CBA Record March-April 2024

provisions were established to protect a concrete, substantive right, as opposed to a purely procedural right (which requires showing that BIPA was created to protect a personal right, such as the right to self determination and bodily autonomy); and second, plead that the specific procedural violation harms or presents a material risk of harm to the underlying concrete inter est articulated in step 1. The article recommends that BIPA plaintiffs argue that when a private entity fails to meet BIPA’s basic requirements, plaintiffs are deprived of their ability to have meaningful control over their bio metric information as an extension of their body. Or, depending on the spe cific provision at issue, a failure to inform consumers of data handling practices nullifies a consumer’s right to meaning fully consent to the use of their biometric data. This presents material risks of harm because biometric data is immutable and can exist in the digital ether forever. This issue could undermine BIPA’s entire scheme. If defendants can easily remove a case to federal court and have it dismissed, consumers lose one of the only forms of redress they have against those who violate their biometric privacy rights. Lawyers counseling BIPA clients can use the proposed framework to articu late injury sufficient to survive a standing challenge in federal court. a modification of maintenance is not an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Staszak, 2022 IL App (2d) 210427-U. • Salary decreases from a good faith retire ment may constitute a change in circum stance. In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2022 IL App (1st) 201358. • Parties must explicitly provide that maintenance is non-modifiable when intended. In re Marriage of Podolsky, 2022 IL App (5th) 210195-U. • A catch-all provision of non-modifiabil ity precludes modifying maintenance. In re marriage of Scarp and Rahman, 2022 IL App (1st) 210711. • A party cannot attack or modify a 12-year-old child support order because

REVIEW OF REVIEWS

REVIEWS, REVIEWS, REVIEWS! Biometric Data is Concrete, Your Injury is Imminent and Particularized: Articulating a BIPA Claim to Survive Article III Standing After Transunion V. Ramirez By Kelsey Kenney, Maine Law Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, (March 2023) Reviewed by Sydney Box, 3L at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

Robbins, the Court found that plain tiffs do not necessarily meet the injury requirement for standing merely by show ing a statutory violation. Without proof of concrete harm, there is no injury. In TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Court clarified that only plaintiffs who can show concrete harm can join a class action against a pri vate defender. This is a problem for BIPA plaintiffs in federal court because BIPA only requires statutory violation, with out any necessary further establishment of harm. The result is that BIPA plaintiffs might get standing in an Illinois court but might not survive a standing challenge if defendants can successfully remove the case to a federal court . A two-step framework is proposed for BIPA plaintiffs to survive such a standing challenge: first, show that BIPA’s statutory • PA 102-143 permits a court to order relocation on a temporary basis pending resolution of a divorce action. • Pas 10-87 and 823 clarify insurance issues arising from Illinois’ switch to the income shares model. Several recent cases addressed child sup port and maintenance, including these: • The IMDMA excludes accelerated depreciation from net business income. In re Marriage of Britton, 2022 IL App (5th) 210065. • Refusing to modify child support despite

This article proposes a creative solution to the issue of standing that can trouble BIPA plaintiffs in federal court. A key fea ture of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is the private right of action, which allows consumers to vindicate their rights over their biometric information by recovering damages from entities that have breached any of BIPA’s requirements. In Rosenbach v. Six Flags , the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted BIPA to confer standing to a plaintiff when the entity in question fails to comply with BIPA’s requirements. A procedural violation of BIPA is enough to give a plaintiff standing in a BIPA claim in Illinois courts. The article shines a spotlight on the problem that now exists following two recent Supreme Court cases regarding standing in federal courts. In Spokeo v. Modifications to Illinois family law passed in 2022 included the following: • Public Act 102-0823 clarifies “what was contemplated” when parties entered into a judgment for dissolution of marriage. • PA 102-0831 makes stalking “no con tact” orders private. • PA 102-0685 repealed the Parental Notice of Abortion Act. • PA 102-480 adds a procedure for liti gants to seek interim fees to retain an attorney under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

2022 Survey of Illinois Law: Family Law By Stephanie L. Tang, 47 South. Ill. Law J. 581 (2023) By Matthew Butt, 3L at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

44 March/April 2024