Binance / BAM Trading Services (Binance.US) and Jumio · Governance finding · severity 1 of 5
Two proposed class actions alleged that identity vendor Jumio's facial recognition, used by Binance to verify new customers, collected Illinois users' face biometrics without the notice and written consent required by Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Davis v. Jumio was filed in Cook County and removed to the Northern District of Illinois on 11 February 2022. In February 2023 the court denied Jumio's motion to dismiss and rejected its financial-institution exemption argument at that stage. In the earlier Kuklinski case, a judge in April 2023 let BIPA claims proceed against BAM Trading Services (Binance.US) and Jumio. He dismissed Binance Capital Management for lack of jurisdiction. The Davis case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in March 2024. No court has found that Binance or Jumio broke the law.
Record last reviewed Oct 21, 2026 · Markdown
Date
Institution
Binance / BAM Trading Services (Binance.US)
Country
United States
AI system
Facial recognition identity verification that builds a biometric template from a selfie and matches it to the photo on a driver's licence (per the complaints as summarised by the courts) · vendor: Jumio
AI?
Machine-learning system (inferred from the record)
The sources describe a machine-learning model; nobody on the record labelled it AI.
Category
Status
Court filing
Severity
1 of 5
Impact
Proposed classes of Illinois Binance and Binance.US customers whose face scans were taken during identity verification; no class was certified. · No data breach or customer loss was alleged. The claims concerned notice, consent and retention policies under BIPA, and no damages were awarded.
What happened?
Davis v. Jumio Corporation was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 2022CH00263), and Jumio removed it to the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on 11 February 2022 (No. 1:22-cv-00776). As the court summarised the complaint, Jumio's facial recognition software scans a customer's photograph, "creates a biometric template of the customer's face" and compares it with the photo on an identity document. The plaintiff registered with Binance's app in January 2021, uploaded his driver's licence and a selfie, and said Jumio extracted his biometric identifiers without notice or informed consent.[1][2]
On 14 February 2023 Judge Andrea R. Wood denied Jumio's motion to dismiss. The court held that whether Jumio could rely on BIPA's exemption for financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was better decided at summary judgment. It also rejected Jumio's argument that the claims applied BIPA outside Illinois. Bloomberg Law reported that Jumio's financial-institution exemption arguments failed.[2][5]
A related suit, Kuklinski v. Binance Capital Management, was filed in November 2021 and is in the Southern District of Illinois (No. 3:21-cv-01425). It named Binance Capital Management, BAM Trading Services (which operates Binance.US) and Jumio. On 4 April 2023 Judge Stephen P. McGlynn dismissed Binance Capital Management for lack of personal jurisdiction. He denied the motions of BAM and Jumio, writing that "Kuklinski has sufficiently pled causes of action against BAM and Jumio". Biometric Update reported that BAM's argument that it is an exempt financial institution failed.[3][6]
In February 2024 the Davis court limited several corporate-deposition topics to Jumio's "Identity Verification" product as used by Binance. On 11 March 2024 the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, and the case was terminated the next day. The CourtListener docket shows Kuklinski closed in December 2024. The public docket entries we could read do not show how it ended.[1][4]
When did it happen?
- Nov 12, 2021
Kuklinski v. Binance Capital Management et al. docketed in the Southern District of Illinois (context: before this register's 2022 start date).[4]
- Feb 11, 2022
Davis v. Jumio removed from Cook County to the Northern District of Illinois.[1]
- Feb 14, 2023
Court denies Jumio's motion to dismiss the Davis complaint.[2][5]
- Apr 4, 2023
Kuklinski court dismisses Binance Capital Management for lack of jurisdiction and denies BAM's and Jumio's motions to dismiss.[3][6]
- Mar 12, 2024
Davis v. Jumio terminated after a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice.[1]
- Dec 6, 2024
Kuklinski case closed on the federal docket.[4]
What was the impact?
- Customers: Proposed classes of Illinois Binance and Binance.US customers whose face scans were taken during identity verification; no class was certified.[1][2][6]
- Other: No data breach or customer loss was alleged. The claims concerned notice, consent and retention policies under BIPA, and no damages were awarded.[1][2][6]
Severity 1 of 5: Privacy allegations only: proposed classes of Illinois users, no class certified, no finding of liability and no reported data exposure or loss. Motions to dismiss were denied in 2023, but the case against Jumio was voluntarily dismissed in March 2024.
How did Binance / BAM Trading Services (Binance.US) and Jumio respond?
No public statement by Binance, BAM Trading Services or Jumio about these suits was found as of 2026-10-21 (we searched news coverage and the federal dockets). In court, Jumio argued that it was covered by BIPA's financial-institution exemption because it worked for Binance, and that the claims reached conduct outside Illinois. BAM argued that it was itself an exempt financial institution. Both arguments failed at the pleading stage.[2][6]
What was the outcome, and did regulators act?
The Davis case against Jumio ended by stipulated dismissal without prejudice in March 2024, and the Kuklinski case closed in December 2024 on terms not shown in the docket entries we could read. No court found a BIPA violation, no class was certified, and no regulator acted on these claims.[1][4]
Did Binance or Jumio settle the Illinois biometric privacy suits?
No settlement has been made public. The Davis case against Jumio was dismissed without prejudice by joint stipulation in March 2024, during discovery into Jumio's identity verification for Binance. The Kuklinski case against BAM Trading Services and Jumio closed in December 2024, on terms not shown in the public docket entries we could read.
Is a crypto exchange exempt from Illinois' biometric privacy law?
Not on the pleadings in these cases. BIPA exempts financial institutions subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In 2023 both courts declined to dismiss the claims on that basis: Davis left Jumio's exemption argument for summary judgment, and BAM's argument that it was an exempt financial institution failed in Kuklinski. Neither court reached a final answer.
Was Binance's face-scan check an AI system?
The record describes facial recognition software that creates a biometric template of a user's face and compares it with an identity document photo, which is a machine-learning technique. Neither the courts nor Binance or Jumio called it AI in these cases, so this register classes it as a machine-learning system inferred from the record.
- Davis v. Jumio Corporation, No. 1:22-cv-00776 (N.D. Ill.), docket court
- Davis v. Jumio Corporation, No. 1:22-cv-00776 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2023), memorandum opinion and order (Dkt. 32) court
- Memorandum and Order, Kuklinski v. Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd., No. 3:21-cv-01425 (S.D. Ill.) (Dkt. 84) court
- Kuklineski v. Binance Capital Management Co., Ltd., No. 3:21-cv-01425 (S.D. Ill.), docket court
- Binance Software Provider Jumio Must Face Biometric Privacy Suit news
- US biometric data privacy suit nets Jumio and crypto firm Binance news
When AI goes wrong at a bank, the next morning's brief says so.
when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am PT · free
plus every regulation, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning