Latrina Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                               In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 20-3202
    LATRINA COTHRON, individually and on
    behalf of all others similarly situated,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 19 CV 00382 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge.
    ____________________
    ARGUED SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 — DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 2021
    ____________________
    Before SYKES, Chief Judge,           and EASTERBROOK and
    BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.
    SYKES, Chief Judge. Latrina Cothron works as a manager at
    an Illinois White Castle hamburger restaurant where she
    must scan her fingerprint to access the restaurant’s computer
    system. With each scan her fingerprint is collected and
    transmitted to a third-party vendor for authentication.
    Cothron alleges that White Castle did not obtain her written
    2                                                 No. 20-3202
    consent before implementing the fingerprint-scanning
    system, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
    Act. She brought this proposed class-action lawsuit on
    behalf of all Illinois White Castle employees.
    White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings based
    on the statute of limitations. The restaurant argued that a
    claim accrued under the Act the first time Cothron scanned
    her fingerprint into the system after the law took effect in
    2008. That was more than a decade before she sued, making
    her suit untimely under the longest possible limitations
    period. Cothron responded that every unauthorized finger-
    print scan amounted to a separate violation of the statute, so
    a new claim accrued with each scan. That would make her
    suit timely for the scans within the limitations period.
    The district judge rejected White Castle’s “one time only”
    theory of claim accrual and denied the motion. But he found
    the question close enough to warrant an interlocutory appeal
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1292
    (b). Cothron now asks us to certify the
    question to the Illinois Supreme Court.
    We agree that this issue is best decided by the Illinois
    Supreme Court. Whether a claim accrues only once or
    repeatedly is an important and recurring question of Illinois
    law implicating state accrual principles as applied to this
    novel state statute. It requires authoritative guidance that
    only the state’s highest court can provide.
    I. Background
    Cothron has worked for White Castle since 2004. She al-
    leges that not long after she began, White Castle introduced
    a system that requires its employees to scan their finger-
    prints to access pay stubs and work computers. Each scan is
    No. 20-3202                                                     3
    sent to a third-party vendor that authenticates it and gives
    her access to the restaurant’s computer system. Cothron
    contends that White Castle implemented this system with-
    out properly obtaining her consent in violation of the Illinois
    Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or “the Act”),
    740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/1 et seq.
    The Illinois General Assembly adopted the Act in 2008 in
    response to increased commercial use of biometric data.
    Biometrics are “biologically unique” personal identifiers, 
    id.
    § 14/5(c), and include iris scans, face geometry, and, relevant
    here, fingerprints, id. § 14/10. Unlike other sensitive personal
    information, like social security numbers, once compromised
    biometrics cannot be changed. § 14/5(c). The legislative
    findings note growing concern among members of the
    public about the use and collection of biometrics. See id.
    § 14/5(d)–(e).
    To address these concerns, the Act regulates how private
    entities may collect and handle biometric data and provides
    a private cause of action for any person “aggrieved by” a
    violation of the statute. Id. § 14/20. A plaintiff can recover the
    greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $1,000 for
    each negligent violation and $5,000 for each reckless or
    willful violation. Id.
    Two of the Act’s provisions are relevant here. Sec-
    tion 15(b) provides that a private entity may not “collect,
    capture, purchase, receive through trade, or otherwise
    obtain” a person’s biometric data without first providing
    notice to and receiving consent from the person. Id.
    § 14/15(b). Section 15(d) provides that a private entity may
    not “disclose, redisclose, or otherwise disseminate” bio-
    metric data without consent. Id. § 14/15(d).
    4                                                    No. 20-3202
    Cothron alleges that White Castle did not attempt to ob-
    tain her consent until 2018—a decade after the Act took
    effect—and therefore unlawfully collected her fingerprints
    and unlawfully disclosed them to its third-party vendor in
    violation of sections 15(b) and 15(d), respectively. She sued
    White Castle and Cross Match Technologies, Inc., the third-
    party vendor, in Illinois state court seeking to represent
    White Castle employees whose rights were violated. Cross
    Match removed the case to federal court under the Class
    Action Fairness Act of 2005. See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1332
    (d), 1453.
    (Cothron later voluntarily dismissed Cross Match from the
    suit, so we mention it no further.)
    The district judge sua sponte addressed subject-matter
    jurisdiction, examining whether Cothron alleged a concrete
    and particularized injury as required for Article III standing.
    Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 
    467 F. Supp. 3d 604
     (N.D. Ill.
    2020). Based on our reasoning in Bryant v. Compass Group
    USA, Inc., 
    958 F.3d 617
     (7th Cir. 2020), the judge determined
    that jurisdiction is secure. Cothron, 467 F. Supp. 3d at 611–13.
    White Castle then moved for judgment on the pleadings,
    see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c), arguing that the suit is untimely. (The
    duration of the limitations period is disputed, but all agree
    that it is no longer than five years.) White Castle maintained
    that Cothron filed suit too late because her claim accrued in
    2008 with her first fingerprint scan after the Act’s effective
    date. Cothron countered that a new claim accrued each time
    she scanned her fingerprint and White Castle sent it to the
    third-party authenticator—not just the first time—so her suit
    is timely with respect to the unlawful scans and transmis-
    sions that occurred within the limitations period.
    No. 20-3202                                                    5
    The judge agreed with Cothron and denied White
    Castle’s motion. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., Inc., 
    477 F. Supp. 3d 723
    , 734 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Because the decision involved a
    controlling question of law on which there is substantial
    ground for disagreement, the judge certified his order for
    immediate appeal, see § 1292(b), and we accepted the certifi-
    cation. Cothron in turn asks us to certify the question to the
    Illinois Supreme Court.
    II. Discussion
    Though no one challenges the judge’s jurisdictional rul-
    ing, “[s]ubject-matter jurisdiction is the first issue in any
    case,” Miller v. Sw. Airlines Co., 
    926 F.3d 898
    , 902 (7th Cir.
    2019), so we begin with our “independent duty to ensure”
    that this case is properly in federal court, Dexia Crédit Loc. v.
    Rogan, 
    602 F.3d 879
    , 883 (7th Cir. 2010). After confirming
    Cothron’s standing, we turn to the controlling legal ques-
    tion—whether section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue just
    once or repeatedly—as well as Cothron’s request to certify
    the question to the Illinois Supreme Court.
    A. Article III Standing and Section 15(d)
    Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdictional
    reach of the federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.”
    U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. Essential to this limitation is the
    requirement that a plaintiff have standing to sue in federal
    court. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 
    547 U.S. 332
    , 342 (2006).
    At the pleading stage, standing requires allegations of a
    concrete and particularized injury in fact that is traceable to
    the defendant’s conduct and redressable by judicial relief.
    Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 
    504 U.S. 555
    , 560–61 (1992); Bryant,
    958 F.3d at 620–21.
    6                                                    No. 20-3202
    Our decision in Bryant resolved the standing question for
    claims under section 15(b) of the Act, see 958 F.3d at 624, but
    we have yet to decide whether a violation of section 15(d)
    inflicts a concrete and particularized Article III injury. We do
    so here.
    Concrete injuries encompass harms that are “real, and
    not abstract.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 
    578 U.S. 330
    , 340 (2016)
    (quotation marks omitted). Tangible harms like physical and
    monetary injuries are the most obvious, but certain intangi-
    ble harms, most particularly those closely related to harms
    “traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in
    American courts,” also qualify. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
    
    141 S. Ct. 2190
    , 2204 (2021); see also Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 340–41.
    These include, for example, “reputational harms, disclosure
    of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion.”
    TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2204.
    Particularized injuries are those that “affect the plaintiff
    in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 
    504 U.S. at
    560 n.1.
    They must be distinguished from “generalized grievances”
    that affect the public generally and for which an individual
    cannot seek relief in federal court. DaimlerChrysler, 
    547 U.S. at 348
    .
    Our application of these principles to section 15(d) is
    streamlined by the reasoning in Bryant and related circuit
    precedent regarding other sections of the Act. In Bryant we
    addressed whether the collection of biometric data without
    complying with section 15(b)’s informed-consent procedures
    inflicts an Article III injury. 958 F.3d at 620. We noted that the
    informed-consent duties prescribed by section 15(b) protect
    a person’s privacy interests in his unique biometric data, so a
    noncompliant collection of biometric data amounts to an
    No. 20-3202                                                  7
    invasion of an individual’s “private domain, much like an act
    of trespass.” Id. at 624.
    We explained that the duties imposed by section 15(b)
    reflect the General Assembly’s judgment that people must
    have “the opportunity to make informed choices about to
    whom and for what purpose they will relinquish control”
    over their biometric data. Id. at 626. Failure to comply with
    these requirements deprives a person of “the opportunity to
    consider whether the terms of … collection and usage [are]
    acceptable given the attendant risks.” Id. That deprivation,
    we held, is a concrete and particularized harm, so a violation
    of section 15(b) inflicts an Article III injury. Id.
    In Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems, LLC, 
    980 F.3d 1146
    (7th Cir. 2020), we extended Bryant’s reasoning to a provision
    in section 15(a) of the Act, 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/15(a). The
    relevant provision conditions the retention of biometric data
    on compliance with the purposes of its collection as set out
    in a data-retention schedule. Fox, 980 F.3d at 1154–55. We
    explained that the duty to comply with a data-retention
    schedule protects a person’s biometric privacy just as surely
    as section 15(b)’s informed-consent requirements. See id. at
    1155. We thus concluded that the unlawful retention of
    biometric data, just like its unlawful collection, works a
    concrete and particularized Article III injury. Id.
    The same reasoning applies to section 15(d), which pro-
    hibits the disclosure, redisclosure, or dissemination of a
    person’s biometric data without consent, an act that invades
    his private domain just as surely as an unconsented collec-
    tion or retention does. Section 15(d) is therefore unlike other
    sections of the Act that impose duties owed only to the
    public generally—the violation of which does not, without
    8                                                   No. 20-3202
    more, confer standing. See, e.g., Thornley v. Clearview AI, Inc.,
    
    984 F.3d 1241
    , 1247 (7th Cir. 2021) (holding that a violation of
    section 15(c)’s general prohibition on the sale of biometric
    data does not inflict an Article III injury); Bryant, 958 F.3d at
    626 (holding that a violation of section 15(a)’s duty to pro-
    vide a data-retention schedule to the public does not inflict
    an Article III injury). And just as with section 15(b), the
    failure to obtain consent for a disclosure or dissemination
    deprives a person of the opportunity to consider who may
    possess his biometric data and under what circumstances,
    “given the attendant risks.” Bryant, 958 F.3d at 626. It follows
    that a violation of section 15(d) inflicts a concrete and partic-
    ularized Article III injury. Cothron’s suit is properly in
    federal court.
    B. BIPA Claim Accrual
    The timeliness of the suit depends on whether a claim
    under the Act accrued each time Cothron scanned her
    fingerprint to access a work computer or just the first time.
    Cothron maintains that each scan amounted to a distinct and
    separately actionable section 15(b) violation and that each
    transmission of her fingerprint likewise amounted to a
    distinct and separately actionable section 15(d) violation.
    White Castle says only the first scan and transmission matter
    for accrual purposes.
    The disagreement, framed differently, is whether the Act
    should be treated like a junk-fax statute for which a claim
    accrues for each unsolicited fax, Reliable Money Ord., Inc. v.
    McKnight Sales Co., 
    704 F.3d 489
    , 491 (7th Cir. 2013), or
    instead like certain privacy and reputational torts that accrue
    only at the initial publication of defamatory material, Pippen
    v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, 
    734 F.3d 610
    , 614–15 (7th Cir.
    No. 20-3202                                                  9
    2013). In the district court, the judge sided with Cothron and
    denied White Castle’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
    We review that ruling de novo. Moss v. Martin, 
    473 F.3d 694
    ,
    698 (7th Cir. 2007).
    1. Illinois Claim-Accrual Principles
    This appeal requires us to apply Illinois claim-accrual
    principles to this unique statute. As a general matter, the
    Illinois Supreme Court has explained that a claim accrues
    and “a limitations period begins to run when facts exist that
    authorize one party to maintain an action against another.”
    Feltmeier v. Feltmeier, 
    798 N.E.2d 75
    , 85 (Ill. 2003); see also
    Khan v. Deutsche Bank AG, 
    978 N.E.2d 1020
    , 1028 (Ill. 2012)
    (“A cause of action ‘accrues’ when facts exist that authorize
    the bringing of a cause of action.”).
    The elements of the statutory cause of action are found in
    sections 15 and 20 of the Act. Again, as relevant here, sec-
    tion 15(b) makes it unlawful to “collect, capture, purchase,
    receive through trade, or otherwise obtain” a person’s bio-
    metric data without his written consent. And section 15(d)
    makes it unlawful to “disclose, redisclose, or otherwise
    disseminate” biometric data without the subject’s consent.
    Section 20 sets out the private cause of action, authorizing
    “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation” of the Act to sue and
    “recover for each violation.”
    The key inquiry for claim-accrual purposes is identifying
    when these statutory elements were satisfied, thus authoriz-
    ing suit. See Khan, 978 N.E.2d at 1028. More to the point here,
    we must determine whether suit was authorized on only one
    occasion or instead repeatedly.
    10                                                  No. 20-3202
    2. The Parties’ Arguments
    Cothron contends that the plain language of section 15(b)
    points to only one conclusion: each unlawful “collection” of
    her fingerprint is a separate violation. She further argues
    that the language of section 15(d) is similarly plain and
    means that each unlawful “disclosure” or “dissemination” is
    a separate violation. Finally, she maintains that she was
    “aggrieved” afresh with each statutory violation. For sup-
    port she relies on the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in
    Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 
    129 N.E.3d 1197
    ,
    1206 (Ill. 2019), which explained that a violation of section 15
    itself “aggrieves” a plaintiff within the meaning of sec-
    tion 20. Putting these pieces together, Cothron argues that
    she has a claim for each fingerprint scan within the limita-
    tions period.
    White Castle argues that the answer to the accrual ques-
    tion is not quite so straightforward, offering two reasons for
    its proposed one-time-only rule. First, White Castle invokes
    a special accrual principle applicable in cases involving
    defamation and other privacy torts: the single-publication
    rule. Second, the restaurant argues that the Illinois Supreme
    Court’s reasoning in Rosenbach actually points to the oppo-
    site conclusion: that a plaintiff is “aggrieved” only by the
    initial violations of sections 15(b) and 15(d).
    Under the single-publication rule, a tort claim based on a
    defamatory statement contained in a widely circulated
    publication accrues only upon initial publication, not with
    each subsequent publication of the same statement. See
    Ciolino v. Simon, No. 126024, 
    2021 WL 1031371
    , at *6 (Ill.
    Mar. 18, 2021); see also Founding Church of Scientology of Wash.,
    D.C. v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 
    377 N.E.2d 158
    , 160 (Ill. App. Ct.
    No. 20-3202                                                  11
    1978) (“[T]he cause of action for libel is complete at the time
    of the first publication, and any subsequent appearances or
    distributions of copies of the original publication are of no
    consequence to the creation or existence of a cause of ac-
    tion … .”). The purpose and effect of this rule is to “protect[]
    speakers and writers from repeated litigation arising from a
    single, but mass-produced, defamatory publication.” Pippen,
    734 F.3d at 615.
    Though originally adopted judicially in Illinois, see
    Winrod v. Time, Inc., 
    78 N.E.2d 708
    , 714 (Ill. App. Ct. 1948),
    the single-publication rule is now codified in the Uniform
    Single Publication Act, which Illinois has adopted. The
    statute provides in relevant part:
    No person shall have more than one cause of
    action for damages for libel or slander or inva-
    sion of privacy or any other tort founded upon
    any single publication or exhibition or utter-
    ance, such as any one edition of a newspaper
    or book or magazine or any one presentation to
    an audience or any one broadcast over radio or
    television or any one exhibition of a motion
    picture.
    740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 165/1.
    White Castle argues that an unlawful disclosure of a per-
    son’s biometric data is a privacy-invading “publication” to
    which the single-publication rule should apply, drawing on
    the reasoning in the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in
    West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan,
    Inc., No. 125978, 
    2021 WL 2005464
     (Ill. May 20, 2021). There
    the court held that a disclosure of a fingerprint scan in
    12                                                No. 20-3202
    violation of the Act was a “publication” within the meaning
    of a commercial insurance policy. 
    Id. at *7
    . If White Castle is
    right, Cothron’s section 15(d) claim is untimely.
    As Cothron points out, however, there are reasons to
    doubt the application of the single-publication rule in this
    context. By its terms the Uniform Single Publication Act
    covers defamation and other traditional privacy torts, and its
    illustrative list of publication media—newspapers, books,
    movies, and television and radio broadcasts—suggests that
    it may not be a comfortable fit with the Act. Nor is West Bend
    Mutual the slam dunk that White Castle thinks it is. That
    case concerned whether a section 15(d) disclosure was a
    publication within the meaning of an insurance contract, not
    within the meaning of the Uniform Single Publication Act.
    
    Id. at *6
    .
    Even if the single-publication rule does not apply, the
    language of section 15(d) is arguably consistent with White
    Castle’s proposed first-time-only accrual rule. The ordinary
    meaning of “disclose” connotes a new revelation. Disclose,
    BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (“To make (some-
    thing) known or public; to show (something) after a period
    of inaccessibility or of being unknown; to reveal.”). Repeated
    transmissions of the same biometric identifier to the same
    third party are not new revelations. White Castle argues, not
    unreasonably, that an actionable disclosure occurred only
    the first time Cothron’s fingerprint was transmitted.
    Cothron counters that the Act’s ban on “redisclos[ure]” of
    biometric data forecloses White Castle’s proposed accrual
    rule. She reads the term “redisclose” as used in section 15(d)
    to include repeated disclosures of the same biometric data to
    the same third party. For its part, White Castle offers a
    No. 20-3202                                                           13
    different interpretation of the term: a downstream disclosure
    carried out by a third party to whom information was
    originally disclosed. That reading is consistent with the term
    “redisclose” as used in other Illinois statutes. 1 Countering
    again, Cothron argues that this usage would make “redis-
    close” meaningless surplusage. Section 15(d) applies to any
    “private entity in possession of a biometric identifier or
    biometric information.” As such, a violation by a down-
    stream entity can just be called a “disclosure,” making
    “redisclose” redundant under White Castle’s reading. Maybe
    so; or maybe “redisclose” serves to make certain that down-
    stream entities are subject to section 15(d). See Reid Hosp. &
    Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Sols., LLC, 
    8 F.4th 642
    , 652 (7th Cir. 2021) (noting the tension between the
    anti-surplusage canon and the belt-and-suspenders drafting
    approach).
    Finally, the catchall language in section 15(d)—recall that
    the statute makes it unlawful to “disclose, redisclose, or
    otherwise disseminate” a person’s biometric identifier—does
    not clearly preclude a single-time accrual rule. The phrase
    following the terms “disclose” and “redisclose” may simply
    be a way to ensure that all disclosure-like acts are covered.
    1 See, e.g., 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 110/5(d) (“No person or agency to whom
    any information is disclosed under this [s]ection may redisclose such
    information unless the person who consented to the disclosure specifical-
    ly consents to such redisclosure.”); 
    id.
     § 110/9 (“A person to whom
    disclosure is made under this [s]ection shall not redisclose any infor-
    mation except as provided in this Act.”); 20 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/35.3(b)
    (“A person to whom disclosure of a foster parent’s name, address, or
    telephone number is made under this [s]ection shall not redisclose that
    information except as provided in this Act or the Juvenile Court Act of
    1987.”).
    14                                                No. 20-3202
    See People v. Davis, 
    766 N.E.2d 641
    , 645 (Ill. 2002) (“[W]hen a
    statutory clause specifically describes several classes of
    persons or things and then includes ‘other persons or
    things,’ the word ‘other’ is interpreted as meaning ‘other
    such like.’”). The upshot is that although section 15(d) does
    not clearly say that a claim accrues only once, that is a
    plausible reading of the statutory language.
    White Castle’s second argument is based on the Illinois
    Supreme Court’s reasoning in Rosenbach, which concerned
    section 15(b) of the Act. There, a Six Flags amusement park
    collected a patron’s fingerprint to facilitate his entry to the
    park as a season pass holder. Rosenbach, 129 N.E.3d at 1200.
    He sued for the unlawful collection of his biometric data in
    violation of section 15(b). Id. at 1201. The question was
    whether the alleged statutory violation by itself “aggrieved”
    the plaintiff within the meaning of section 20, giving him the
    right to sue. Id. at 1202.
    To answer the question, the Illinois Supreme Court ex-
    plained that the Act generally protects a person’s “right to
    privacy in and control over” his biometric data and that the
    provisions in section 15 define the contours of that right. Id.
    at 1206. It follows, the court held, that a violation of one of
    those provisions aggrieves a plaintiff within the meaning of
    section 20. Id. The court was clear that “[n]o additional
    consequences need be pleaded or proved.” Id. Accordingly, a
    plaintiff can sue without “show[ing] some injury beyond [a]
    violation of [his] statutory rights.” Id. at 1207.
    Rosenbach’s expansive language can be read to favor
    Cothron’s position. A section 15 violation, without more,
    aggrieves a plaintiff within the meaning of section 20. And it
    No. 20-3202                                                    15
    may follow that an “aggrievement” occurs at each violation,
    with a claim accruing each time as well.
    At bottom, however, the issue in Rosenbach was not claim
    accrual, let alone the repeated accrual issue we consider
    here. Seizing this opening, White Castle focuses on
    Rosenbach’s reasoning, with special emphasis on the court’s
    explanation that the Act protects a person’s right of “privacy
    in and control over” his biometric data. White Castle theo-
    rizes that this right is fully invaded by an initial violation of
    section 15(b) or 15(d) and that repeated violations by the
    same person do no further harm to the person’s privacy or
    control rights.
    White Castle’s one-and-done theory makes sense if we
    accept that subsequent collections or disclosures of biometric
    data do not work a harm that the Act seeks to prevent. And
    more importantly, focusing on what it means to be “ag-
    grieved” by a violation of the statute gives this theory a
    plausible hook in the statutory text. But the theory also has
    some notable weak spots. The premise—two violations
    aren’t worse than one—may simply be wrong. Repeated
    collections or disclosures of biometric data, even if by or to
    the same entity, might increase the risk of misuse or mishan-
    dling of biometric data. If so, each violation would seem to
    independently aggrieve a plaintiff. And the theory is hard to
    square with the broad language in Rosenbach that “[n]o
    additional consequences need be pleaded or proved” other
    than a violation of the plaintiff’s statutory rights. Id. at 1206.
    Beyond their arguments from text and precedent, both
    Cothron and White Castle maintain that the other’s position
    would produce untenable consequences that the General
    Assembly could not possibly have intended. See People v.
    16                                                  No. 20-3202
    Collins, 
    824 N.E.2d 262
    , 266 (Ill. 2005) (“[I]n construing a
    statute, we presume that the legislature did not intend an
    absurd result.”). White Castle reminds us that the Act pro-
    vides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 for “each
    violation” of the statute. § 14/20. Because White Castle’s
    employees scan their fingerprints frequently, perhaps even
    multiple times per shift, Cothron’s interpretation could yield
    staggering damages awards in this case and others like it. If
    a new claim accrues with each scan, as Cothron argues,
    violators face potentially crippling financial liability.
    Cothron responds that the calculation of damages is sep-
    arate from the question of claim accrual. True, but she does
    not explain how alternative theories of calculating damages
    might be reconciled with the text of section 20. Her better
    point is that White Castle’s first-time-only reading would
    itself lead to an odd result. Once a private entity has violated
    the Act, it would have little incentive to course correct and
    comply if subsequent violations carry no legal consequences.
    All told, the practical implications of either side’s interpreta-
    tion, to the extent that Illinois courts would weigh them, do
    not decisively tilt one way or the other.
    C. Certification
    In light of the novelty and uncertainty of the claim-
    accrual question, Cothron asks us to certify it to the Illinois
    Supreme Court. Our rules permit us to certify state-law
    questions to a state supreme court when the answer will
    control the outcome of a case and the state court accepts
    such certifications. 7TH CIR. R. 52(a). The Illinois Supreme
    Court accepts certified questions from this court when none
    of its precedents control and the answer to the certified
    question will determine the outcome of the case. ILL. S. CT.
    No. 20-3202                                                             
    17 R. 20
    (a). Those threshold requirements are met here. The
    Illinois Supreme Court has not yet decided whether sec-
    tion 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue repeatedly. If they do,
    Cothron’s action can continue; otherwise, it fails.
    These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for certi-
    fication. We are mindful of our obligation not to burden a
    state’s highest court with unwarranted certification requests,
    so additional factors weigh in the balance. See State Farm
    Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pate, 
    275 F.3d 666
    , 671 (7th Cir. 2001).
    First and foremost, we must find ourselves “genuinely
    uncertain” about the answer to the state-law question before
    considering certification. In re Hernandez, 
    918 F.3d 563
    , 570
    (7th Cir. 2019). That criterion is satisfied here. As discussed,
    there are reasons to think that the Illinois Supreme Court
    might side with either Cothron or White Castle. A wrong
    answer may also transcend the Act and implicate fundamen-
    tal Illinois accrual principles on which only the state’s high-
    est court can provide authoritative guidance. 2
    2 Just a few days ago, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court
    decided Watson v. Legacy Healthcare Financial Services, LLC, No. 1-21-0279,
    
    2021 WL 5917935
     (Ill. App. Ct. Dec. 15, 2021). There the court held that a
    section 15(b) claim accrues with “each and every capture and use of [a]
    plaintiff’s fingerprint or hand scan.” 
    Id. at *5
    . Generally speaking,
    certification to a state supreme court is not appropriate when the state’s
    intermediate appellate courts have addressed the question and agree on
    the answer. See Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Statewide Ins. Co., 
    352 F.3d 1098
    , 1100 (7th Cir. 2003) (declining to certify a question to the Illinois
    Supreme Court because the “Illinois appellate courts have spoken, and
    they are not in conflict”). The recent decision in Watson does not weigh
    against certification. It is the only appellate decision to address the
    repeated accrual of claims under the Act, and it did not address sec-
    tion 15(d), which we consider alongside section 15(b) here. Furthermore,
    as we explain, the issue of claim accrual under the Act is a close, recur-
    18                                                     No. 20-3202
    It’s also important that the dispositive legal question is
    general and likely to recur rather than unique and fact
    bound. Zahn v. N. Am. Power & Gas, LLC, 
    815 F.3d 1082
    , 1085
    (7th Cir. 2016). The question here is a purely legal one that
    has already shown itself to frequently arise. It drew signifi-
    cant interest from amici on both sides. Several federal district
    courts have recently stayed their proceedings awaiting our
    judgment in this case. E.g., Callender v. Quality Packaging
    Specialists Int’l, LLC, No. 21-cv-505-SMY, 
    2021 WL 4169967
    , at
    *2 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2021); Johns v. Paycor, Inc., No. 20-cv-
    00264-DWD, 
    2021 WL 2627974
    , at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 11, 2021).
    Finally, it matters that the Act is a unique Illinois statute
    regularly applied by the federal courts, see Nagy v. Riblet
    Prods. Corp., 
    79 F.3d 572
    , 577 (7th Cir. 1996), and one that the
    Illinois Supreme Court has shown an interest in interpreting,
    see Stephan v. Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc., 
    129 F.3d 414
    , 418 (7th Cir. 1997). In addition to deciding Rosenbach in
    2019 and West Bend Mutual in 2021, the court recently ac-
    cepted review of McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC,
    
    163 N.E.3d 746
     (Table) (Ill. 2021), which asks whether the
    state’s Workers’ Compensation Act precludes an employee’s
    claims for statutory damages under the Act.
    Accordingly, the relevant criteria favor certification. We
    therefore respectfully ask the Illinois Supreme Court, in its
    discretion, to answer the following certified question:
    ring, and hotly disputed question of great legal and practical conse-
    quence that requires authoritative guidance from the Illinois Supreme
    Court.
    No. 20-3202                                                 19
    Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each
    time a private entity scans a person’s biometric
    identifier and each time a private entity trans-
    mits such a scan to a third party, respectively,
    or only upon the first scan and first transmis-
    sion?
    Nothing in this certification should be read to limit the scope
    of the Illinois Supreme Court’s inquiry, and the justices are
    invited to reformulate the certified question. Further pro-
    ceedings in this court are stayed while this matter is under
    consideration by the Illinois Supreme Court.
    QUESTION CERTIFIED