United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-3202 LATRINA COTHRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. WHITE CASTLE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 19 CV 00382 — John J. Tharp, Jr., Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 14, 2021 — DECIDED DECEMBER 20, 2021 ____________________

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. SYKES, Chief Judge. Latrina Cothron works as a manager at an Illinois White Castle hamburger restaurant where she must scan her fingerprint to access the restaurant’s computer system. With each scan her fingerprint is collected and transmitted to a third-party vendor for authentication. Cothron alleges that White Castle did not obtain her written 2 No. 20-3202 consent before implementing the fingerprint-scanning system, violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. She brought this proposed class-action lawsuit on behalf of all Illinois White Castle employees. White Castle moved for judgment on the pleadings based on the statute of limitations. The restaurant argued that a claim accrued under the Act the first time Cothron scanned her fingerprint into the system after the law took effect in 2008. That was more than a decade before she sued, making her suit untimely under the longest possible limitations period. Cothron responded that every unauthorized finger- print scan amounted to a separate violation of the statute, so a new claim accrued with each scan. That would make her suit timely for the scans within the limitations period. The district judge rejected White Castle’s “one time only” theory of claim accrual and denied the motion. But he found the question close enough to warrant an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Cothron now asks us to certify the question to the Illinois Supreme Court. We agree that this issue is best decided by the Illinois Supreme Court. Whether a claim accrues only once or repeatedly is an important and recurring question of Illinois law implicating state accrual principles as applied to this novel state statute. It requires authoritative guidance that only the state’s highest court can provide. I. Background Cothron has worked for White Castle since 2004. She al- leges that not long after she began, White Castle introduced a system that requires its employees to scan their finger- prints to access pay stubs and work computers. Each scan is No. 20-3202 3 sent to a third-party vendor that authenticates it and gives her access to the restaurant’s computer system. Cothron contends that White Castle implemented this system with- out properly obtaining her consent in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA” or “the Act”), 740 ILL. COMP. STAT. 14/1 et seq. The Illinois General Assembly adopted the Act in 2008 in response to increased commercial use of biometric data. Biometrics are “biologically unique” personal identifiers, id. § 14/5(c), and include iris scans, face geometry, and, relevant here, fingerprints, id. § 14/10. Unlike other sensitive personal information, like social security numbers, once compromised biometrics cannot be changed. § 14/5(c). The legislative findings note growing concern among members of the public about the use and collection of biometrics. See id. § 14/5(d)–(e). To address these concerns, the Act regulates how private entities may collect and handle biom