Is the Illinois Snapchat Lawsuit Real?
Yes. The case, Boone, et al. v. Snap Inc., was a real class action filed in DuPage County, Illinois. Plaintiffs alleged that Snapchat parent company Snap collected and stored Illinois users biometric data through the app Lenses and Filters features without proper consent, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, known as BIPA. That law requires written consent before a company collects biometric identifiers such as facial geometry, and it uniquely lets private citizens sue.
Because so many texts and posts circulated about a Snapchat payout, people understandably questioned whether it was a scam. It was a genuine court case that ended in a settlement, which is why this page exists, to separate the real case from the noise.
What Snap Said and What Was Alleged
Snap vehemently denied that its Lenses violate BIPA. The company stated that its Lenses identify body parts such as a nose or an arm without recognizing them as a specific individual, that they do not perform facial recognition, and that the data is processed on the user device rather than stored on Snap servers. Those were Snap positions.
The plaintiffs alleged the opposite, that the technology captured users facial geometry without the written notice and consent BIPA requires. The case did not produce a court ruling on who was right, because the parties settled.
The $35 Million Settlement
Snap agreed to a 35 million dollar settlement, without admitting any fault. The class covered Illinois residents who used Snapchat Lenses or Filters since November 17, 2015, a group reported at roughly four million people, with individual payments widely reported in a range of around 58 to 117 dollars depending on claims filed.
Importantly, the claim deadline passed in November 2022, so this settlement is closed and it is no longer possible to file for it. Payments went out through the official administrator at snapillinoisbipasettlement.com, the only legitimate channel, which is worth knowing given how many imitation messages circulated about a supposed Snapchat payout.
How to Get Legal Help
If you are asking whether the Illinois Snapchat lawsuit is real, the answer is yes, but the claim window closed in 2022, so it is no longer possible to file for this particular settlement. Illinois biometric cases under BIPA continue against other companies, so watching for new settlements is the practical move.
To follow any further developments, bookmark this page and subscribe to LawsuitWatch alerts.
Free Legal Evaluation
Do You Qualify to File a Claim?
Our network of verified plaintiff attorneys offers free, no-obligation case evaluations. Contingency fee representation means you pay nothing unless you win.
Illinois Snapchat Class Action: Is It Real, and What Happened: Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the most common questions about this case and your legal options.
Is the Illinois Snapchat class action real?
Yes. Boone v. Snap Inc. was a real class action in DuPage County, Illinois, alleging that Snapchat Lenses and Filters collected users biometric data without consent under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA.
What did the lawsuit claim?
That Snapchat captured Illinois users facial geometry through its Lenses and Filters without the written notice and consent BIPA requires. Snap denied this, saying its Lenses do not perform facial recognition and process data on the device, not on its servers.
How much was the settlement?
Snap agreed to a 35 million dollar settlement without admitting fault. The class covered Illinois residents who used Lenses or Filters since November 17, 2015, reported at roughly four million people.
Can I still file a claim?
No. The claim deadline passed in 2022, so this settlement is closed and you can no longer file for it.
Why did Snapchat settle if it denied the claims?
Companies often settle to avoid the cost and risk of litigation rather than because they concede liability. Snap explicitly settled without admitting fault, and Illinois law allowing private biometric suits with statutory damages made the financial exposure of a trial significant.