{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.271Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-33", "slug": "cothron-v-white-castle", "titleZh": "Cothron 诉 White Castle 指纹扫描案", "formalName": "Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.", "aliases": [ "White Castle BIPA case", "Cothron v White Castle" ], "summary": "伊利诺伊州最高法院以 4 比 3 裁定，在未取得法定同意时，每一次收集或传输生物识别信息都可分别产生 BIPA 请求。", "professionalSummary": "2023 IL 128004 回答第七巡回法院认证问题，解释 BIPA 第 15(b)、15(d) 条的请求发生时点；损害额仍由后续程序及立法规则决定。", "whyItMatters": "逐次发生规则显著放大持续部署生物识别系统的潜在责任。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "privacy-data-protection", "secondaryTopics": [ "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "biometrics", "automated-decision" ], "jurisdiction": "美国·伊利诺伊州最高法院", "industries": [ "雇佣", "生物识别" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 26, "impactScope": 24, "institutionalLevel": 20, "crossBorder": 2, "sustainedCoverage": 14, "total": 86 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": false, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-33:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-33", "formalName": "Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc.", "identifier": "No. 128004", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "128004", "neutralCitation": "2023 IL 128004" }, "forum": "Supreme Court of Illinois", "jurisdiction": "美国·伊利诺伊州最高法院", "type": "civil-litigation", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2023-02-17", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "officialUrl": "https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2023/128004.html" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-33:event-1", "matterId": "matter-33", "proceedingId": "matter-33:proceeding-1", "date": "2023-02-17", "type": "judgment", "title": "州最高法院回答认证法律问题", "summary": "伊利诺伊州最高法院裁定，每次未经许可的扫描或传输均可分别触发 BIPA 请求。", "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-33:claim-1", "matter-33:claim-procedure", "matter-33:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-33:document-1", "familyId": "matter-33:family-1", "matterId": "matter-33", "eventId": "matter-33:event-1", "title": "Cothron v. White Castle — 2023 IL 128004", "originalTitle": "Cothron v. White Castle — 2023 IL 128004", "url": "https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/supreme-court/2023/128004.html", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "justia", "publishedAt": "2023-02-17", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "docketNumber": "128004", "neutralCitation": "2023 IL 128004" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-33:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-33", "eventId": "matter-33:event-1", "text": "伊利诺伊州最高法院裁定，每次未经许可的扫描或传输均可分别触发 BIPA 请求。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-02-17" }, { "id": "matter-33:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-33", "eventId": "matter-33:event-1", "text": "No. 128004 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 Supreme Court of Illinois 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-02-17" }, { "id": "matter-33:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-33", "eventId": "matter-33:event-1", "text": "2023-02-17，案卷记录“州最高法院回答认证法律问题”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ], "asOf": "2023-02-17" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "White Castle 员工 Cothron 挑战公司在其每次指纹扫描和传输时未取得 BIPA 所要求的同意。第七巡回法院将请求发生时点问题认证给伊利诺伊州最高法院；该院在 2023 IL 128004 中以 4 比 3 作答。", "partiesZh": [ "原告：Cothron", "被告：White Castle System, Inc." ], "aiSystemZh": "White Castle 工作场所指纹扫描系统", "challengedConductZh": "在未取得法定同意时反复收集或传输员工生物识别信息。", "allegedHarmZh": "Cothron 主张每次未经许可的扫描或传输均分别侵害 BIPA 权利。", "proceduralOriginZh": "联邦第七巡回法院认证州法问题后，伊利诺伊州最高法院于 2023 年 2 月 17 日解释 BIPA 第 15(b)、15(d) 条。", "claimIds": [ "matter-33:claim-1", "matter-33:claim-procedure", "matter-33:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "matterId": "matter-33", "titleZh": "每次指纹扫描是否产生独立请求", "questionZh": "未经同意的生物识别信息收集，是首次发生一次性产生请求，还是每次扫描均重新产生请求？", "contextZh": "答案直接决定持续多年部署的潜在请求数量和责任规模。", "topic": "privacy-data-protection", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "伊利诺伊州最高法院多数意见认定，每次未经许可的扫描都可分别触发 BIPA 第 15(b) 条请求。", "claimIds": [ "matter-33:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual:position-1", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "sideZh": "Cothron", "positionZh": "主张每次未经同意的收集都产生独立请求。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual:position-2", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "sideZh": "White Castle", "positionZh": "争议焦点表明其反对逐次发生解释；底库未收录完整答辩文本。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "matterId": "matter-33", "titleZh": "每次传输是否产生独立请求", "questionZh": "未经同意传输生物识别信息时，是否每次传输都触发 BIPA 第 15(d) 条请求？", "contextZh": "传输与采集分别受到不同条款调整，但法院采用相同的逐次发生路径。", "topic": "privacy-data-protection", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "法院认定每次未经许可的传输均可分别触发第 15(d) 条请求。", "claimIds": [ "matter-33:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual:position-1", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "sideZh": "Cothron", "positionZh": "主张每次传输均为新的法定侵害。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual:position-2", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "sideZh": "White Castle", "positionZh": "反对把持续使用中的每次传输分别计算为请求。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-33:issue-damages-scale", "matterId": "matter-33", "titleZh": "逐次发生规则下的损害额范围", "questionZh": "每次扫描或传输都可起诉，是否意味着法定损害必须机械地按每次行为累加？", "contextZh": "州最高法院回答请求何时发生，但没有在该认证程序中确定最终损害数额。", "topic": "consumer-protection", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-33:issue-damages-scale:position-1", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-damages-scale", "sideZh": "Cothron", "positionZh": "依据逐次发生解释主张多次法定侵害。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-33:issue-damages-scale:position-2", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-damages-scale", "sideZh": "White Castle", "positionZh": "关注逐次计算可能显著放大的责任规模。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-33:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-33", "proceedingId": "matter-33:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-33:event-1", "date": "2023-02-17", "outcomeZh": "伊利诺伊州最高法院以 4 比 3 回答认证问题：每次未经许可收集或传输生物识别信息，均可分别产生 BIPA 请求。", "holdingsZh": [ "每次未经许可扫描可触发 BIPA 第 15(b) 条请求。", "每次未经许可传输可触发 BIPA 第 15(d) 条请求。", "认证判决没有确定本案最终损害额。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "多数意见依条文所调整的收集与传输行为，采用逐次发生而非仅首次发生的解释。", "请求发生时点与最终法定赔偿范围是不同问题，后者需由后续程序及立法规则处理。" ], "reliefZh": "法院只回答州法认证问题，没有在该判决中判给具体损害赔偿或禁令。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "裁判解释 BIPA 第 15(b)、15(d) 条的请求发生时点，不确定 White Castle 的最终赔偿额。", "precedentialWeight": "binding", "appealStatusZh": "伊利诺伊州最高法院于 2023 年 2 月 17 日作出州法问题的有约束力答案；底库未记录后续改变该解释的裁判。", "documentIds": [ "matter-33:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-33:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual-knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "documentId": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 BIPA 的同意、保存销毁、私人诉权、损害与制度局限提供学术背景；不替代个案对请求发生或和解公平性的判断。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual-news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "documentId": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为生物识别案件提供无感收集、执法使用、偏差和跨场景滥用的社会与政策背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual-knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "documentId": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 BIPA 的同意、保存销毁、私人诉权、损害与制度局限提供学术背景；不替代个案对请求发生或和解公平性的判断。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual-news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "documentId": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为生物识别案件提供无感收集、执法使用、偏差和跨场景滥用的社会与政策背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual-knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "documentId": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 BIPA 的同意、保存销毁、私人诉权、损害与制度局限提供学术背景；不替代个案对请求发生或和解公平性的判断。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "familyId": "knowledge-family-bipa-biometric-privacy", "title": "BIPA：美国最重要的生物识别隐私法？", "originalTitle": "BIPA: The Most Important Biometric Privacy Law in the US?", "url": "https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/regulating-biometrics-global-approaches-and-open-questions", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "ai-now-institute", "publishedAt": "2020-09-01", "author": "Woodrow Hartzog", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3722053" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "评估 BIPA 的知情同意、禁止牟利、保存销毁、注意义务和私人诉权，既肯定其问责作用，也批评仅依赖通知与选择难以处理生物识别系统性风险。", "venue": "Regulating Biometrics: Global Approaches and Urgent Questions", "publisher": "AI Now Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3722053" }, "legalTopics": [ "privacy-data-protection", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "biometrics", "automated-decision", "training-data" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual-news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-scan-accrual", "documentId": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为生物识别案件提供无感收集、执法使用、偏差和跨场景滥用的社会与政策背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "familyId": "news-family-facial-recognition-challenges", "title": "人脸识别技术带来的法律与社会挑战", "originalTitle": "The Challenges of Facial Recognition Technologies", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/challenges-facial-recognition-technologies", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2020-04-23", "author": "Shana Lynch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "报道以 Marietje Schaake 的研究和政策观察为主线，梳理人脸识别在偏差、无感收集、数据所有权、执法监控与跨场景滥用方面的问题。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇机构报道把商业认证、公共空间追踪与执法识别放在同一风险图景中，适合为 Clearview、BIPA 和中国人脸识别案件提供背景，但不评价具体算法的准确率。", "legalTopics": [ "privacy-data-protection", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "biometrics", "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual-knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "documentId": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为 BIPA 的同意、保存销毁、私人诉权、损害与制度局限提供学术背景；不替代个案对请求发生或和解公平性的判断。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-bipa-biometric-privacy", "familyId": "knowledge-family-bipa-biometric-privacy", "title": "BIPA：美国最重要的生物识别隐私法？", "originalTitle": "BIPA: The Most Important Biometric Privacy Law in the US?", "url": "https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/regulating-biometrics-global-approaches-and-open-questions", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "ai-now-institute", "publishedAt": "2020-09-01", "author": "Woodrow Hartzog", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3722053" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "评估 BIPA 的知情同意、禁止牟利、保存销毁、注意义务和私人诉权，既肯定其问责作用，也批评仅依赖通知与选择难以处理生物识别系统性风险。", "venue": "Regulating Biometrics: Global Approaches and Urgent Questions", "publisher": "AI Now Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3722053" }, "legalTopics": [ "privacy-data-protection", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "biometrics", "automated-decision", "training-data" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-33-matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual-news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "matterId": "matter-33", "issueId": "matter-33:issue-per-transmission-accrual", "documentId": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为生物识别案件提供无感收集、执法使用、偏差和跨场景滥用的社会与政策背景。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-facial-recognition-challenges", "familyId": "news-family-facial-recognition-challenges", "title": "人脸识别技术带来的法律与社会挑战", "originalTitle": "The Challenges of Facial Recognition Technologies", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/challenges-facial-recognition-technologies", "kind": "factual-report", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2020-04-23", "author": "Shana Lynch", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "报道以 Marietje Schaake 的研究和政策观察为主线，梳理人脸识别在偏差、无感收集、数据所有权、执法监控与跨场景滥用方面的问题。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "这篇机构报道把商业认证、公共空间追踪与执法识别放在同一风险图景中，适合为 Clearview、BIPA 和中国人脸识别案件提供背景，但不评价具体算法的准确率。", "legalTopics": [ "privacy-data-protection", "discrimination", "public-law-human-rights" ], "aiRoles": [ "biometrics", "automated-decision" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "justia", "slug": "justia", "name": "Justia Dockets & Opinions", "homepage": "https://law.justia.com/", "type": "legal-database", "grade": "B", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 15, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 17, "historicalAccuracy": 11, "total": 84 }, "rationale": "公开法律数据库，可回溯法院、案号与文书；摘要属于二手材料，裁判 PDF 按一手文书处理。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "ai-now-institute", "slug": "ai-now-institute", "name": "AI Now Institute", "homepage": "https://ainowinstitute.org/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "独立研究机构按项目发布作者、方法、报告版本和稳定全文；政策主张与案件事实分开显示。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 17, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 93 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "stanford-hai", "slug": "stanford-hai", "name": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "homepage": "https://hai.stanford.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "rationale": "大学研究机构发布研究、政策简报与新闻；按具体作者和文类区分一手研究与机构评论。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 90 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/cothron-v-white-castle" }