Krispy Kreme class action claims co. collected employee biometric data without consent

Krispy Kreme class action overview: 

• Who: Plaintiff Brian Krase filed a lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation.
• What: Krase claims that Krispy Kreme violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act by collecting and storing employees’ fingerprints without their express permission. 
• Where: The Krispy Kreme BIPA lawsuit was filed in an Illinois federal court. 

A former Krispy Kreme delivery driver has slammed the doughnut company with a lawsuit alleging it illegally collected employee fingerprints in the state of Illinois. 

Plaintiff Brian Krase filed the lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation on March 31 in an Illinois federal court, alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The act regulates how companies capture and use biometric identifiers, including fingerprints, voiceprints and facial scans. 

Krase alleges that Krispy Kreme used a timekeeping system that took a scan of workers’ fingerprints or hand geometry to check when they arrived at work. He alleges the company did not get employees’ express consent or notify them how the biometric data would be used or stored, as is required by Illinois law. 

“Plaintiff was continuously and repeatedly exposed to the risks and harmful conditions created by the defendant’s repeated violations of the [Biometric Information Privacy Act],” the lawsuit states.

Krispy Kreme didn’t get consent for fingerprint data, lawsuit states

According to the lawsuit, Krase worked as a driver at an Illinois location of the doughnut and coffeehouse chain from Sept. 2021 to Oct. 2023. He says that when he was hired, he was required to enroll in a biometric timekeeping database that used a scan of his fingerprint or hand to record employee attendance. 

Krase says he had to scan his fingerprint using the biometric time clock system at the start and end of each shift. He says Krispy Kreme owned the data in the software, and therefore possessed his biometric identifiers. Under BIPA, the company should have obtained his informed consent about the ways it was using his information, how they stored it, and when it would be deleted.

This never happened, he alleges.

“Plaintiff never signed a written release allowing Defendant to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain his biometric identifiers or information,” Krase says. 

He says he believes Krispy Kreme also disseminated his biometric identifiers to a third party for its payroll management services, and that it did so without his consent.

Plaintiff fears future harm, lawsuit says

Krase says he fears that, as technology evolves into the future, he will further lose control and ownership of his fingerprint data, with “untold harmful consequences.” 

As a result, he’s suing for more than $75,000, and seeks fees, costs, an injunction stopping Krispy Kreme from continuing the allegedly illegal behavior, and a jury trial. 

Krispy Kreme is just the latest in a series of companies to be hit with lawsuits alleging they violated the Illinois biometric privacy laws. Consumers have also recently filed class action lawsuits against Amazon.com Services, Target Corp., Wingstop, Domino’s Pizza and ConverseNow Technologies alleging violations of the law. 

In March, BNSF Railway Co. agreed to pay $75 million to end claims the company violated BIPA with the way it collected the fingerprints of truckers at its auto-gate system in Illinois. 

The plaintiff is represented by Nick Wooten, Majdi Hijazin and Adam J. Feuer of DJC Law PLLC.

The Krispy Kreme BIPA Lawsuit is Brian Krase v.  Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04493 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• CVS class action claims retailer fails to pay overtime, alters timekeeping records
• Judge grants class certification in Tesla racial discrimination class action
• Paramount class action claims company failed to pay movie crew members total wages
• Nike class action claims company did not provide lactation accommodations