In-Cab Camera Lawsuits: BIPA Settlements and NLRB Rulings

Truck drivers have filed a wave of in-cab camera lawsuits since 2022, and several have produced real money. The biggest settlements — $75 million from BNSF Railway, $4.25 million from Lytx, $3.95 million from Samsara — all turned on the same legal theory: that driver-facing cameras captured facial geometry or fingerprints without the written notice and consent Illinois law requires. Other cases against Netradyne, Penske Logistics, and Omnitracs remain pending, and separate rulings from the National Labor Relations Board and Canadian regulators have opened additional fronts. Here is where things stand for drivers who want to know what their rights are and what has already been recovered.

Settlements Drivers Have Already Won

The largest recovery so far came in Rogers v. BNSF Railway Company. BNSF agreed to a $75 million settlement over allegations that it required truck drivers to scan fingerprints at automated gate systems at four Illinois facilities without BIPA-compliant consent. Final approval was granted on June 18, 2024, and BNSF admitted no liability.1Reuters. BNSF Railway to Pay $75 Million to Resolve Biometric Privacy Class Action2BNSF BIPA Class Action. BNSF BIPA Class Action Settlement

In Karling v. Samsara Inc., a class of commercial truck drivers alleged that Samsara’s AI dash cams captured and stored facial scans to monitor for fatigue, distraction, and tailgating without the disclosures or written consent BIPA requires. On August 5, 2025, the parties reached a $3.95 million settlement. The class covers anyone who operated a vehicle equipped with a Samsara dual-facing dash cam in Illinois between December 2016 and preliminary approval, and Illinois residents who operated such vehicles outside the state during that window. Approved claimants receive a pro rata share of the fund after fees, administrative costs, and a $5,000 incentive award to the named plaintiff.3ClassAction.org. Samsara Truck Camera Privacy Lawsuit4ClassAction.org. Karling v. Samsara Inc. Settlement Agreement

Lytx, the maker of the DriveCam system, settled a parallel case for $4.25 million. Three named plaintiffs alleged that DriveCam and MV+AI collected drivers’ facial geometry to predict distracted driving behaviors without proper consent. On July 26, 2025, U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel granted final approval, covering roughly 85,000 drivers (about 25,000 in Illinois and 60,000 elsewhere) whose data was collected between October 2016 and January 2025. Estimated individual payouts ranged from about $85 to over $500 for Illinois residents and $35 to over $200 for non-Illinois residents, depending on claim volume. Lytx denied all wrongdoing.5FreightWaves. Drivers Settle Class Action With Lytx Over In-Cab Surveillance Data Gathering6Milberg. Lytx BIPA Settlement

Two other cases produced smaller but meaningful recoveries. Beelman Truck Co. settled Guszkiewicz v. Beelman Truck Co. for $665,600.7Simpluris. Guszkiewicz v. Beelman Truck Co. Settlement Agreement8Yahoo News. Driver Wins Case Against Trucking9Landline Media. Truckers Take Victory Lap in Driver-Facing Cameras Lawsuit

Cases Still in Progress

Several major cases remain pending as of the latest available filings. If your employer or a former employer uses any of these systems, a claim may still be open.

What BIPA Requires

Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, enacted in 2008, is the statute driving nearly all of these cases. Before collecting biometric data — including facial geometry captured by AI cameras — a company must inform the person in writing and obtain written consent. Violations carry statutory damages of $1,000 per incident, or up to $5,000 for intentional or reckless conduct. That framework is what allows a class of drivers to recover meaningful sums even without proving traditional injury.

Coverage is not limited to Illinois residents. Both the Samsara and Lytx classes included non-Illinois drivers who operated equipped vehicles in Illinois, and Illinois residents who drove equipped vehicles anywhere. The trigger is where the collection happened or where the driver lives, not where the trucking company is headquartered.

The 2024 Amendment That Shrank Payouts

After the Illinois Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. held that damages could accrue with every individual scan, the legislature passed Senate Bill 2979. Governor J.B. Pritzker signed it on August 2, 2024, effective immediately. The amendment limits liability to a single violation per person for the same method of collection or dissemination, regardless of how many times the data was scanned.14American Bar Association. How Will Proposed Amendments to Illinois BIPA Affect the Use of Biometric Data

The amendment is being applied retroactively in federal court. On November 13, 2024, in Gregg v. Central Transport LLC, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo dismissed a case after ruling the amendment is a “clarification” of the original statute rather than a substantive change. The plaintiff’s maximum recovery was capped at $15,000, below the $75,000 threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction. In April 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed retroactive application in Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., ruling that the per-scan damages model is no longer viable in federal court. Plaintiffs are limited to a single recovery per person, per violation type, per method of collection. The ruling does not bind Illinois state courts, where uncertainty remains until the Illinois Supreme Court weighs in.15Smith Gambrell & Russell. Seventh Circuit Holds BIPA Damages Amendment Applies Retroactively, Reshaping Liability for Hundreds of Pending Cases

For drivers, the practical effect is that individual payouts are smaller than they might have been under the old rule, and where a case is filed — federal versus Illinois state court — can affect how much is on the table.

Sue the Employer, Not Always the Vendor

Drivers often assume the camera maker is on the hook. Courts have said otherwise in at least one case. In Guszkiewicz v. Beelman Truck Co., DuPage County Judge Neal Cerne dismissed the BIPA claims against Samsara but allowed the case against the employer to proceed. Samsara had put its customers on notice of BIPA requirements, provided sample consent forms, and contractually required employers to certify they had obtained written consent before activating facial recognition features. The employer, with the direct relationship to the drivers, was responsible for actually collecting the consent.16Ogletree Deakins. Dashcam Developer Insulated From BIPA Liability

Other cases have named vendors directly, and both Samsara and Lytx paid substantial settlements, so vendor liability is not foreclosed. But if you are looking at who should have gotten your written consent, the answer is usually your employer.

A Second Angle: NLRB Surveillance Rulings

Not every claim runs through BIPA. In April 2023, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Stern Produce Company violated the National Labor Relations Act through its use of inward-facing cameras. A driver named Ruiz, an open union supporter, covered his camera while eating lunch in his truck. A supervisor accessed the live feed and texted him that covering the camera was against company rules. The NLRB found that accessing the camera during a break — with no safety issue, accident, harsh braking, or unusual stop — created an unlawful impression of surveillance. Importantly, the driver did not need to be engaged in protected union activity at that exact moment for the surveillance to be unlawful.17Chartwell Law. NLRB Finds Inward-Facing Truck Cameras Can Constitute Unlawful Surveillance of Drivers

This ruling matters most for drivers at unionized carriers or those involved in organizing, but the “impression of surveillance” standard applies regardless of state biometric law.

Audio Recording and State Consent Rules

Video is one issue; audio is another, and the rules vary sharply by state. Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming follow a one-party consent rule, which generally lets companies record audio inside the cab. Washington requires all-party consent — every person in the vehicle must agree. Oregon splits the difference: one-party consent for electronic communications, all-party consent for in-person conversations.18Metier Law. Semi Truck Dash Cam Laws: What Crash Victims Need to Know California requires two-party consent for audio and also enforces windshield placement rules under California Vehicle Code §26708: dash cams must sit within defined zones, such as a 7-inch square in the lower passenger-side corner or a 5-inch square in the center upper portion of the windshield.19GPS Insight. Are Dash Cameras Legal in Commercial Vehicles

Because commercial vehicles are company property, employers have broader monitoring rights than they would in a private vehicle. Video-only recording during work hours is generally permissible. Legal risk climbs when audio is captured in two-party consent states, when AI analyzes biometric data, or when recording continues off duty.19GPS Insight. Are Dash Cameras Legal in Commercial Vehicles

Recording in the Sleeper Cab

Long-haul drivers sleep, eat, and spend off-duty hours in their cabs, and regulators are beginning to treat those hours differently. Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner investigated Trimac Transportation Services in 2022 and found that a dash camera system recording continuous audio and video, including during off-duty periods, was “disproportionately privacy intrusive.” The Commissioner accepted road safety and asset protection as legitimate interests but ruled that recording drivers in what amounts to a temporary home was not proportional.20Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. PIPEDA Findings 2022-006

Trimac deployed a Sleep Mode/Privacy Mode update that disables the microphone five minutes after the ignition is turned off, after 15 minutes of idling, or immediately when the parking brake is engaged. It also restricted portal access to two safety officials and audited access rights for its 151 portal users. The investigation revealed Trimac had failed to inform employees that camera data could be used for discipline or termination — something the company’s own legal counsel acknowledged was a problem.20Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. PIPEDA Findings 2022-006

The Trimac finding is Canadian and does not bind U.S. carriers, but it captures a pattern regulators on both sides of the border are watching: what a driver was told about how the footage would be used, and whether the camera keeps running when the driver is off the clock.

What to Do If You Think You Have a Claim

If you have driven a truck equipped with an AI-powered driver-facing camera — Samsara, Lytx DriveCam, Netradyne Driveri, Omnitracs Critical Event Video, or a similar system — check whether your employer gave you a written BIPA disclosure and asked you to sign a written consent form before the camera was activated. If you drove in Illinois or live in Illinois, and no such disclosure or consent exists, a claim may be available. Settlements in this space have generally paid class members automatically once claims are approved, and named plaintiffs have received incentive awards on top of their share. Check the settlement websites for cases against your specific vendor, because filing deadlines apply and pending cases against Netradyne, Penske, and Omnitracs may still be accepting class members when they reach settlement.