Health Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—Government Contractors, Take Note: Illinois Court Curtails Broad BIPA Exemption, (May 15, 2026)

By Jason Stiehl, Kate Growley and Jacob Canter of Crowell & Moring LLP

A recent Illinois appellate decision has narrowed a key protection that state and local government contractors have long been able to rely on under Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In Thomas v. Cornerstone Services, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court held that BIPA's government contractor exemption does not provide blanket immunity to contractors simply because they hold a contract or subcontract with a state agency or local unit of government. The ruling carries important compliance implications for contractors and subcontractors operating across both government and private-sector markets.

The Opinion

Section 25(e) of BIPA states the following: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to a contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a State agency or local unit of government when working for that State agency or local unit of government."

In Cornerstone Services, the Court held that the phrase in this section "when working for the State agency or local unit of government" exempts a government contractor's actions only when the contractor possesses a government contract and its alleged BIPA violation was within the scope of its government contractual work.

This holding is consequential because, previously, government contractors had argued that the BIPA exemption operated to bar BIPA lawsuits in all circumstances. The Appellate Court rejected this broader interpretation as inconsistent with BIPA's purpose of protecting the public from private entities that compromise biometric data.

In this case, the plaintiff is a former Cornerstone Services employee, and the defendant is an Illinois state government contractor.

Why BIPA Matters for Government Contractors

Enacted in 2008, BIPA regulates the collection, use, safeguarding, handling, storage, retention, and destruction of biometric identifiers and information, including fingerprints and hand scans, by private entities. Critically, BIPA provides a private right of action with statutory damages that multiply rapidly in the class action context, making it potentially one of the most financially consequential privacy statutes in the United States.

Government contractors are particularly exposed because they frequently use biometric systems—such as fingerprint timekeeping and identity verification tools — across both government and commercial operations. Cornerstone Services makes clear that a government contract does not insulate a contractor from BIPA liability for biometric data practices conducted outside the scope of that contract.

In its briefing, Cornerstone Services argued that this conclusion "creates an ‘unworkable scheme’ where some operations by government contractors are exempt and others are not." But the court was unmoved by this concern, remarking that "[s]uch concerns are beyond our purview where the language of the Act is plain and unambiguous," observing that available solutions include separating portions of the workforce or receiving statutory consent.

With class action BIPA litigation remaining active, contractors that have assumed broad exemption protection should reassess that assumption immediately.

Steps Government Contractors Should Take Now

In light of Cornerstone Services, government contractors that do work with state agencies or local units of government should take the following steps to reduce BIPA exposure:

1. Audit biometric data practices. Map all biometric data collection, storage, and disclosure activities across the organization. Identify which practices are tied to government contract performance and which relate to private-sector or general administrative operations (e.g., payroll processing).

2. Obtain proper employee consent for non-governmental uses. For any biometric data activities not clearly within the scope of a government contract, ensure employees have received the written disclosures and provided the written consent required by BIPA before their data is collected or disclosed.

3. Review third-party vendor agreements. Audit all agreements with payroll processors and timekeeping vendors that receive biometric data and confirm disclosures are properly authorized.

4. Implement separate compliance protocols. Establish clear internal policies distinguishing between biometric data practices within the scope of government contracts and those that are not, and maintain documentation to support any exemption claim.

5. Train staff and update written policies. Ensure that biometric data retention and destruction schedules, written notices, and employee-facing policies comply with BIPA across all lines of business, and train personnel on how the exemption applies—and where it does not.

Crowell actively monitors BIPA and other privacy and government contracting developments and is available to assist further.

Jason Stiehl, Kate Growley and Jacob Canter

Crowell & Moring LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington

DC 20004

United States

Tel.: +1 202 624.2500

E-mail: mbrandt@crowell.com

URL: www.crowell.com/ (c) Mondaq Ltd, 2026 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

Attorneys: Jason Stiehl, Kate Growley and Jacob Canter (Crowell & Moring LLP).

ExpertInsights: NewsStory ExpertInsights ComplianceNews EHRNews HITNews