Truck drivers in Illinois have filed a wave of class action lawsuits against the makers of driver-facing dash cameras, arguing that the AI systems inside those cameras scan their facial geometry without the written notice and consent required by state law. The driver-facing camera lawsuits in Illinois rely on the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), and they have produced settlements of $4.25 million against Lytx and $3.95 million against Samsara, with per-driver payouts generally in the hundreds of dollars.
What the Lawsuits Claim
The core allegation is the same across cases: in-cab cameras capture images of drivers’ faces, feed them into machine-vision algorithms that measure facial geometry to flag distracted or drowsy behavior, and do so without ever telling drivers in writing what is being collected, getting their written consent, or publishing a schedule for destroying the data. BIPA requires all three before a private company can collect a biometric identifier in Illinois.1Lytx Settlement. Lewis v. Lytx Inc. Long Form Notice
Camera makers have pushed back on the premise. Lytx, for example, maintains that its Machine Vision and Artificial Intelligence system detects behaviors like eating, texting, or not wearing a seatbelt rather than identifying individual drivers, and that BIPA therefore does not apply.2Lytx. Industry Update and Data Policy Courts have let the cases proceed anyway, and most defendants have chosen to settle rather than litigate the question through trial.
The Lytx Settlement: Lewis v. Lytx, Inc.
The lead case, Lewis v. Lytx, Inc., was filed in 2021 by truck driver Joshua Lewis and later consolidated with claims from drivers Nathaniel Timmons and James Cavanaugh. U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel granted final approval to a $4.25 million settlement on July 25, 2025.3CDL Life. Judge Approves $4.25 Million Payout in Lytx Trucker Face Scan Lawsuit
The settlement class covered 3,599 drivers who operated a vehicle equipped with a Lytx DriveCam Event Recorder while physically present in Illinois between October 12, 2016 and January 1, 2025, and whose driving was analyzed by Lytx’s MV+AI technology for distracted behavior.4Lytx Settlement. Lewis v. Lytx Inc. Settlement The fund was split evenly between two sub-classes, with Illinois residents and non-Illinois residents each receiving 50 percent of the payouts. After roughly $1.42 million for attorneys’ fees and $10,000 service awards for each of the three named plaintiffs, individual drivers received about $631 (Illinois residents) to $845 (non-residents).5FreightWaves. Each Driver’s Payout in Lytx Illinois Biometrics Case Will Be Between About $650 and $850
The claims deadline was June 25, 2025, and payments had been disbursed by mid-2026.4Lytx Settlement. Lewis v. Lytx Inc. Settlement Lytx settled without admitting wrongdoing. Milberg served as class counsel, led by Senior Partner Gary M. Klinger.6Milberg. Lytx BIPA Settlement
Other Driver-Facing Camera Cases
Lytx is not alone. Several other fleet camera makers and carriers have been sued under BIPA for the same basic conduct.
Samsara. In Karling v. Samsara Inc., a driver alleged that Samsara’s “Camera ID” feature on its dual-facing dash cameras collected facial geometry without consent. Samsara agreed to a $3.95 million settlement, which received final approval on October 16, 2025, in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County. Payments went out in March 2026.7Dash Cam Settlement. Karling v. Samsara Inc. Settlement
Netradyne. Arendt v. Netradyne, Inc., filed in Cook County in January 2022, targeted the “Driveri” multi-camera system, alleging it scanned face geometry to detect distracted and drowsy driving without consent or a published retention policy.8ClassAction.org. Arendt v. Netradyne, Inc.
Penske Logistics. Ratliff v. Penske Logistics, LLC, filed in August 2024, alleges that Penske used AI-powered in-vehicle cameras to collect biometric data from Illinois workers without proper consent. The case was still active as of mid-2026.9ClassAction.org. Penske Used In-Vehicle AI Cameras to Illegally Collect Illinois Workers’ Biometric Data, Class Action Claims
Old Dominion Freight Line. Kararo et al. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., in the Northern District of Illinois, reached a settlement in late 2024 that was moving toward final approval as of April 2025.10LBR Cloud. Old Dominion Freight Line Joint Status Report
One large BIPA case against a transportation company, Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company, is sometimes grouped with these but involved fingerprint scanning at rail yard gates rather than driver-facing cameras. A jury found BNSF liable in 2022 and awarded $228 million; that award was later overturned, and BNSF settled for $75 million with final approval in June 2024.11Reuters. BNSF Railway to Pay $75 Million to Resolve Biometric Privacy Class Action
What BIPA Requires, and What Violations Are Worth
Enacted in 2008, BIPA regulates biometric identifiers including fingerprints, iris scans, voiceprints, and scans of face or hand geometry. Before collecting any of these, a private entity must inform the person in writing what data is being collected, explain the purpose and retention period, and obtain a written release. It must also publish a policy for destroying biometric data either when the purpose is fulfilled or within three years of the person’s last interaction with the company, whichever comes first.1Lytx Settlement. Lewis v. Lytx Inc. Long Form Notice
Statutory damages run $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, and plaintiffs do not have to prove actual harm to recover.5FreightWaves. Each Driver’s Payout in Lytx Illinois Biometrics Case Will Be Between About $650 and $850 For out-of-state carriers, the law reaches any truck crossing into Illinois with a covered camera system running.12Trucking Info. Truck Drivers Must Be Informed of Biometric Scans in Illinois
How those damages add up changed in 2024. The Illinois Supreme Court had held in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc. that a new BIPA violation accrued every time a biometric identifier was scanned, which could multiply exposure into the billions in a class action. On August 2, 2024, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed SB 2979, which replaced that per-scan rule with a single-violation-per-person rule: if the same entity collects the same identifier from the same person by the same method, it counts as one violation with one recovery. The amendment also recognized electronic signatures as a valid “written release.”13LegiScan. SB 2979
On April 1, 2026, the Seventh Circuit held in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company that the amendment applies retroactively to pending cases, treating the damages cap as a procedural change rather than a substantive one.14FindLaw. Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company The practical effect is lower settlement values than a plaintiff would have seen before the amendment, which helps explain why per-driver payouts in the Lytx case landed in the hundreds rather than the thousands.
Camera Maker or Employer: Who Has to Get Consent?
Courts have divided on whether the technology vendor or the employing carrier bears the BIPA duty to inform drivers and obtain their consent. In Guszkiewicz v. Beelman Truck Co., a DuPage County judge dismissed claims against Samsara in November 2022, finding the company had met its obligations by notifying its fleet customers of BIPA’s requirements, providing sample consent forms, and contractually requiring employers to certify they had secured written consent before activating the Camera ID feature.15Ogletree. Dashcam Developer Insulated From BIPA Liability The reasoning was that the employer has the direct relationship with drivers and the ability to control collection in the workplace.
Other courts have allowed claims against technology providers to go forward, as a federal judge did in Karling v. Samsara by denying Samsara’s motion to dismiss. Where liability actually lands depends on the contract between vendor and carrier and how the system is deployed.
How Carriers and Camera Makers Are Responding in Illinois
The litigation has changed how driver-facing cameras operate in the state. In March 2025, Lytx rolled out “Dynamic Adjust for Illinois Restrictions,” a geofencing feature that disables all in-cab MV+AI functions, including distracted-driving detection, visual and audio alerts, and event capture, as soon as a truck crosses into Illinois, then re-enables them on the way out.16Lytx. Lytx Introduces Dynamic Adjust for Illinois Restrictions Lytx has characterized the feature as a configuration option, not a legal compliance product, and advises customers to get their own legal guidance.2Lytx. Industry Update and Data Policy
Other manufacturers have built similar automatic shutoffs for Illinois. Individual carriers have taken different approaches at the driver level. HMD Trucking, for instance, reports that when a driver declines consent to the inward-facing lens, the company covers the lens with a physical lid rather than removing the device.17HMD Trucking. The Truth About Driver-Facing Cameras: Spy or Savior The electronic-consent provision in the 2024 amendment also gives carriers a cleaner way to collect compliant written releases through a digital workflow, though it does not remove the underlying duty to inform drivers and get their agreement before any scanning starts.