125978

This decision was a major victory for policyholders, often referred to as a win for —situations where traditional policies end up covering cyber-related risks because they aren't explicitly excluded.

The case began when a customer filed a class-action lawsuit against a tanning salon, , alleging the salon collected fingerprints without providing the proper written disclosures required by BIPA. 125978

: The court found that BIPA violations fall under the policy’s "personal injury" provision, which covers injuries arising from the "publication" of material that violates a person's right of privacy . This decision was a major victory for policyholders,

: West Bend argued that a "violation of statutes" exclusion barred coverage. However, the court ruled this exclusion only applied to statutes governing methods of communication (like the TCPA or CAN-SPAM Act), not privacy laws like BIPA. 📈 Why This Matters for Businesses : West Bend argued that a "violation of

Did policy exclusions for "statutory violations" apply to BIPA? 🛡️ Key Rulings from the Court