Published
July 6, 2026
That "try the lipstick on your own face" tool is at the center of this case: the suit says MAC scanned shoppers' facial geometry without the consent Illinois law demands. A judge has let it move forward — but there is nothing to claim yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations, and a ruling allowing the case to proceed is not a finding of liability. MAC Cosmetics has not been found to have violated BIPA, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
MAC Cosmetics is facing a proposed class action alleging that its popular "virtual try-on" tool — which lets shoppers see how makeup would look on their own face — scans users' facial geometry without the consent required by Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).The case, captioned Javid v. M.A.C. Cosmetics, began in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 2025-CH-08774) and has been litigated in Illinois federal court. In June 2026, the judge denied MAC's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward — a notable procedural milestone, though not a finding that MAC did anything wrong. The allegations remain unproven.
Status
Proceeding · Motion to Dismiss Denied (June 2026)
Proposed class action · Javid v. M.A.C. Cosmetics · originated Cook County No. 2025-CH-08774
Allegation
Virtual try-on scanned facial geometry without BIPA consent
Suit says MAC collected face-scan data in-store and online without written consent or a retention policy
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form at this stage
What the Lawsuit Alleges
MAC's virtual try-on lets a shopper preview lipstick, eyeshadow, and other products in three ways: by granting live camera access for a real-time "digital mirror," by taking a photo through MAC's web interface, or by uploading an existing photo. In each case, the complaint alleges, the technology maps the geometry of the user's face to place the makeup accurately — and that facial-geometry data is exactly what BIPA treats as a protected biometric identifier.According to the complaint, MAC collected that data — both through in-store associates using the tool and through its digital platforms — without first obtaining the written, informed consent BIPA requires, without telling users how the data would be used or how long it would be kept, and without publishing the retention-and-destruction schedule the law mandates. The named plaintiff alleges her facial geometry was scanned without her consent. As with any complaint, these are allegations only; no court has found that MAC violated BIPA.
Why the June 2026 Ruling Matters
In June 2026, the court denied MAC's motion to dismiss. Companies routinely try to end BIPA cases early by arguing the plaintiff has not alleged a real biometric scan or a concrete injury; here, the judge found the case could proceed, reasoning that MAC could plausibly have collected and identified the plaintiff's biometric data through the virtual try-on tool. That keeps the case alive and moving toward discovery and a possible class-certification fight.It is important to be precise about what that ruling is and isn't. Surviving a motion to dismiss means the allegations, if true, could support a claim — it is not a decision that MAC actually violated BIPA. The company can still contest the facts and the law as the case develops.
The Stakes: BIPA and Virtual Beauty Tools
BIPA is unusually powerful because it lets individuals sue directly and recover statutory damages — $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per reckless or intentional violation — without having to prove they lost money. With a widely used consumer tool, those per-person amounts can add up quickly across a large class, which is why BIPA cases against retailers and technology providers are closely watched.The MAC case is part of a wave of BIPA claims targeting AI-powered "try before you buy" beauty tools. A similar virtual try-on case against Charlotte Tilbury resolved with a $2.925 million settlement in 2025 — a separate matter, but a sign of how these disputes can end. OCA has covered other biometric-privacy cases as well, including the Meta voiceprint biometric privacy lawsuit.
Is There a MAC Settlement Yet?
No. This is an ongoing lawsuit, not a settlement.That means there is no settlement fund, no claim form, no payout, and no deadline to act — and consumers do not need to do anything at this stage. MAC has not been found liable. If the case is ever resolved through a settlement or a class is certified, a formal claims process with its own eligibility rules and deadlines would be announced separately.
Who Could Be Affected?
The proposed class generally covers Illinois residents whose facial geometry was allegedly scanned by MAC's virtual try-on tool without BIPA-compliant consent. Because no class has been certified, the definition is not final and could change.If you used MAC's virtual try-on in Illinois, it may be worth keeping a note of roughly when and how you used it in case a class is later certified or the case settles. There is nothing to file right now.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the lawsuit allege?
That MAC's virtual try-on tool scanned users' facial geometry — in stores and online — without the written consent and retention policy BIPA requires. The allegations are unproven.Did a court rule MAC violated BIPA?
No. In June 2026 the judge denied MAC's motion to dismiss, letting the case proceed. That is a procedural ruling, not a finding of liability.Is there anything to claim?
No. This is an ongoing lawsuit, not a settlement. There is no fund, no claim form, and no deadline. A similar Charlotte Tilbury case settled for $2.925M in 2025, but that is separate.Sources
• Bloomberg Law — "MAC Cosmetics Fails to Shake Virtual Try-On Biometric Data Suit": Bloomberg Law• Global Cosmetics News — "MAC Cosmetics faces biometric privacy lawsuit over virtual try-on technology": Global Cosmetics News
• Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14 (official Illinois General Assembly text): Illinois General Assembly
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Proceeding — Motion to Dismiss Denied (June 2026)
Case Title
Javid v. M.A.C. Cosmetics
Origin
Cook County Circuit Court, No. 2025-CH-08774
Court
Litigated in U.S. District Court, N.D. Illinois
Claims
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14
Official Court Page
CourtListener Docket
