Truckers’ lawsuit over driver-facing cameras moves forward

Many truck drivers have complained about motor carriers that require the use of driver-facing cameras.

Truckers at an Illinois trucking company claim that the cameras violate state biometric laws. In June, a judge ruled that the case can move forward.

Judge Manish Shah of the Northern District of Illinois federal court denied HMD Trucking’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. The drivers argue that the driver-facing cameras violate the Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The privacy act requires Illinois companies to have a written policy if they collect “biometric identifiers or biometric information.” This policy must detail how long the data will be kept and how it will be destroyed. A “biometric identifier” includes retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints or scans of hand or face geometry.

Companies must inform individuals in writing about the data collection process, its purpose and its duration. They must also get written consent from the person.

HMD Trucking uses driver-facing cameras in its trucks to monitor drivers. By linking “facial geometry” to specific drivers, the company can track performance and ensure compliance while on duty.

The truck drivers claim they were never informed in writing about the collection of their biometric data. They also did not give any written consent.

HMD Trucking argues that the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A) overrides the privacy act claims. The company states that even if it doesn’t, facial scans of drivers aren’t protected under the privacy act.

F4A takes precedence over any state law related to the price, route or service of motor carriers. HMD Trucking says that the privacy act would prevent it from improving customer service or public safety if drivers refuse to consent to monitoring.

The company also claims that requiring permission or removing cameras from non-consenting drivers would create financial burdens. These costs would ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Shah disagreed. In his ruling, he noted that HMD Trucking did not explain how having a public policy would impact prices or services. It was also unclear how informed consent requirements would affect safety or service, aside from possibly removing cameras. The privacy act does not require this.

“It’s also not enough to merely gesture to the potential effects of enforcing state law on prices or services; the effect must also be significant,” Shah states in the order. “At this stage, there’s insufficient evidence in the record to find preemption as a matter of law.”

HMD Trucking also claims that drivers must show facial scans are used for identification. If not, the scans do not count as biometric identifiers. The drivers argue that the driver-facing cameras link information to specific individuals, suggesting that the scans can identify a person. Shah sided with the drivers.

“(Biometric Information Privacy Act) does not require a defendant to have used biometric information or a biometric identifier to identify a person; only that the identifier is capable of identifying an individual,” Shah states.

If the drivers win, HMD Trucking could face fines of $5,000 for each willful or reckless violation of the privacy act or $1,000 for each negligent one. Court documents indicate there may be several hundred class members.

According to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration records, HMD Trucking has nearly 300 drivers. Its website shows it also hires owner-operators. LL