P&G Can’t Have Oral B Smart Toothbrush BIPA Class Action Moved Out of Illinois 

Procter & Gamble Oral B Biometric Privacy Class Action Overview: 

• Who: A judge has denied Procter & Gamble’s request for a BIPA lawsuit over its Oral-B “smart toothbrush” to be moved to a different state.
• Why: An Illinois judge said the lead plaintiff did not make any agreement with the company that any lawsuits should be heard in Ohio.
• Where: Illinois federal court

Procter & Gamble (P&G) can’t move a class action lawsuit alleging it illegally collected customer’s facial geometry information with its Oral-B “smart toothbrush” out of Illinois, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow issued a decision May 24 denying P&G’s request to have the case moved from Illinois to Ohio. 

In the class action lawsuit, lead plaintiff Jan Gamboa, who bought the $200 Oral-B iO Series 7G toothbrush in June, says the company never informed him his biometrics were being collected, stored and disseminated with his use of the toothbrush and accompanying app, a violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

Gamboa says he downloaded the app to track which zones of his mouth he was brushing using the company’s position-detection technology, but was unaware doing so meant Procter & Gamble captured, collected, stored and transferred biometric scans of his face and facial geometry.

P&G Argued to Move Oral B BIPA Case to Ohio

P&G argued Gamboa was bound by the app’s terms of service agreement and its forum selection clause, which calls for cases to be heard in the Southern District of Ohio. 

However, Judge Lefkow ruled Gamboa was not bound by the clause because there’s no evidence he ever agreed to the terms by clicking the appropriate buttons on the app.

P&G also argued Gamboa had knowledge of the terms because they were accessible through the link on the registration page and in the “legal” section of the app and publicly available on the Oral B website.

But there’s also no evidence Gamboa ever visited that website, the judge said.

“Therefore, P&G has not shown that Gamboa had constructive knowledge of the Terms, and he is not bound by the forum selection clause,” the judge ruled.

Gamboa is demanding $5,000 for each of the company’s willful or reckless BIPA violations and $1,000 for each negligent violation of the law.

He wants to represent other Illinois users of Procter & Gamble’s smart toothbrush and is seeking certification of the class, injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees and costs, interest and a jury trial.

What do you think of the allegations in this case? Let us know in the comments. 

Gamboa is represented by David L. Gerbie and Steven R. Beckham of McGuire Law PC.

The P&G Oral B BIPA Class Action Lawsuit is Jan Gamboa, et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 2021CH5459, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery Division. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Recent BIPA Class Actions, Settlements Highlight Data Privacy
• Lemonade Settles BIPA Faceprint Data Class Action For $4M
• FTC Announces Updates To Children’s Data Privacy Protections
• Snap Class Action Claims Snapchat Violates Consumers’ Biometric Privacy