) There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which
common questions predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members.
(3) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interest of the class.
(4) The class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy.
-5-
202180
735 ILCS 5/2-801. As demonstrated below, each prerequisite for the maintenance of a class action
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
is met, and the Court should therefore certify the proposed Class.
Section 2-801 is modeled after Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus,
“federal decisions interpreting Rule 23 are persuasive authority with regard to questions of class
certification in Illinois.” Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 125 (Ill. 2005).
Circuit courts have broad discretion in determining whether a proposed class meets the
requirements for class certification and ought to err in favor of allowing class certification.
Ramirez, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 53. While a court may rule on class certification without requiring
discovery, see Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.14, at 255 (2004), courts have found
that discovery is helpful prior to addressing a motion for class certification, see, e.g., Ballard RN
Center, 2015 IL 118644 at ¶ 42 (“If the parties have yet to fully develop the facts needed for
certification, then they can also ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for
additional discovery or investigation.”) (quoting Damasco, 662 F.3d at 896).
Here, all the prerequisites to class certification are satisfied, even though Plaintiff has not
yet had an opportunity to engage in or complete discovery. In the interests of establishing a more
fully developed record before ruling on class certification issues, however, the Court should enter
and continue this Motion pending completion of discovery and supplemental briefing.
B. The Numerosity Requirement is Satisfied
The first step in certifying a class is a showing that “the class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(1). This requirement is met when “join[ing]
such a large number of plaintiffs in a single suit would render the suit unmanageable and . . .
multiple separate claims would be an imposition on the litigants and the courts.” Gordon v. Boden,
224 Ill. App. 3d 195, 200 (1st Dist. 1991) (citing Steinberg v. Chicago Med. Sch., 69 Ill.2d 320,
-6-
202180
337 (Ill. 1977)). To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff need not demonstrate the exact number of
class members, but must offer a good faith estimate as to the size of the class. Smith v. Nike Retail
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
Servs., Inc., 234 F.R.D. 648, 659 (N.D. Ill. 2006).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of the
Class. Compl. ¶ 3. Thus, it is clear there are well more than 40 Illinois residents who meet the class
definition. Because definitive evidence of numerosity can only come from the records of Samsung
and its agents, it is proper to rely upon the allegations of the Complaint in certifying the Class. See
2 A. Conte & H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 7.20, at 66 (explaining where numerosity
information is in sole possession of party opposing class certification, courts generally rely on the
complaint as prima facie evidence or defer ruling).1
It would be completely impracticable to join the claims of the members of a Class that
large, especially because they are disbursed throughout Illinois, and without a class action, few
Class members could afford to bring an individual lawsuit over the amount at issue in this case
since the value of each individual class member’s claim is relatively small. See Gordon, 224 Ill.
App. 3d at 200. Accordingly, the first prerequisite for class certification is met.
C. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate
The second requirement of Section 2-801(2) is met where there are “questions of fact or
law common to the class” and those questions “predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(2). Such common questions of law or fact exist when the
members of the proposed class have been aggrieved by the same or similar misconduct. See Miner
v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill.2d 7, 19 (Ill. 1981); Steinberg, 69 Ill.2d at 342. These common questions
must also predominate over any issues affecting individual class members. See O-Kay Shoes, Inc.
1 The members of the Class can be easily and objectively determined from Samsung’s records.
-7-
202180
v. Rosewell, 129 Ill. App. 3d 405, 408 (1st Dist. 1984).
Here, the claims of the Class members arise out of the same activity by Radaris, are based
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
on the same legal theory, and implicate the following common issues, among others: (a) whether
Radaris used Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ names and identities for a commercial purpose;
(b) whether Plaintiff and the other Class members consented, in writing, to Radaris’s use of their
names and identities in advertisements promoting its paid subscription service; (c) whether
Radaris’s alleged conduct violates the IRPA; and (d) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled
to injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief as a result of Radaris’s alleged conduct. Compl., ¶
32.
As alleged, and as will be shown through evidence obtained in discovery, Radaris engaged
in a common course of conduct by commercially exploiting the identities of Class members
without first obtaining their written consent. Any potential individualized issues remaining after
those common issues are decided would be de minimis. Accordingly, common issues of fact and
law predominate over any individual issues, and Plaintiff has satisfied this requirement for class
certification.
D. The Adequate Representation Requirement is Satisfied
The third prong of Section 2-801 requires that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interest of the class.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(3). The class representative’s
interests must be generally aligned with those of the class members, and class counsel must be
“qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” See Miner, 87 Ill.
2d at 14; see also Eshaghi v. Hanley Dawson Cadillac Co., Inc., 214 Ill. App. 3d 995, 1000 (1st
Dist. 1991). The purpose of this adequacy of representation requirement is “to insure that all Class
members will receive proper, efficient, and appropriate protection of their interests in the
-8-
202180
presentation of the claim.” Purcell & Wardrope Chtd. v. Hertz Corp., 175 Ill. App. 3d 1069, 1078
(1st Dist. 1988).
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
In this case, Plaintiff has the exact same interests as the members of the proposed Class.
Like the other members of the Class, Radaris used Plaintiff’s identity to market paid subscriptions
to its website. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6, 23-24. Plaintiff further alleges that Radaris did so without first
obtaining his written consent, in violation of the IRPA’s requirements. Id. ¶¶ 7, 26-27. Plaintiff’s
pursuit of this matter against Radaris demonstrates that he will be a zealous advocate for the Class.
Further, Plaintiff has retained and is represented by qualified and competent counsel who
are highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation. See Declaration of Keith J.
Keogh, ¶¶ 4-44, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; see also Fish Potter Bolaños PC Firm Resume,
attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting
this class action. See id.; Compl., ¶ 37. Moreover, Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately
represent and protect the interests of such a Class. Id. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any
interest adverse to, or in conflict with, the interests of the absent Class members. Plaintiff has
asserted viable statutory claims of the type reasonably expected to be raised by members of the
Class, and they will vigorously pursue those claims. Accordingly, the proposed class
representatives and proposed class counsel will adequately protect the interests of the members of
the Classes, thus satisfying Section 2-801(3).
E. Class Certification Will Ensure Fair and Efficient Adjudication of the Controversy
The final requirement for class certification under 5/2-801 is met where “the class action
is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” 735 ILCS 5/2-
801(4). “In applying this prerequisite, a court considers whether a class action: (1) can best secure
the economies of time, effort and expense, and promote uniformity; or (2) accomplish the other
-9-
202180
ends of equity and justice that class actions seek to obtain.” Gordon, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 203. In
practice, a “holding that the first three prerequisites of section 2-801 are established makes it
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
evident that the fourth requirement is fulfilled.” Id. at 204; Purcell & Wardrope Chtd., 175 Ill.
App. 3d at 1079 (“The predominance of common issues [may] make a class action . . . a fair and
efficient method to resolve the dispute.”). Here, because numerosity, commonality/predominance,
and adequacy of representation have all been satisfied, it is “evident” that the appropriateness
requirement is met as well.
Additional considerations further support certification in this case. A “controlling factor
in many cases is that the class action is the only practical means for class members to receive
redress.” Gordon, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 203-04; Eshaghi, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 1004 (“In a large and
impersonal society, class actions are often the last barricade of . . . protection.”). A class action is
superior to multiple individual actions “where the costs of litigation are high, the likely recovery
is limited,” and individuals are unlikely to prosecute individual claims absent the cost-sharing
efficiencies of a class action. Maxwell v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 03 C 1995, 2004 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5462, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2004). This is especially true in cases involving data
privacy violations and data breaches, which can involve significant injury to those affected but
result in many small, individual claims. Here, absent a class action, most members of the Class
would find the cost of litigating their statutorily-limited claims to be prohibitive, and multiple
individual actions would be judicially inefficient. See id.
A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is inefficient and
impracticable. Compl., ¶ 37. Even if every member of the Class could afford to pursue individual
litigation, the court system could not. Id. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which
- 10 -
202180
individual litigation of numerous cases would proceed. Individualized litigation would also create
the potential for varying, inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would magnify the delay
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual
issues. Id. By contrast, the maintenance of this action as a class action, with respect to some or
all of the issues presented herein, presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources
of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class. Id.
Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action, and class-wide
relief is essential to compliance with the IRPA. Id.
In addition, certification of the proposed Class is necessary to ensure that Radaris’s conduct
becomes compliant with IRPA, to ensure that the Class members’ intellectual property and privacy
rights in controlling the commercial use of their identities are adequately protected, and to
compensate those individuals who have had and continue to have their statutorily-protected rights
violated by Radaris. Were this case not to proceed on a class-wide basis, it is unlikely that any
significant number of Class members would be able to obtain redress or that Samsung would
willingly implement the procedures necessary to comply with the IRPA. Thus, proceeding as a
class action here is an appropriate method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order: (A) granting
this Motion; (B) certifying the proposed Class; (C) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative;
(D) appointing Keogh Law, Ltd. and Fish Potter Bolaños PC as Class Counsel; and (E) awarding
Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. In the alternative, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling on this Motion pending completion of appropriate
discovery and supplemental briefing.
- 11 -
202180
Dated: October 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
REGINALD DUCKSWORTH, individually and on
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
behalf of all others similarly situated,
By: /s/ Gregg M. Barbakoff
Keith J. Keogh
Gregg M. Barbakoff
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
Firm No. 39042
55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
keith@keoghlaw.com
gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com
David Fish
Mara Baltabols
FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS PC
Firm No. 23522
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Tel. (312) 861-1800
dfish@fishlawfirm.com
mara@fishlawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class
202180
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
EXHIBIT 1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
REGINALD DUCKSWORTH )
individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated, )
) Case No. 2023CH08949
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
RADARIS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
DECLARATION OF KEITH J. KEOGH
I, Keith J. Keogh, declare under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true:
1. I am over the age of eighteen and am fully competent to make this declaration. This
declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the matters stated
herein, I could and would do so competently.
2. Keogh Law, Ltd. consists of six attorneys and focuses on consumer protection class
actions. I am a shareholder of the firm and member of the bars of the United States Supreme Court,
Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, Eastern
District of Wisconsin, Northern District of Illinois, Central District of Illinois, Southern District
of Indiana, District of Colorado, Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, the
Illinois State Bar, and the Florida State Bar, as well as several bar associations and the National
Association of Consumer Advocates.
3. In 2015, the National Association of Consumer Advocates honored me as the
Consumer Attorney of the Year for my work in courts and with the FCC insuring the safeguards
of the TCPA were maintained.
4. As shown below, my firm has regularly engaged in major complex litigation and
consumer class actions involving statutory privacy claims. My firm has the resources necessary to
Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 1
202355
conduct litigation of this nature, and has experience prosecuting class actions of similar size, scope,
and complexity to the instant case. Additionally, I have often served as class counsel in similar
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
actions.
5. For instance, my firm was recently appointed as class counsel in five class actions
arising under a similar data privacy statute (i.e. the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act) —
Heidelberg v. Forman Mills Inc., 2020 CH 04079 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Marquez v. Bobak
Sausage Co., 2020 CH 04259 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Bayeg v. The Admiral at the Lake, 2019 CH
08828 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Quarles v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., 20-cv-7179, ECF No. 46 (N.D.
Ill. Jan 18, 2022); and Sherman v. Brandt Industries USA Ltd., 20-cv-1185, ECF No. 78 (C.D. Ill.
March 22, 2022). My firm has also litigated dozens of other putative class actions arising under
BIPA, including Hanlon ex rel. G.T. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 1:21-cv-04976 (N.D. Ill.);
Svoboda v. Frames for America, Inc., 1:21-cv-05509 (N.D. Ill.); Steinberg v. Charles Indus.,
L.L.C., 2021 CH 01793 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Ortega v. The Expediting Co., Inc., 2021 CH 00969
(Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Fells v. Carl Buddig & Co., 2021 CH 00508 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Mathews
v. Brightstar US, LLC, 2021 CH 00167 (Cir. Ct. Lake Cnty.); Roberts v. Graphic Packaging Int’l,
LLC, 3:21-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill.); Willem v. Karpinske Enters., L.L.C., 2021 CH 00031 (Cir. Ct. Jo
Daviess Cnty., Ill.); Shafer v. Rodebrad Mgmt. Co., Inc., 2021 CH 00008 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery
Cnty., Ill.); Roberts v. TDS Servs., Inc., 2021 CH 00005 (Cir. Ct. Washington Cnty., Ill.); Jenkins
v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 1:20-cv-03782 (N.D. Ill.); Turner v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 1:20-cv-
03026 (N.D. Ill.); McFerren, et al. v. World Class Distribution, Inc., 1:20-cv-02912 (N.D. Ill.);
Stein v. Clarifai, Inc., 1:20-cv-01937 (N.D. Ill.); Barton v. Swan Surfaces, LLC, 3:20-cv-00499-
SPM (S.D. Ill.); Wells v. Medieval Times U.S.A., Inc., 2020 CH 06658 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Young
v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 2020 CH 04303 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Isychko v. Jidd Motors, Inc., 2020
CH 04244 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Heidelberg v. Forman Mills Inc., 2020 CH 04079 (Cir. Ct. Cook
Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 2
202355
Cnty.); Hirmer v. Elite Med. Transp., LLC, 2020 CH 04069 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Magner v. SMS-
NA, LLC, 2020 CH 00520 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Gumm v. Vonachen Servs., Inc., 2020 CH 00139
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
(Cir. Ct. Peoria Cnty., Ill.); Bayeg v. Eden Mgmt., LLC, 2019 CH 08821 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.);
Tran v. Simple Labs., LLC, 2019 CH 07937 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.).
6. My firm also has extensive experience litigating claims under the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), another similar data privacy statute. For example, my firm
served as class counsel in some of the largest all-cash FACTA class settlements in history,
including the $30.9 million settlement in Flaum v Doctors Associates, 16-CV-61198-CMA (S.D.
Fla. Mar. 11, 2019), which I understand to be the largest all-cash FACTA settlement in history.
The others include Martin v. Safeway, Inc., 2020 CH 5480 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) ($20 million);
Legg v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, No. 14-cv-61543-RLR (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016)
($11 million); Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 14-cv-61978-JIC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2016) ($7.5
million); and Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 2020 CH 7156 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. May
13, 2021) ($6.3 million).
7. Other successful FACTA cases in which my firm has served as class counsel
include Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., No. 21-A-735 (Cobb Cnty., Ga., Dec. 9, 2021);
Guarisma v. Alpargatas USA, Inc. d/b/a Havaianas, Case No. 2020 CH 7426 (Cir. Ct. Cook Ctny.,
May 24, 2021); Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-24326-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2017);
Cicilline v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 831 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Harris v. Best Buy Co.,
254 F.R.D. 82 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Matthews v. United Retail, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 210 (N.D. Ill. 2008);
Redmon v. Uncle Julio's, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Harris v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.,
No. 07 C 2512, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12596 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008); and Pacer v. Rockenbach
Chevrolet Sales, Inc., 07 C 5173 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 3
202355
8. My firm also was class counsel in two of the largest Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (“TCPA”) settlements in the country. See Hageman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al.,
FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949
Case 1:13-cv-00050-DLC-RWA (D. MT.) (Co-Lead) ($45 million settlement) and Capital One
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, et al., 12-cv-10064 (N.D. Ill. Judge Holderman)
(Liaison Counsel and additional Class Counsel) ($75 million settlement).
9. The firm was
Preview
Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled Location: <> FILED Judge: Calendar, 8 10/23/2023 12:20 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ CIRCUIT CLERK COOK COUNTY, IL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 2023CH08949 COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION Calendar, 8 24898169 FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 REGINALD DUCKSWORTH ) individually and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Case No. 2023CH08949 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RADARIS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801, Plaintiff Reginald Ducksworth (“Plaintiff”), respectfully moves the Court to enter an Order certifying the Class proposed below, appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s attorneys as Class Counsel. Alternatively, to the extent the Court determines further evidence is necessary to prove any element of 735 ILCS 5/2- 801, Plaintiff requests that the Court defer consideration of this Motion pending a reasonable period to complete discovery. See, e.g., Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll’s Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc., 2015 IL 118644, ¶¶ 42-43 (citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896-97 (7th Cir. 2011)). In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows: INTRODUCTION This Court should certify a class of Illinois residents whose identities were used by Defendant Radaris, LLC (“Radaris”) to market paid subscriptions to its background check service without first obtaining their written consent. In so doing, Radaris violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (“IRPA”), which safeguards the intellectual property and privacy rights of Illinois residents in controlling the use of their names, voices, photographs, images, and personas for commercial purposes. After Plaintiff learned of this wrongful conduct, he commenced suit on behalf of a class of 202180 similarly-situated individuals in order to bring an end to Radaris’s unauthorized commercial exploitation of his identity, and to obtain redress for all similarly-situated persons injured by FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 Radaris’s conduct. THE ILLINOIS RIGHT OF PUBLICITY ACT Illinois law recognizes that everyone has the “right to control and choose whether and how [his or her] identity [is used] for commercial purposes ….” 765 ILCS 1076/10; Compl., ¶ 12. To that end, the Illinois Legislature enacted the IRPA in 1999, which expressly prohibits one from using “an individual’s identity for commercial purposes during the individual’s lifetime without having obtained previous written consent from the appropriate person ….” 765 ILCS 1075/30; Compl., ¶ 13. This broad prohibition protects Illinois residents from the unauthorized use of any of their attributes, including, but not limited to, their names, signatures, likenesses, or voices in the sale or advertisement of goods, merchandise, products, and services. See 765 ILCS 1075/5; Compl., ¶ 14. To give the law teeth, the IRPA provides that any person who violates its requirements may be liable for the greater of: (a) actual damages; or (2) $1,000 in statutory damages per violation. See 765 ILCS 1075/40; Compl., ¶ 15. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Radaris’s Underlying Misconduct Radaris owns and operates a website through which the general public can obtain unlimited background reports on people in exchange for a monthly fee. Compl., ¶ 16. Upon accessing Radaris.com, visitors are encouraged to perform a “fast people search” on a particular individual via a search bar on the home page. Id., ¶ 17. After entering an individual’s -2- 202180 name in the search bar, the visitor is provided with a list of search results, all of which correspond to an actual person Radaris located in its database. Id., ¶ 18. FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 Upon clicking on the desired search result, the visitor is taken to a marketing page ("Marketing Page") that provides a “free preview” of a background report on the searched individual, which includes that individual’s full name (including middle initial, if applicable), as well as his or her age, relatives, and current and former cities and states of residence. This “free preview” provides enough information to identify the individual. Id., ¶ 19. Clicking on “unlock report” takes the visitor to Radaris’s payment portal, which presents the visitor with the option to purchase a monthly subscription to the website, whereby he or she can access and obtain unlimited background reports on anyone in Radaris’s database. Id., ¶ 20. -3- 202180 Thus, the “free preview” shown on the Marketing Page is designed to entice visitors to purchase a paid monthly subscription to Radaris’s background report service. Id., ¶ 21. FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 Significantly, Radaris does not obtain written consent from Illinois residents (or anyone else, for that matter) before using their names and other personally-identifiable information to market its monthly subscription service. Id., ¶ 22. Plaintiff is one such individual. Plaintiff is an Illinois resident who, in 2023, discovered Radaris was using his identity to solicit the purchase of paid subscriptions to Radaris.com. Id., ¶¶ 10, 23. As shown on the Marketing Page set forth above, Radaris specifically identified Plaintiff by his first and last name, along with his age, known relatives, and current and former cities and states of residence. Id., ¶ 24. It is reasonable that others could identify Plaintiff based on this information, as the Marketing Page contains accurate details about Plaintiff. Id., ¶ 25. Indeed, Plaintiff can confirm he is the individual identified by Radaris in the Marketing Page shown above. Id. At no point did Plaintiff provide Radaris with consent (written or otherwise) to use any attribute of his identity to advertise paid subscriptions to Radaris.com, or for any other commercial purposes. Id., ¶ 26. Plaintiff is not, and has never been, a Radaris customer. Id., ¶ 27. He has never subscribed to Radaris.com or had a relationship of any kind with Radaris. Id. Radaris has never compensated Plaintiff in any way for the use of his identity. Id., ¶ 28. B. The Proposed Class Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly-situated individuals pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (“Section 2-801”). Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class defined as follows: All Illinois residents whose identities were displayed on Radaris’s Marketing Page within one year of the filing of the complaint. -4- 202180 Compl. ¶ 29. As explained below, the proposed Class satisfies each of the four requirements for FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 certification under Section 2-801: numerosity; commonality; adequacy of representation; and fair and efficient adjudication. Here, a class action is not only appropriate, but it is the only way that the members of the putative Class can effectively redress Radaris’s ongoing unlawful conduct. ARGUMENT A. Legal Standard for Class Certification To obtain class certification, a plaintiff does not need to establish that she will prevail on the merits of the action. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974) (“[T]he question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of Rule 23 are met.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining whether to certify a proposed class, the Court should accept the allegations of the complaint as true. Ramirez v. Midway Moving & Storage, Inc., 378 Ill. App. 3d 51, 53 (1st Dist. 2007). To proceed with a class action, the movant must satisfy the “prerequisites for the maintenance of a class action” set forth in Section 2-801: An action may be maintained as a class action in any court of this State and a party may sue or be sued as a representative party of the class only if the court finds: (1) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. (2) There are questions of fact or law common to the class, which common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. (3) The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. (4) The class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. -5- 202180 735 ILCS 5/2-801. As demonstrated below, each prerequisite for the maintenance of a class action FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 is met, and the Court should therefore certify the proposed Class. Section 2-801 is modeled after Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus, “federal decisions interpreting Rule 23 are persuasive authority with regard to questions of class certification in Illinois.” Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100, 125 (Ill. 2005). Circuit courts have broad discretion in determining whether a proposed class meets the requirements for class certification and ought to err in favor of allowing class certification. Ramirez, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 53. While a court may rule on class certification without requiring discovery, see Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.14, at 255 (2004), courts have found that discovery is helpful prior to addressing a motion for class certification, see, e.g., Ballard RN Center, 2015 IL 118644 at ¶ 42 (“If the parties have yet to fully develop the facts needed for certification, then they can also ask the district court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or investigation.”) (quoting Damasco, 662 F.3d at 896). Here, all the prerequisites to class certification are satisfied, even though Plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to engage in or complete discovery. In the interests of establishing a more fully developed record before ruling on class certification issues, however, the Court should enter and continue this Motion pending completion of discovery and supplemental briefing. B. The Numerosity Requirement is Satisfied The first step in certifying a class is a showing that “the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(1). This requirement is met when “join[ing] such a large number of plaintiffs in a single suit would render the suit unmanageable and . . . multiple separate claims would be an imposition on the litigants and the courts.” Gordon v. Boden, 224 Ill. App. 3d 195, 200 (1st Dist. 1991) (citing Steinberg v. Chicago Med. Sch., 69 Ill.2d 320, -6- 202180 337 (Ill. 1977)). To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff need not demonstrate the exact number of class members, but must offer a good faith estimate as to the size of the class. Smith v. Nike Retail FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 Servs., Inc., 234 F.R.D. 648, 659 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Here, Plaintiff alleges that there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of members of the Class. Compl. ¶ 3. Thus, it is clear there are well more than 40 Illinois residents who meet the class definition. Because definitive evidence of numerosity can only come from the records of Samsung and its agents, it is proper to rely upon the allegations of the Complaint in certifying the Class. See 2 A. Conte & H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 7.20, at 66 (explaining where numerosity information is in sole possession of party opposing class certification, courts generally rely on the complaint as prima facie evidence or defer ruling).1 It would be completely impracticable to join the claims of the members of a Class that large, especially because they are disbursed throughout Illinois, and without a class action, few Class members could afford to bring an individual lawsuit over the amount at issue in this case since the value of each individual class member’s claim is relatively small. See Gordon, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 200. Accordingly, the first prerequisite for class certification is met. C. Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate The second requirement of Section 2-801(2) is met where there are “questions of fact or law common to the class” and those questions “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(2). Such common questions of law or fact exist when the members of the proposed class have been aggrieved by the same or similar misconduct. See Miner v. Gillette Co., 87 Ill.2d 7, 19 (Ill. 1981); Steinberg, 69 Ill.2d at 342. These common questions must also predominate over any issues affecting individual class members. See O-Kay Shoes, Inc. 1 The members of the Class can be easily and objectively determined from Samsung’s records. -7- 202180 v. Rosewell, 129 Ill. App. 3d 405, 408 (1st Dist. 1984). Here, the claims of the Class members arise out of the same activity by Radaris, are based FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 on the same legal theory, and implicate the following common issues, among others: (a) whether Radaris used Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ names and identities for a commercial purpose; (b) whether Plaintiff and the other Class members consented, in writing, to Radaris’s use of their names and identities in advertisements promoting its paid subscription service; (c) whether Radaris’s alleged conduct violates the IRPA; and (d) whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief as a result of Radaris’s alleged conduct. Compl., ¶ 32. As alleged, and as will be shown through evidence obtained in discovery, Radaris engaged in a common course of conduct by commercially exploiting the identities of Class members without first obtaining their written consent. Any potential individualized issues remaining after those common issues are decided would be de minimis. Accordingly, common issues of fact and law predominate over any individual issues, and Plaintiff has satisfied this requirement for class certification. D. The Adequate Representation Requirement is Satisfied The third prong of Section 2-801 requires that “[t]he representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.” 735 ILCS 5/2-801(3). The class representative’s interests must be generally aligned with those of the class members, and class counsel must be “qualified, experienced and generally able to conduct the proposed litigation.” See Miner, 87 Ill. 2d at 14; see also Eshaghi v. Hanley Dawson Cadillac Co., Inc., 214 Ill. App. 3d 995, 1000 (1st Dist. 1991). The purpose of this adequacy of representation requirement is “to insure that all Class members will receive proper, efficient, and appropriate protection of their interests in the -8- 202180 presentation of the claim.” Purcell & Wardrope Chtd. v. Hertz Corp., 175 Ill. App. 3d 1069, 1078 (1st Dist. 1988). FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 In this case, Plaintiff has the exact same interests as the members of the proposed Class. Like the other members of the Class, Radaris used Plaintiff’s identity to market paid subscriptions to its website. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6, 23-24. Plaintiff further alleges that Radaris did so without first obtaining his written consent, in violation of the IRPA’s requirements. Id. ¶¶ 7, 26-27. Plaintiff’s pursuit of this matter against Radaris demonstrates that he will be a zealous advocate for the Class. Further, Plaintiff has retained and is represented by qualified and competent counsel who are highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation. See Declaration of Keith J. Keogh, ¶¶ 4-44, attached hereto as Exhibit 1; see also Fish Potter Bolaños PC Firm Resume, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this class action. See id.; Compl., ¶ 37. Moreover, Plaintiff is able to fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of such a Class. Id. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel have any interest adverse to, or in conflict with, the interests of the absent Class members. Plaintiff has asserted viable statutory claims of the type reasonably expected to be raised by members of the Class, and they will vigorously pursue those claims. Accordingly, the proposed class representatives and proposed class counsel will adequately protect the interests of the members of the Classes, thus satisfying Section 2-801(3). E. Class Certification Will Ensure Fair and Efficient Adjudication of the Controversy The final requirement for class certification under 5/2-801 is met where “the class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.” 735 ILCS 5/2- 801(4). “In applying this prerequisite, a court considers whether a class action: (1) can best secure the economies of time, effort and expense, and promote uniformity; or (2) accomplish the other -9- 202180 ends of equity and justice that class actions seek to obtain.” Gordon, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 203. In practice, a “holding that the first three prerequisites of section 2-801 are established makes it FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 evident that the fourth requirement is fulfilled.” Id. at 204; Purcell & Wardrope Chtd., 175 Ill. App. 3d at 1079 (“The predominance of common issues [may] make a class action . . . a fair and efficient method to resolve the dispute.”). Here, because numerosity, commonality/predominance, and adequacy of representation have all been satisfied, it is “evident” that the appropriateness requirement is met as well. Additional considerations further support certification in this case. A “controlling factor in many cases is that the class action is the only practical means for class members to receive redress.” Gordon, 224 Ill. App. 3d at 203-04; Eshaghi, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 1004 (“In a large and impersonal society, class actions are often the last barricade of . . . protection.”). A class action is superior to multiple individual actions “where the costs of litigation are high, the likely recovery is limited,” and individuals are unlikely to prosecute individual claims absent the cost-sharing efficiencies of a class action. Maxwell v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 03 C 1995, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5462, at *17 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2004). This is especially true in cases involving data privacy violations and data breaches, which can involve significant injury to those affected but result in many small, individual claims. Here, absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating their statutorily-limited claims to be prohibitive, and multiple individual actions would be judicially inefficient. See id. A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all Class members is inefficient and impracticable. Compl., ¶ 37. Even if every member of the Class could afford to pursue individual litigation, the court system could not. Id. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which - 10 - 202180 individual litigation of numerous cases would proceed. Individualized litigation would also create the potential for varying, inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would magnify the delay FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 and expense to all parties and to the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. Id. By contrast, the maintenance of this action as a class action, with respect to some or all of the issues presented herein, presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the court system, and protects the rights of each member of the Class. Id. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action, and class-wide relief is essential to compliance with the IRPA. Id. In addition, certification of the proposed Class is necessary to ensure that Radaris’s conduct becomes compliant with IRPA, to ensure that the Class members’ intellectual property and privacy rights in controlling the commercial use of their identities are adequately protected, and to compensate those individuals who have had and continue to have their statutorily-protected rights violated by Radaris. Were this case not to proceed on a class-wide basis, it is unlikely that any significant number of Class members would be able to obtain redress or that Samsung would willingly implement the procedures necessary to comply with the IRPA. Thus, proceeding as a class action here is an appropriate method to fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order: (A) granting this Motion; (B) certifying the proposed Class; (C) appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; (D) appointing Keogh Law, Ltd. and Fish Potter Bolaños PC as Class Counsel; and (E) awarding Plaintiff such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper. In the alternative, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court defer ruling on this Motion pending completion of appropriate discovery and supplemental briefing. - 11 - 202180 Dated: October 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted, REGINALD DUCKSWORTH, individually and on FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 behalf of all others similarly situated, By: /s/ Gregg M. Barbakoff Keith J. Keogh Gregg M. Barbakoff KEOGH LAW, LTD. Firm No. 39042 55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 keith@keoghlaw.com gbarbakoff@keoghlaw.com David Fish Mara Baltabols FISH POTTER BOLAÑOS PC Firm No. 23522 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2300 Chicago, Illinois 60601 Tel. (312) 861-1800 dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class 202180 FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 EXHIBIT 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 REGINALD DUCKSWORTH ) individually and on behalf of all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Case No. 2023CH08949 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RADARIS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) DECLARATION OF KEITH J. KEOGH I, Keith J. Keogh, declare under penalty of perjury, that the following statements are true: 1. I am over the age of eighteen and am fully competent to make this declaration. This declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and if called upon to testify to the matters stated herein, I could and would do so competently. 2. Keogh Law, Ltd. consists of six attorneys and focuses on consumer protection class actions. I am a shareholder of the firm and member of the bars of the United States Supreme Court, Court of Appeals for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, Eastern District of Wisconsin, Northern District of Illinois, Central District of Illinois, Southern District of Indiana, District of Colorado, Middle District of Florida, Southern District of Florida, the Illinois State Bar, and the Florida State Bar, as well as several bar associations and the National Association of Consumer Advocates. 3. In 2015, the National Association of Consumer Advocates honored me as the Consumer Attorney of the Year for my work in courts and with the FCC insuring the safeguards of the TCPA were maintained. 4. As shown below, my firm has regularly engaged in major complex litigation and consumer class actions involving statutory privacy claims. My firm has the resources necessary to Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 1 202355 conduct litigation of this nature, and has experience prosecuting class actions of similar size, scope, and complexity to the instant case. Additionally, I have often served as class counsel in similar FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 actions. 5. For instance, my firm was recently appointed as class counsel in five class actions arising under a similar data privacy statute (i.e. the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act) — Heidelberg v. Forman Mills Inc., 2020 CH 04079 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Marquez v. Bobak Sausage Co., 2020 CH 04259 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Bayeg v. The Admiral at the Lake, 2019 CH 08828 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Quarles v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., 20-cv-7179, ECF No. 46 (N.D. Ill. Jan 18, 2022); and Sherman v. Brandt Industries USA Ltd., 20-cv-1185, ECF No. 78 (C.D. Ill. March 22, 2022). My firm has also litigated dozens of other putative class actions arising under BIPA, including Hanlon ex rel. G.T. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 1:21-cv-04976 (N.D. Ill.); Svoboda v. Frames for America, Inc., 1:21-cv-05509 (N.D. Ill.); Steinberg v. Charles Indus., L.L.C., 2021 CH 01793 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Ortega v. The Expediting Co., Inc., 2021 CH 00969 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Fells v. Carl Buddig & Co., 2021 CH 00508 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Mathews v. Brightstar US, LLC, 2021 CH 00167 (Cir. Ct. Lake Cnty.); Roberts v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, LLC, 3:21-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill.); Willem v. Karpinske Enters., L.L.C., 2021 CH 00031 (Cir. Ct. Jo Daviess Cnty., Ill.); Shafer v. Rodebrad Mgmt. Co., Inc., 2021 CH 00008 (Cir. Ct. Montgomery Cnty., Ill.); Roberts v. TDS Servs., Inc., 2021 CH 00005 (Cir. Ct. Washington Cnty., Ill.); Jenkins v. Regal Cinemas, Inc., 1:20-cv-03782 (N.D. Ill.); Turner v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 1:20-cv- 03026 (N.D. Ill.); McFerren, et al. v. World Class Distribution, Inc., 1:20-cv-02912 (N.D. Ill.); Stein v. Clarifai, Inc., 1:20-cv-01937 (N.D. Ill.); Barton v. Swan Surfaces, LLC, 3:20-cv-00499- SPM (S.D. Ill.); Wells v. Medieval Times U.S.A., Inc., 2020 CH 06658 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Young v. Van Ru Credit Corp., 2020 CH 04303 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Isychko v. Jidd Motors, Inc., 2020 CH 04244 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Heidelberg v. Forman Mills Inc., 2020 CH 04079 (Cir. Ct. Cook Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 2 202355 Cnty.); Hirmer v. Elite Med. Transp., LLC, 2020 CH 04069 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Magner v. SMS- NA, LLC, 2020 CH 00520 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Gumm v. Vonachen Servs., Inc., 2020 CH 00139 FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 (Cir. Ct. Peoria Cnty., Ill.); Bayeg v. Eden Mgmt., LLC, 2019 CH 08821 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.); Tran v. Simple Labs., LLC, 2019 CH 07937 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty.). 6. My firm also has extensive experience litigating claims under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”), another similar data privacy statute. For example, my firm served as class counsel in some of the largest all-cash FACTA class settlements in history, including the $30.9 million settlement in Flaum v Doctors Associates, 16-CV-61198-CMA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 11, 2019), which I understand to be the largest all-cash FACTA settlement in history. The others include Martin v. Safeway, Inc., 2020 CH 5480 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty., Ill.) ($20 million); Legg v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, No. 14-cv-61543-RLR (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016) ($11 million); Legg v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., No. 14-cv-61978-JIC (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2016) ($7.5 million); and Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., No. 2020 CH 7156 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. May 13, 2021) ($6.3 million). 7. Other successful FACTA cases in which my firm has served as class counsel include Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., No. 21-A-735 (Cobb Cnty., Ga., Dec. 9, 2021); Guarisma v. Alpargatas USA, Inc. d/b/a Havaianas, Case No. 2020 CH 7426 (Cir. Ct. Cook Ctny., May 24, 2021); Guarisma v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-24326-CMA (S.D. Fla., Oct. 27, 2017); Cicilline v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 542 F.Supp.2d 831 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Harris v. Best Buy Co., 254 F.R.D. 82 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Matthews v. United Retail, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 210 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Redmon v. Uncle Julio's, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 290 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Harris v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., No. 07 C 2512, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12596 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 7, 2008); and Pacer v. Rockenbach Chevrolet Sales, Inc., 07 C 5173 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Declaration of Keith J. Keogh | 3 202355 8. My firm also was class counsel in two of the largest Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) settlements in the country. See Hageman v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., FILED DATE: 10/23/2023 12:20 PM 2023CH08949 Case 1:13-cv-00050-DLC-RWA (D. MT.) (Co-Lead) ($45 million settlement) and Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, et al., 12-cv-10064 (N.D. Ill. Judge Holderman) (Liaison Counsel and additional Class Counsel) ($75 million settlement). 9. The firm was