A Biometric-Privacy Class Based on Workplace Time Clocks: How Would a Settlement Distribute Money or Other Relief?

A biometric-privacy class action over workplace time clocks typically ends in a capped settlement fund that pays claimants a set amount per person, not an open-ended payout. Courts have approved these settlements ranging from under $1 million to more than $15 million, depending on how many workers used the fingerprint or hand-scan device and how long the practice ran. These cases arise under Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which requires written consent before an employer or vendor collects a fingerprint, handprint, or face scan for timekeeping. When a company skips that consent step, workers can sue as a class, and the resulting settlement fund is distributed according to terms a judge reviews and approves before any money moves.

Official resources:

Read the official notice from Orrick — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Read the official notice from Bloomberglaw — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.

What Triggers These Lawsuits
How the Settlement Fund Gets Divided
Why Payouts Vary So Widely
What a Class Member Needs to Do to Get Paid
Frequently Asked Questions

What Triggers These Lawsuits

These suits target the timeclock itself — specifically, a biometric scanner that reads a fingerprint, palm, or face to clock employees in and out, used without the signed disclosure and retention policy BIPA requires. The defendant can be the employer, the device manufacturer, or both. Speedway's settlement, for example, covered Illinois gas-station workers who scanned a fingerprint to clock in without the required written consent, and a federal judge gave it final approval in late October 2025, covering roughly 7,700 current and former employees for $12.1 million, according to Law360's coverage of the final approval.

Vendors that sell or operate the timeclock hardware face the same exposure as the employers who use it. ZK Technology paid $635,160 after workers at Alliance Ground International scanned a finger or face for timekeeping without consent, and Accu-Time Systems, a timeclock-hardware maker, agreed to a proposed $1.5 million settlement with a claims deadline of March 12, 2026, as reported by IDTechWire. WorkEasy Software and its insurers separately paid $1,685,000 over five years to resolve claims tied to its cloud-based biometric timeclock device, a deal that received preliminary approval on December 2, 2025, per Bloomberg Law.

How the Settlement Fund Gets Divided

Nearly every one of these settlements uses the same basic structure: a fixed common fund, reduced by attorneys' fees, administrative costs, and a service award for the named plaintiff, with what remains divided among class members who file a claim. Across the ITS Technologies, Accu-Time, ZK Technology, and WorkEasy settlements, nothing goes automatically to a class member who skips the claim form — filing is a precondition to getting paid. The per-person amount depends almost entirely on two numbers: the size of the total fund and how many eligible workers actually submit claims. Kronos's settlement, covering about 171,000 workers who had their fingerprints scanned between 2014 and March 2022, carried a $15.3 million fund — one of the larger BIPA timeclock settlements — and received final approval on December 20, 2022, according to Orrick's InfoBytes summary.

Spread across a class that size, a per-claimant award runs far lower than in a smaller case with the same total fund. Smaller classes see correspondingly larger individual payments. Pret a Manger's resolved case involved 797 former Illinois employees sharing a $677,450 pool; after fees and administrative costs came out of the common fund, each claimant received a calculated $518, as reported by Restaurant Business. ITS Technologies & Logistics estimates about $964 per claimant from its $925,000 fund, covering hand- or fingerprint-scan timeclock use, according to the settlement's public terms on OpenClassActions.

Why Payouts Vary So Widely

Per-claimant amounts can land anywhere from roughly $100 to $2,000, and three factors drive that range. The first is the length of time the biometric scanner was in use without consent, since a longer violation period can support a larger total fund. The second is the number of workers affected — a settlement covering a single worksite produces a smaller, more concentrated class than one covering an entire state's workforce at a chain. The third is claims-filing turnout, since a fund divided among fewer actual claimants raises each individual's share.

ZK Technology's settlement illustrates how turnout shapes the final number directly: estimated per-claimant payments run $800 to $2,000 depending on the total volume of valid claims filed, with a November 10, 2026 deadline to submit one. Accu-Time's fund produces a lower range — $100 to $500 per claimant — reflecting a different ratio of fund size to class size, per IDTechWire's report. A 2024 change to Illinois law also affects how large these funds can get going forward. The state amended BIPA in August 2024 so that repeated scans of the same biometric identifier by the same method count as a single violation, rather than one violation for every scan — a change that caps the per-violation damages theory that previously could inflate potential award sizes in timeclock cases, according to a legal guide on the amendment. That shift narrows the gap between a worst-case damages estimate and what a company is actually likely to pay, which in turn shapes how large a settlement fund gets negotiated.

What a Class Member Needs to Do to Get Paid

Filing a claim form by the stated deadline is the single action that determines whether a class member gets paid at all. Settlement administrators mail or email notice to identified class members, but the obligation to respond falls on the worker — missing the deadline forfeits payment even for someone clearly covered by the class definition. Current open deadlines show how tight these windows run. ITS Technologies & Logistics sets its claims-and-opt-out deadline for December 4, 2026, ahead of a January 7, 2027 final-approval hearing, while Accu-Time's claims deadline falls on March 12, 2026, with a final-approval hearing set for April 1, 2026.

ZK Technology's claim deadline is November 10, 2026. A class member who wants to preserve the right to sue separately, rather than accept the settlement payment, generally needs to opt out by the same type of deadline rather than simply doing nothing. The WorkEasy Software matter shows how long that final stretch can take: after preliminary approval in December 2025, the case was dismissed with prejudice only after the $1,685,000 payment was finalized, confirmed in a May 4, 2026 report from Mealey's Data Privacy. A class member should expect months between preliminary approval and an actual check.

Confirm you're within the settlement's class period (the dates the employer or vendor used the biometric timeclock without consent).
File the claim form before the stated deadline — payment is never automatic.
Watch for a separate opt-out deadline if you'd rather pursue an individual claim.
Expect payment only after the final-approval hearing concludes and any appeal period passes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do I get paid automatically if my employer used a fingerprint timeclock covered by one of these settlements?

No. Across the ITS Technologies, Accu-Time, ZK Technology, and WorkEasy settlements, payment requires submitting a claim form by the stated deadline; nothing is sent automatically to class members who don't file.

Why do per-claimant payments vary so much between settlements?

The amount depends on the total fund size, the size of the class, and how many eligible workers actually file claims — a $677,450 fund split among 797 claimants produced $518 each in the Pret a Manger case, while a $15.3 million fund spread across roughly 171,000 Kronos claimants produced a far smaller per-person share.

Does it matter whether the employer or the timeclock vendor is the one being sued?

Both face exposure under BIPA. Accu-Time and ZK Technology are timeclock/hardware vendors that settled directly, while Speedway settled as the employer using the scanner — either can be the named defendant depending on who controlled the consent process.