Return Date: No return date scheduled

Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled

Courtroom Number: No hearing scheduled
Location: No hearing scheduled FILED
7/23/2020 9:52 PM
DOROTHY BROWN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, IL - FIRST DISTRICT
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

KEITH ALLEN, and all other ) 2020CH03291

similarly situated individuals, )
9871146
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 2020-CH-03291
THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWKS HOCKEY )
TEAM, INC., UNITED CENTER JOINT )
VENTURE, AND ANY AND ALL OTHER )
AFFILIATED OR SUBSIDIARY ENTITIES )
)
Defendant. )
)

DEFENDANT CHICAGO BLACKHAWK HOCKEY TEAM, INC.’S

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

NOW COMES the Defendant, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. (“CBHT”), by and

through its attorneys, Gozdecki, Del Giudice, Americus, Farkas & Brocato LLP, and for its Answer

and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Keith Allen’s (“Allen”) First Amended Class Action

Complaint, states as follows:

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
1. Defendant Chicago Blackhawks [sic] Hockey Team, Inc. owns and operates the
Chicago Blackhawks hockey team, a National Hockey League franchise based in Chicago,
Illinois.

ANSWER:

CBHT states that its correct legal name is Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. CBHT

admits that it owns and operates the Chicago Blackhawks hockey team, a National Hockey League

franchise based in Chicago, Illinois.

2. The Defendant uses facial recognition devices, and employs the software
associated with them, at its home hockey games, which, among other events, are held at the
United Center located at 1901 W. Madison St., Chicago, IL 60612.

00097979.1 1
 ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

3. The Defendants’ facial recognition devices and associated software scans for, but
does not limit itself to, identifiers such as individual’s facial geometry, retinas, and then, among
other actions, compares that scan to the files it has stored in their internal database.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

4. Mr. Allen attended a Blackhawks hockey game in 2018.

ANSWER:

CBHT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

5. Mr. Allen learned that biometric software was being used, and his facial
geometry, among other things, was scanned via the facial recognition cameras used by the
Defendants that employ facial recognition software.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

6. Facial geometry is a unique and personal identifier.

ANSWER:

This paragraph sets forth legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent an

answer is required, CBHT states that Plaintiff has not defined the term “facial geometry”, and

CBHT therefore states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to

the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

7. In enacting the Biometric Information Privacy Act, the Illinois legislature

recognized that biologically unique identifiers, such as facial geometry and other unique
identifiers clearly cannot be changed when compromised, and in turn realized, that among other
things, that individuals are at a heightened risk to be a victim of identity theft and other related
cybercrimes.

00097979.1 2
 ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) is a public
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

act presently in force in the State of Illinois, and that Section 5 of BIPA identifies and references the

legislative intent supporting BIPA. CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are

inconsistent with the provisions of BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

8. As a result, the State of Illinois restricted private entities, like the Defendant, from
collecting, storing, using, or transferring a person’s biometric identifiers and information without
adhering to strict informed consent procedures and data retention/destruction policies.

ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that BIPA is a public act presently in force in the State of Illinois.

CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are inconsistent with the provisions of BIPA,

and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

9. Defendant collected, stored and used the unique biometric facial geometry
identifiers, or identifying information derived from facial geometry, of Mr. Allen and others
similarly situated without following the detailed requirements articulated by the Illinois state
legislature in BIPA.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

10. As a result, Mr. Allen, and others similarly situated, lost the right to control their
biometric identifiers and information.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-
209(a)(1) and (c) because, during the relevant period, the Defendant conducted business in
Illinois, and was registered to do business in Illinois, and committed the statutory violations
alleged in this Complaint in Illinois.

00097979.1 3
 ANSWER:

CBHT admits the Court has jurisdiction over CBHT, and admits that CBHT conducted
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

business in Illinois and was registered to do business in Illinois. CBHT denies it committed any

statutory violations, and denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

12. Cook County, Illinois is an appropriate venue for this litigation because
Defendant engages in business operations and is headquartered in Cook County, Illinois, and
committed the statutory violations alleged in this Complaint in Cook County, Illinois.

ANSWER:

CBHT admits Cook County is an appropriate venue, and admits that CBHT engages in

business operations and is headquartered in Cook County, Illinois. CBHT denies it committed

any statutory violations, and denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

THE PARTIES

13. Mr. Allen is an individual who is a citizen of Illinois.

ANSWER:

CBHT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

14. The Defendant conducts business in Illinois and benefits from that relationship
through its derivation of profits and by virtue of its being headquartered in Illinois the benefit(s)
offered by that unique relationship with the state.

ANSWER:

CBHT admits that it conducts business and is headquartered in Illinois. Answering

further, CBHT states that the remaining allegations are vague and ambiguous, and CBHT

therefore denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT

15. In enacting BIPA, the Illinois legislature recognized that the full ramifications of
biometric technology are not yet fully known and so the public would benefit from "regulations

00097979.1 4
 on the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage retention, and description of biometric
identifiers and information." 740 ILCS 14/5(f)-(g).
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that Section 5 of BIPA identifies and references the legislative intent

supporting BIPA. CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are inconsistent with the

provisions of BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

16. BIPA prohibits a "private entity" from capturing or collecting biometric

identifiers or information from an individual unless that private entity first obtains the
individual’s written release authorizing the private entity to capture or collect an individual’s
biometric identifiers and/or biometric information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(3).

ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that BIPA is a public act presently in force in the State of Illinois.

CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are inconsistent with the provisions of BIPA,

and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

17. Relatedly, BIPA prohibits a private entity from capturing or collecting biometric
identifiers or information from an individual unless that private entity first informs the individual
in writing of the following: (a) that the private entity is collecting biometric identifier or
information, (b) the purpose of such collection, and (c) the length of time the private entity will
retain the biometric identifiers or information. 740 ILCS 14/15(b)(1) - (2).

ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that BIPA is a public act presently in force in the State of Illinois.

CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are inconsistent with the provisions of BIPA,

and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

18. Further, BIPA prohibits a private entity from possessing biometric identifiers or
information unless it creates and follows a written policy, made available to the public,
establishing a retention schedule and destruction guidelines for its possession of biometric
identifiers and information. 740 ILCS 14/15(a).

00097979.1 5
 ANSWER:

CBHT admits only that BIPA is a public act presently in force in the State of Illinois.
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

CBHT denies any allegations in this paragraph that are inconsistent with the provisions of BIPA,

and denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph.

BACKGROUND FACTS

19. Mr. Allen attended a Chicago Blackhawks hockey game on December 18,
2018.

ANSWER:

CBHT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph.

20. The Defendant’s facial recognition technology scanned Mr. Allen’s facial
geometry from security camera footage1 and stored a facial geometry template for Mr. Allen.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations in this paragraph.

21. The Defendant failed to inform Mr. Allen in writing that it was collecting his
biometric identifiers or information, the purpose and length of term for such collection, and
failed to obtain their [sic] written consent before Defendant collected his facial geometry scan.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies it collected Mr. Allen’s “biometric identifiers or information,” denies it

violated BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.

22. The Defendant never established or followed a publicly available written policy
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying scans of Mr. Allen’s
facial geometry.

1
These are cameras that employ facial recognition technology and its associated software to identify individuals’
facial geometry.

00097979.1 6
 ANSWER:

CBHT denies it collected or possessed any scans of Mr. Allen’s facial geometry, denies it
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

violated BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

23. Mr. Allen seeks to represent the following class: all individuals who had their
facial geometry scans collected or possessed by the Defendant in Illinois between October 15,
2014 and the present (the "Class").

ANSWER:

CBHT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of what Mr. Allen seeks to do. CBHT denies it collected or possessed any facial

geometry scans of individuals, denies it violated BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations of

this paragraph.

24. The members of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impractical. Based on the investigation by his counsel, Mr. Allen reasonably believes that the
class comprises tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of members. The exact number of persons the
class can be determined from records maintained by the Defendant.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies it violated BIPA, and therefore denies the allegations of this paragraph.

25. Common questions of law and fact exist as to the class, including, but not limited
to: whether Defendant used facial recognition technology at its hockey games; whether
Defendant collected and/or possessed the Class’s "biometric identifiers" or "biometric
information" through the use of facial recognition technology at Chicago Blackhawks hockey
games; and whether Defendant complied with the procedures in the Act. These common
questions of law and fact predominate over variations that may exist between members of the
Class, if any.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies it violated BIPA, and therefore denies the allegations of this paragraph.

26. Mr. Allen, the members of the Class, and the Defendant have a commonality of
interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit and remedies sought.

00097979.1 7
 ANSWER:

CBHT denies it violated BIPA, and therefore denies the allegations of this paragraph.
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

27. Mr. Allen will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the
class. Mr. Allen has retained competent counsel experienced in class action litigation in state and
federal courts nationwide and Mr. Allen has no interest adverse to any member of the Class. Mr.
Allen intends to prosecute this case vigorously on behalf of himself and the Class.

ANSWER:

CBHT is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or

falsity of Mr. Allen’s allegations pertaining to Mr. Allen’s retention of counsel, counsel’s

experience, Mr. Allen’s interests, and Mr. Allen’s intentions. Answering further, CBHT denies

it violated BIPA, and denies any remaining allegations of this paragraph.

28. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801(4) because it involves a uniform course of conduct
equally applicable to the Plaintiff and all members of the Class. A class action can therefore best
secure the economies of time, effort and expense or accomplish the other ends of equity and
justice that this action seeks to obtain.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies it violated BIPA, denies there is a legitimate “controversy,” and denies any

remaining allegations of this paragraph.

COUNT I
Violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/15 (b))
(Class Action)

29. Mr. Allen realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of this Complaint.

ANSWER:

CBHT incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1 through 28 of the First

Amended Complaint as its Answer to Paragraph 29 of this Count I.

30. The Defendant is a "private entity" as defined within BIPA.

00097979.1 8
 ANSWER:

CBHT states that this paragraph calls for a legal conclusion to which no Answer is
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

required.

31. Mr. Allen and the Class’s facial geometry scans qualify as "biometric identifiers"
as defined by the Act. The Defendant has "biometric information" from Mr. Allen and the Class
through its acquisition and retention of identifying based on Mr. Allen’s and the Class’s facial
geometry scans.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

32. The Defendant violated the Act by capturing or collecting Mr. Allen’s and the
Class’s facial geometry scans and identifying information based on those scans without first
informing him in writing of the purpose of the Defendant’s doing so and the length of time the
Defendant would store and use Mr. Allen’s and the Class’s biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

33. Unlike other companies in Illinois, the Defendant failed to take notice and follow
the requirements of the Act, even though the law was enacted in 2008 and numerous articles and
court filings were published about the law’s requirements before the Defendant committed the
violations alleged in this Complaint.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

34. As a result, Defendant’s violations of BIPA were reckless or, in the alternative,
negligent.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations of this paragraph.

COUNT II
Violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14/15(a))
(Class Action)

35. Mr. Allen realleges and incorporates the previous allegations of the Complaint.

00097979.1 9
 ANSWER:

CBHT incorporates by references its responses to paragraphs 1 through 34 of the First

FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

Amended Complaint as its Answer to Paragraph 35 of this Count II.

36. The Defendant is a "private entity" under the Act.

ANSWER:

CBHT states that this paragraph calls for a legal conclusion to which no Answer is

required.

37. Mr. Allen’s and the Class’s facial geometry scans qualify as "biometric
identifier(s) as defined within BIPA.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies that it collected or possessed any facial geometry scans of Mr. Allen or the

alleged Class, and therefore denies the allegations of this paragraph.

38. The Defendant has "biometric information" from Mr. Allen and the Class through
its acquisition and retention of identifying based on Mr. Allen’s and the Class’s facial geometry
scans.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations in this paragraph.

39. The Defendant violated BIPA by possessing Mr. Allen’s and the Class’s facial
geometry scans and identifying information based on those scans without creating and following
a written policy, made available to the public establishing and following a retention schedule and
destruction guidelines for their possession of biometric identifiers and information.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations in this paragraph.

40. Unlike other companies in Illinois, the Defendant failed to take notice and follow
the requirements of the Act, even though the law was enacted in 2008 and numerous articles and
court filings were published about the law’s requirements before the Defendant committed the
violations alleged in this Complaint.

00097979.1 10
 ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations in this paragraph.

FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

41. As a result, the Defendant’s violations of BIPA were reckless or, in the
alternative, negligent.

ANSWER:

CBHT denies the allegations in this paragraph.

WHEREFORE, CBHT respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment

in favor of CBHT and against Plaintiff, and that the Court award CBHT such other and further

relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE I – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

1. No damages or other relief can be recovered by Mr. Allen and/or members of the

asserted putative class to the extent the Amended Complaint and each purported cause of action

alleged therein are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations. See, e.g., 735 ILCS

5/13-202 (two-year limitations period to recover a statutory penalty); 735 ILCS 5/13-205 (five-

year limitations period for “all civil actions not otherwise provided for”).

2. Mr. Allen, in his First Amended Complaint, seeks to certify a class of all persons

who allegedly had their facial geometry scans collected or possessed in Illinois by CBHT from

October 15, 2014 to the present.

3. Mr. Allen’s initial Complaint in this case was filed on March 18, 2020.

Accordingly, any attempt to seek relief for a time period prior to the applicable statute of

limitations period is barred.

00097979.1 11
 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE II – RELEASE

1. All patrons must have a ticket to enter the United Center. Each ticket provides as
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

follows:

HOLDER EXPRESSLY RELEASES UNITED CENTER JOINT VENTURE,

PERFORMERS, ATHLETES, PLAYING TEAMS, LEAGUES AND THEIR
CURRENT AND FORMER PLAYERS, AT YOUR SERVICE, LLC, AT YOUR
SERVICE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, STANDARD PARKING
CORPORATION, TICKETMASTER, AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
AFFILIATES, PARENTS, RELATED ENTITIES, OWNERS, GOVERNORS,
OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS, PRINCIPALS, MANAGEMENT,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS FROM
ALL ACTIONS, SUITS, CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS, INJURIES AND/OR
OTHER DAMAGES RELATING TO OR ARISING FROM SUCH CAUSES
OR OTHERWISE OCCURRING AT OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
EVENT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.

2. Mr. Allen and the putative class members, by presumably being in possession of a

ticket to enter the game, released CBHT from liability for the type of conduct alleged to have

occurred.

3. Therefore, the Complaint and each purported cause of action asserted therein are

barred by a release of those claims.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE III – WAIVER

1. All patrons must have a ticket to enter the United Center. Each ticket provides as

follows:

HOLDER EXPRESSLY RELEASES UNITED CENTER JOINT VENTURE,

PERFORMERS, ATHLETES, PLAYING TEAMS, LEAGUES AND THEIR
CURRENT AND FORMER PLAYERS, AT YOUR SERVICE, LLC, AT YOUR
SERVICE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, STANDARD PARKING
CORPORATION, TICKETMASTER, AND ALL OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
AFFILIATES, PARENTS, RELATED ENTITIES, OWNERS, GOVERNORS,
OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, PARTNERS, PRINCIPALS, MANAGEMENT,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS FROM
ALL ACTIONS, SUITS, CLAIMS, JUDGMENTS, INJURIES AND/OR
OTHER DAMAGES RELATING TO OR ARISING FROM SUCH CAUSES

00097979.1 12
 OR OTHERWISE OCCURRING AT OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
EVENT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

2. Mr. Allen and the putative class members, by presumably being in possession of a

ticket to enter the game, released CBHT from liability for the type of conduct alleged to have

occurred.

3. Therefore, Mr. Allen and the putative class members waived any right to assert

the claims against CBHT as alleged in the Complaint.

RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

CBHT reserves the right to raise any additional defenses, affirmative or otherwise, and

any counterclaims which may become apparent through discovery in the course of this action.

WHEREFORE, CBHT respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter a judgment

in favor of CBHT and against Plaintiff, and that the Court award CBHT such other and further

relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

Dated: July 23, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

THE CHICAGO BLACKHAWK

HOCKEY TEAM, INC.,

/s/David S. Americus
One of its Attorneys

David S. Americus (d.americus@gozdel.com)

Steven H. Leech (s.leech@gozdel.com)
GOZDECKI, DEL GIUDICE, AMERICUS,
FARKAS & BROCATO LLP
One East Wacker Drive, Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 782-5010
FIRM I.D. #31746

00097979.1 13
 VERIFICATION

Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of
FILED DATE: 7/23/2020 9:52 PM 2020CH03291

Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements of lack of knowledge set forth in
the foregoing Defendant’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the First Amended Complaint
are true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, information and belief.

____________________________________
Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc.

7/23/2020
By: ________________________________

VP, Human Resources

Its: _________________________________

00097979.1 14