BioLife Plasma Services, a Takeda subsidiary that runs plasma donation centers across the country, has been sued repeatedly over the past decade. The claims fall into five buckets: biometric privacy violations tied to donor fingerprint scans, personal injury suits from donors hurt during donation, a 2024 data breach affecting donor accounts, a newer website-tracking class action, and an employment class action. The largest resolved matter is a nearly $6 million Illinois settlement over fingerprint collection. A BioLife lawsuit today is most likely to involve privacy, injury, or data security.
The $6 Million Illinois Fingerprint Settlement
The best-known case against BioLife is Phillips v. BioLife Plasma, LLC (Case No. 2020 CH 05758), filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. It alleged BioLife violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by scanning donors’ fingerprints without giving the required disclosures, without written informed consent, and without publishing a retention-and-destruction schedule for the biometric data.1Top Class Actions. BioLife $6 Million Fingerprint Settlement
BioLife agreed to pay $5,994,233 without admitting wrongdoing. The settlement covered people who scanned their fingers at an Illinois BioLife facility between September 8, 2015, and November 15, 2021, split into two subclasses. Subclass 1 covered donors who scanned before March 6, 2020, with no biometric consent form on file, and those members were eligible for larger payments. Subclass 2 covered donors who scanned after that date, when BioLife had begun requiring a consent form. The claim deadline was April 25, 2022, and the court granted final approval on June 6, 2022.1Top Class Actions. BioLife $6 Million Fingerprint Settlement2Legal Newsline. Judge Finalizes Almost $6M to Settle Class Action Over BioLife Plasma Donor Fingerprint Scans The claim period has closed.
Donor Injury Lawsuits
Plasma donation involves needles, blood draws, and, sometimes, fainting. BioLife has been sued by donors injured during the process, with mixed results.
Good v. BioLife Plasma Services
Tenley McLaughlin Good fainted during a 2015 finger prick at a screening visit, fell from a swivel chair, hit her head, and spent a week in the hospital with post-concussive symptoms. She reported ongoing headaches, dizziness, anxiety, reduced hand dexterity, and partial hearing loss in one ear. Her negligence theories were that BioLife never asked about her history of fainting at the sight of blood, and that it seated her in a tall swivel chair too far from any staffer who could catch her.3Findlaw. Good v. BioLife Plasma Services, L.P. The Sixth Circuit revived the case in November 2020 after the trial court had thrown it out. It was terminated in April 2023; the final disposition is not reflected in available court records.4CourtListener. Good v. BioLife Plasma Services, L.P.
Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services
Rhonda Haugen sued in North Dakota after a January 2001 donation in which she said a needle came loose and lodged in the soft tissue of her arm, leaving her with heavy bruising and Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, a chronic pain condition. A jury found BioLife was not negligent, and the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.5vLex. Haugen v. BioLife Plasma Services
Nerve Damage Settlement
A donor who reported permanent nerve damage and paralysis of his left arm after a July 2020 donation settled for more than $477,000. His attorneys argued BioLife staff lacked the experience to identify veins and collect plasma safely. BioLife pointed to a signed liability waiver and said its employees did not recall the interaction.6Courtroom Proven. H and P Law Wins $477K Victory for Incorrect Plasma Withdrawal Victim
The 2024 Donor Account Data Breach
In early 2024, BioLife disclosed a credential stuffing attack on its online Donor Scheduling System. The attack began on or about January 31, 2024. BioLife spotted a spike in failed logins on February 6 and confirmed unauthorized access by February 16.7Iowa Attorney General. BioLife Plasma Services Data Breach Notification
The exposed information included names, dates of birth, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, plasma donation dates, and the dates of donors’ most recent physical exams. Attackers also redeemed loyalty rewards points from some accounts, which BioLife later restored.8Maryland Office of the Attorney General. BioLife Plasma Services Data Breach Notification7Iowa Attorney General. BioLife Plasma Services Data Breach Notification BioLife required password resets, tightened password rules, added multi-factor authentication options, and notified law enforcement and major media under the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule.
Website Tracking Class Action
In January 2025, Evan Wooten filed a proposed federal class action against BioLife and Takeda in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Wooten v. BioLife Plasma Services LP (No. 1:25-at-00071). The complaint alleges that BioLife installed Snap Inc. and Salesforce Inc. tracking tools on its website that captured visitors’ email addresses, home zip codes, and IP addresses before those visitors registered an account or consented to data collection, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.9Bloomberg Law. BioLife Plasma Sued Over Data Sharing With Snap, Salesforce The case is in its early stages.
Employment Class Action
BioLife also faces Dionicio Garcia v. BioLife Plasma Services L.P., filed in California state court and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in January 2026 (Case No. 3:26-cv-00580). It names BioLife Plasma Services, BioLife Plasma LLC, and multiple Takeda entities. It is classified as a civil rights employment action, but the specific discrimination allegations and class definition are not detailed in the public docket. As of March 2026, proceedings are stayed by agreement of the parties, with an early neutral evaluation conference scheduled before a magistrate judge.10PACER Monitor. Dionicio Garcia v. Biolife Plasma Services LP et al
Arbitration and Class Action Waiver on the BioLife Website
If you are considering a claim tied to BioLife’s website or mobile app, read the terms first. BioLife’s terms of use, last updated in March 2025, require users to resolve disputes through binding individual arbitration and waive the right to bring a class action. The clause is governed by Illinois law, uses a single arbitrator under American Arbitration Association rules, and is heard in the user’s county of residence. A severability clause preserves the rest of the arbitration provision if a court strikes any part of it.11BioLife Plasma Services. Terms and Conditions of Use Whether this particular clause has been tested and enforced against a donor’s claim is not shown in available records.