Watch Now


Drivers settle class action with Lytx over in-cab surveillance, data gathering

Lytx admits no wrongdoing in Illinois case over BIPA; settlement fund will be $4.25 million

Lytx settled a case involving its use of biometrics gleaned from its in-cab systems. (Photo: Jim Allen\FreightWaves)

Lytx, a provider of telematics and in-cab camera systems, has reached a more than $4 million settlement in a federal lawsuit regarding claims it violated Illinois’ biometrics law, considered one of the more problematic in the country for data gatherers. 

In the settlement of the lawsuit, which has not been formally approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois but which the court has suggested is highly likely, Lytx is not making any admissions. According to the preliminary approval document released late last week by the court, Lytx “vigorously denies all of the claims and allegations” raised in the lawsuit, which was first filed three years ago, almost to the day.

The settlement in the case is $4.25 million. The precise size of the class involved was not revealed in the document, in part because the parties will now need to seek out the people who fall under the settlement umbrella: anybody who drove a vehicle in Illinois “equipped with a Lytx DriveCam Event Recorder (‘DriveCam’), and for whom machine vision and artificial intelligence (‘MV+AI’) was used to predict distracted driving behaviors.”


But an attorney representing the plaintiffs said in a separate court filing, it was estimated that the class size would be about 25,000 Illinois residents and 60,000 non-Illinois residents. 

The period to determine who falls under that definition is between Oct. 12, 2016, and Jan. 1, 2025.

The plaintiffs’ attorney provided some numbers on the payouts. In a motion with the court, the lawyers estimates a resident of Illinois would receive about $85 each and a resident from another state would get about $35.

But if just 10% of Illinois and non-Illinois residents filed valid claims, the attorneys said the payout would rise to $511.16 for Illinois residents and $213.19 for non-Illinois residents.


Lytx defends its role

There are no statements in the preliminary order approving the settlement that suggest any other actions Lytx needs to undertake as part of the settlement. 

In an email to FreightWaves, a Lytx spokesman addressed the case. 

“Lytx’s safety technology helps prevent accidents and save lives,” he said. “Unfortunately, BIPA litigation has become an immense and costly distraction for companies doing business in the region, including Lytx. While Lytx, at all times, has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing or violation of BIPA, we have chosen to resolve this matter and keep our focus on what matters most: enabling our customers to protect their people, their equipment, and their reputation.”

In a twist, in order to add so-called named plaintiffs to the lawsuit, an amended complaint needed to be filed with the court. That document lays out the complaints of driver Joshua Lewis, who filed the original lawsuit against Lytx and his employer, Maverick Transportation. The added plaintiffs in the amended complaint are  Nathanial Timmons, a driver for Gemini Motor Transport, and James Cavanaugh, a driver for Quikrete. 

Maverick is not a defendant in the amended complaint, as a settlement was reached between Lewis and the company in March 2023.

All three trucking companies used the Lytx camera system, according to the amended lawsuit.

BIPA becoming a big issue

The legal actions were brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which has attracted significant attention in recent years. A case involving truckers using facilities of BNSF in Chicago resulted in an early 2024 settlement of $75 million for a lawsuit brought under what the plaintiffs said were violations of BIPA. 

The Lytx DriveCam system, one part of a suite of telematics used in the interior of a truck cab, was the focus of the Illinois lawsuit against the company.


“The DriveCam does more than simply record images,” the lawsuit said. “In conjunction with the MV+AI (another part of the Lytx system), the DriveCam scans the driver’s face geometry and

harnesses those biometric data points by feeding them into sophisticated algorithms that identify

the driver’s actions, in what amounts to constant AI surveillance.

“The implementation of this system is problematic because the DriveCam unacceptably violates the rights of truck drivers by scanning their faces and acquiring their face geometry and other biometrics in violation of their statutorily protected rights.”

With the settlement in place and headed toward final approval later this year, there would be no precedent set in terms of whether the Lytx system violates privacy laws involving biometrics and capturing that sort of data about drivers. But the potential scope of litigation is stark, according to the amended complaint: The Lytx system is used by more than 4,000 fleets around the country, and it has plenty of competitors. 

“Lytx claims to hold data based on over 100 billion miles of driving and continues adding information to a ‘vast and ever-growing database of driving data we use to refine the accuracy and effectiveness of our solutions,’” the complaint states – the latter quote being lifted from Lytx marketing content.

According to the lawsuit, BIPA was violated for reasons beyond just the actual recording. The amended complaint also cited other areas: There was no “publicly available retention schedule and guidelines” for how long the data would be retained, drivers were not notified about the purpose of the biometrics data and how long it would be retained, and a written release for use of the data was not obtained.

“BIPA clearly prohibits the collection of biometrics when the subject of the biometrics is deprived of the right to be informed of, and consent to, the capture of biometric data,” the complaint said. 

In a blog post about the Illinois BIPA law and the Lytx case, the law firm of Troutman Pepper Locke described it as having “uniquely plaintiff-friendly contours,” which have led the court to “see a panoply of putative class actions, leaving countless companies scrambling to develop workable defenses.”

More articles by John Kingston

The day after: Speculation abounds on California trucking regulation with no ACF 

Louisiana staged accident murder: Harris pleads guilty but fingers others for the shooting

Supreme Court, in case involving TQL, again declines to review broker liability 

John Kingston

John has an almost 40-year career covering commodities, most of the time at S&P Global Platts. He created the Dated Brent benchmark, now the world’s most important crude oil marker. He was Director of Oil, Director of News, the editor in chief of Platts Oilgram News and the “talking head” for Platts on numerous media outlets, including CNBC, Fox Business and Canada’s BNN. He covered metals before joining Platts and then spent a year running Platts’ metals business as well. He was awarded the International Association of Energy Economics Award for Excellence in Written Journalism in 2015. In 2010, he won two Corporate Achievement Awards from McGraw-Hill, an extremely rare accomplishment, one for steering coverage of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the other for the launch of a public affairs television show, Platts Energy Week.