Petsmart Hit with Class Action Over Collection of Illinois Distribution Center Workers’ Voiceprints [UPDATE]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on June 26, 2023
Stegmann v. Petsmart LLC
Filed: March 4, 2022 ◆§ 1:22-cv-01179
A class action alleges Petsmart unlawfully collected workers’ voiceprints through the Vocollect headsets used in its distribution centers.
June 23, 2023 – PetSmart BIPA Lawsuit Settled for $424K
PetSmart has agreed to pay $424,455 to settle the proposed class action detailed on this page.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Court documents state that the deal, which U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin preliminarily approved on June 22, would cover about 472 current and former employees who used the Vocollect system at PetSmart’s Ottawa, Illinois distribution center between January 20, 2017 and June 22, 2023 and were not subject to an arbitration agreement with the company.
According to a motion for preliminary approval submitted to the court on June 6, 2023, covered individuals who are not employed by PetSmart when payment is distributed will automatically receive a check for their pro rata share of the settlement fund.
Class members who are currently employed by PetSmart will also automatically receive a pro rata cash payment in the form of a check, or they can choose to file a claim form to receive their share in the form of paid time off with a value equal to the cash payment.
“For example, if the pro rata direct check payment is $550 per person, a Settlement Class Member who selects the paid time off option who earns $20 per hour would receive 27.5 hours of paid time off,” the motion states.
After payment is distributed, class members will have 120 days to cash their checks and two years to use their paid time off.
Current and former employees covered by the proposed deal are expected to receive direct notice of the settlement via mail within 21 days of preliminary approval, the proposed settlement says. According to court documents, PetSmart will provide the settlement administrator with a list of the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of covered individuals for the purpose of contacting them.
PetSmart has also agreed as part of the settlement to implement any procedures required to comply with the BIPA should it continue to use the Vocollect system in Illinois or, if it stops using the system, to implement BIPA-compliant procedures for the destruction of any biometric information previously collected.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A proposed class action alleges Petsmart LLC has unlawfully collected workers’ voiceprints through the Vocollect headsets used in its distribution centers without satisfying an Illinois biometric privacy law.
The 19-page suit alleges Petsmart has run afoul of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting templates of workers’ voices without first providing proper notice and obtaining their consent to do so. The case claims that Petsmart has exposed distribution center workers to “serious and irreversible privacy risks” given the employees’ biometric information is stored along with other personal details in files that “could be hacked or breached.”
The suit states that Petsmart uses at its Illinois distribution centers technology known as Vocollect, or the “Talkman,” that allows workers to engage in real-time communication with the Vocollect software. Per the suit, the employee's number is entered into a wireless device containing voice recognition software that interacts with a headset worn by the worker. The worker then receives instructions through the headset from a central worker management computer and executes the instructions by engaging in a dialogue with the voice recognition software, which responds in turn based on the worker's voice template, the lawsuit explains.
Per the case, each Petsmart distribution center worker is required to engage in “lengthy training sessions” for the Honeywell-made technology, during which they are required to read lists of certain work-related vocabulary words into the Vocollect system to create a voice template that allows the system to recognize them.
According to the case, the voiceprints collected by Petsmart are protected under the Illinois BIPA, which imposes certain requirements on companies who deal with state residents’ biometric information. The lawsuit alleges Petsmart has run afoul of the BIPA by failing to:
- Inform workers in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their biometric information was being collected, stored and used;
- Provide a publicly available retention policy and guidelines specifying when workers’ data would be destroyed; and
- Secure a written release from workers allowing the company to collect their biometric information.
The suit contends that it is “crucial” for consumers who provide their biometric information to a company to understand “who exactly is collecting it, who it will be transmitted to, for what purposes, and for how long.” By failing to provide this information and secure consent to collect workers’ biometric information, Petsmart violated employees’ statutorily protected privacy rights, the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiff, who worked at the defendant’s Ottawa, Illinois distribution center, says he has “continuously and repeatedly been exposed to the risks and harmful conditions” caused by Petsmart’s failure to comply with the BIPA, including the risk that hackers could obtain his voiceprint and use it to steal his identity.
The plaintiff looks to represent anyone who, within the applicable statute of limitations, had their voiceprint collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained or disclosed by Petsmart in Illinois without their consent or who failed to have their voiceprint timely deleted.
Initially filed in LaSalle County Circuit Court on January 20, 2022, the lawsuit was removed to the Illinois Northern District Court on March 4.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.