Accu-Time Systems, a vendor that provides fingerprint-based timeclock systems to employers, has agreed to a $2.1 million class action settlement tied to alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Biometric timekeeping is popular because it reduces “buddy punching” and streamlines payroll, but it also involves collecting highly sensitive identifiers—like fingerprint scans—that can’t be changed if compromised. The settlement covers people who scanned a finger at an Illinois workplace using Accu-Time’s system between August 29, 2016 and September 15, 2025, and eligible class members may receive an estimated $100–$500 without needing to submit proof, with a claim deadline of March 12, 2026. The lawsuit was filed because BIPA requires companies to provide specific written disclosures and obtain written consent before collecting or storing biometric identifiers, and it also mandates publicly available retention schedules and rules for destroying biometric data when it’s no longer needed. Plaintiffs in BIPA cases commonly allege that employers and technology vendors collected or processed fingerprint data through timeclocks without meeting these notice-and-consent and data-governance requirements; even without a data breach, BIPA allows statutory damages per violation, which can make routine workplace practices financially risky and drive settlements like this one. The significance is that it reinforces that not only employers, but also the vendors supplying biometric systems, can face substantial exposure if their products and policies don’t support BIPA-compliant consent, retention, and deletion workflows. This fits a broader wave of Illinois biometric privacy litigation involving fingerprint timekeeping, facial recognition, and other identity technologies, with numerous settlements and rulings shaping how businesses deploy biometrics. Industry-wide, the response has been to shift toward more robust consent collection, clearer written policies, tighter vendor contracts, and alternatives like badge or PIN systems, especially in states with emerging biometric laws and expanding consumer privacy regimes. As biometric authentication spreads across workplaces and consumer products, cases like this signal that compliance isn’t just a technical choice but a regulated privacy obligation that can carry real costs when handled casually