Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Privacy
The Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Privacy litigation was centralized before Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman in the Northern District of Illinois in December 2020, consolidating federal claims that Clearview AI unlawfully scraped and used facial-recognition data from publicly available online images without consent, implicating state biometric-privacy statutes including Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act. As of the JPML's September 2026 report, the docket shows zero actions pending against fourteen total actions ever filed — a fully wound-down docket relative to a modest original population.
The federal MDL captured only a portion of the broader legal exposure Clearview AI has faced, since much of the litigation and regulatory activity around its facial-recognition practices proceeded in state courts and through regulatory actions outside this specific federal proceeding. Within this MDL, the small filing population and its complete resolution suggest the federal claims here moved through disposition — whether via settlement, dismissal, or transfer — relatively efficiently compared to larger, more protracted technology-privacy dockets.
This docket is a useful comparison point precisely because of its modest scale and quick resolution: it illustrates that not every high-profile technology-privacy controversy generates a large, multi-year federal MDL, particularly where much of the underlying legal activity is concentrated in state-specific statutory claims litigated outside the federal MDL structure. Criterica Intelligence's platform tracks this kind of divergence between public prominence and federal MDL scale across the privacy-litigation landscape, since the two do not always move together. A companion capital brief on this docket is available through Criterica Capital.
Claims that Clearview AI unlawfully scraped and used facial-recognition data from publicly available online images without consent, implicating state biometric-privacy statutes including Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act.
All fourteen actions ever filed in this federal MDL have resolved as of the JPML's September 2026 report, whether through settlement, dismissal, or another disposition, leaving no pending federal claims in this specific proceeding.
No — this MDL reflects only the federal claims centralized here. Substantial litigation and regulatory activity concerning Clearview AI's practices has occurred in state courts and through regulatory proceedings outside this docket.
That public prominence and federal MDL scale do not always move together — a high-profile privacy controversy can generate a comparatively small and quickly resolved federal docket when much of the underlying activity proceeds through state-specific claims instead.
Statistics shown reflect historical or illustrative model outputs derived from real case data. They are not predictions or guarantees of any individual outcome. Litigation results depend on facts, jurisdiction, judge, and counsel, and vary case by case. Model accuracy is subject to selection effects and changing legal dynamics.