Skip to content
The Leahy SALT Blog
Published by Jake Leahy

Seventh Circuit Affirms Decision Below in Favor of Blackstone in Ancestry Privacy Case

The Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA") has been extensively litigated in Illinois courts, with several recent rulings, including at the Illinois Supreme Court, in favor of plaintiffs. Here, the Seventh Circuit considered a question under the lesser known Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), which was enacted in 1998.
This is my grandfather, Thomas Baker. He coached little league for years and taught my dad and uncles how to play. He was commissioned as a painter for rockets and spaceships and was also an auctioneer. His nickname was Hillbilly Auctioneer since he was from Tennessee. I remember listening to a recording of him years ago– the man could talk fast! My mom said he was an excellent cook. He passed away before I was born.
Lindy Baker, Unsplash
By Jake Leahy
May 1, 2023

In Bridges and Cunningham v. Blackstone, Inc., the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling in favor of Blackstone, the defendant-appellee. Plaintiffs Carolyn Bridges and Raymond Cunningham filed a class action against Blackstone, alleging that the firm violated the Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) in its acquisition of Ancentry.com.

Background

The plaintiffs submitted their DNA samples for genetic review years earlier to Ancestry.com. The plaintiffs allege that in Blackstone’s acquisition of Ancestry.com, it violated GIPA, which prohibits the disclosure of the identity of any person upon whom a genetic test is performed, or the results of such a test, in a manner that permits identification of the subject of the test. GIPA allows for a person aggrieved by a violation to sue in Illinois courts.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs first filed their case in Illinois state court, and Blackstone removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The district court in the Southern District of Illinois dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, and the plaintiffs appealed the decision.

Appellate Review

The Appeals Court reviewed the district court’s decision to dismiss the complaint and concluded that the complaint failed to adequately allege any compulsory disclosure, as to obtain relief under GIPA. The court reasoned that even if a disclosure occurred and was compulsory, the complaint failed to allege that the genetic information could permit identification of the plaintiffs because the protected data was anonymized.

The plaintiffs argued that Blackstone compelled the disclosure of protected genetic information through the act of acquiring Ancestry, and the district court and Appeals Court found this theory to be limited and straightforward. The Appeals Court stated that they cannot plausibly infer that a corporate acquisition, without additional allegations regarding the transaction, results in a compulsory disclosure within the meaning of GIPA. Furthermore, they could not infer that Blackstone compelled Ancestry to disclose genetic information from the acquisition alone, especially one structured as a stock transaction.

The Appeals Court did not address the issue of whether GIPA liability can attach to a company like Blackstone that allegedly receives protected information, rather than discloses that information, as the plaintiffs failed to state a claim regardless, stemming from the fact that the information was anonymized.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim, in favor of Blackstone. This ruling provides clarification on the application of the Genetic Information Privacy Act, and the requirements to establish compulsory disclosure.

Posted in:
BIPA and Seventh Circuit