Kenco: Class Action Alleges Penske Logistics Used AI-Powered Cams in 'Monitoring Regime' Without Consent

One trucking company's monitoring technology has left it open to a scan-dal. A class-action lawsuit filed by Jeremy Ratliff alleges that Penske Logistics violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by monitoring its drivers without consent. More from Sourcing Journal Layoff Season In Play: Which Firms Are Shedding Jobs DB Board Approves Schenker Sale After Union Backlash Chain Reaction: ShipBob's Dhruv Saxena on Building Supply Chain Resilience Through Strategic Inventory Management The law requires that, if a company plans to collect or possess an individual's biometrics, they must inform and obtain, in writing, that person's express consent. Ratliff's counsel alleges that Penske failed to do so. Still, even without that consent, Ratliff insists, Penske did capture, use and distribute his biometric data using AI-powered cameras that track and monitor drivers' performance on the road. "[Penske's] AI -powered cameras would scan [Ratliff's] facial geometry in order to track his eye movements and would report him for any activities that it determined constituted 'distracted' driving, such as looking away from the road," the complaint alleges, going on to say that the technology linked each vehicle to its individual driver. If the technology detected what it labeled an "unsafe driving event," Penske would receive an alert and would call Ratliff to inform him of that, he alleges. Ratliff accuses Penske of using the technology without his consent, and maintains that he "had to undergo biometric monitoring as a requirement for employment and managerial purposes, as each of [Penske's] vehicles came equipped with a biometric camera." He maintains that, even beyond Penske's own purported illegal use of his biometric information, the company also shared it with third parties, who Ratliff also did not authorize to use that information. "[Penske's] biometric monitoring regime allows for and resulted in the dissemination of [Ratliff] and other class members' biometrics to third parties, including the vendor(s) that provided the biometric monitoring system and the data storage providers that such vendor(s) used," counsel for Ratliff state in the complaint. According to the complaint, Ratliff worked for Penske from November 2021 to April 2024 "as part of a contract that [Penske] had with Vim Recyclers, located in Aurora, Ill." As part of his work, he "regularly" drove through the Chicago area. Ratliff initially filed the proposed class action in late August in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago and some of its suburbs. However, Penske filed for a removal from the circuit court so that the case could be adjudicated in the Illinois Northern District Court; in its removal motion, the company cited a proposed class size greater than 100, among other legal precedents. Ratliff's proposed class includes "all individuals employed as drivers for [Penske] in Illinois during the relevant statute of limitations who were subject to [its] camera monitoring system," and estimates that the class has hundreds of members. Ratliff seeks $5,000 for each "willful and/or reckless violation" of the BIPA, as well as an injunction mandating Penske to comply with Illinois' BIPA. Penske has not filed a response to Ratliff's complaint; it instead filed a motion requesting additional time, which a judge granted Monday. Should Penske file a response, it will need to do so by November 11. However, legal documents show Penske may have an interest in settling the case outside of court, even though Ratliff requested a jury trial in his original case. "[Ratliff's] allegations involve complex technology provided by a non-party, and Penske plans to confer with plaintiff's counsel about the results of its preliminary investigation and the possibility of reaching an agreed resolution without the parties needing to engage in formal discovery or motion practice," Penske's counselors-all from Duane Morris LLP, a Chicago-based firm-wrote in the motion. If the case does move forward in court, a judge will have to certify-in essence, approve-the proposed class and Ratliff as the lead plaintiff. A spokesperson for Penske said the company does not have any comment on the pending litigation. Counsel for Ratliff did not respond to Sourcing Journal's request for comment.