The Taft Law Team

Enacted in 2008, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) continues to be the most consumer-friendly biometric privacy law in the country. In the wake of the Illinois Supreme Court’s seminal 2019 decision in Rosenbach v. Six Flags, plaintiffs have filed hundreds of class action lawsuits against businesses and employers in a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, logistics, retail, hospitality, food and beverage, health and technology. These lawsuits have been filed because of a perception that BIPA, as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court in Rosenbach, creates significant liability where biometric information has been collected from an employee or consumer without first providing notification and obtaining consent, even if no actual damages have been suffered.

In the spring of 2020, however, there have been a handful of court decisions that have bucked the previously plaintiff-friendly BIPA trends and perceptions. In the biometric privacy wars between consumer, company and insurance carrier, these recent cases have ruled in favor of the company, in areas such as federal subject matter and personal jurisdiction, interpretation of BIPA obligations and exceptions and BIPA-related insurance coverage disputes.

BIPA and Article III Standing

For the last few years, there has been a controversy amongst federal courts as to the circumstances for how a BIPA lawsuit can meet Article III subject matter jurisdiction standards when the plaintiff has not alleged that he or she suffered any actual damages. Some federal district courts previously held that the mere collection of biometric information by an entity, without any accompanying actual damages, does not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact standing requirements. These rulings led to plaintiffs and, less frequently, defendants using the “ace card” of a motion to remand a case to state court as a way to undermine proceeding in federal court or slow down the litigation.

On May 5, 2020, the Seventh Circuit, in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., put an end to these legal maneuverings and held that the mere collection of biometric information is itself enough of an injury in fact to confer Article III standing. The court stated that a violation of BIPA’s requirement that notice is given to an individual before his or her biometric information is collected (codified in Section 15(b)) is not a purely procedural requirement. Rather, failure to provide the required notice deprives an individual of informed consent and the ability to decline participation in the activity for which collection is required. However, the court held that a violation of BIPA’s requirements as to proper policies and retention standards (codified in Section 15(a)) does not create an injury in fact, but rather is akin to “an invasion of [ person’s] private domain, much like an act of trespass would be.” Thus, any claim based upon Section 15(a) cannot remain in federal court unless the violation in question caused actual harm.

The takeaway from Compass is that BIPA plaintiffs can sue in federal court and defendants can remove a Section 15(b) BIPA case filed in state court to federal court ⁠— if diversity requirements are met ⁠— without fear of the case being remanded for lack of standing.

Personal Jurisdiction and BIPA

Many companies have wondered about how far the requirements of BIPA extend jurisdictionally, and whether its strict provisions can apply to businesses having merely tangential contacts with Illinois. A recent case from the Northern District of Illinois has shed some light on this question.

In Bray v. Lathem Time Co., Case No. 3-19-CV-03157, an employee filed a class action lawsuit in an Illinois federal district court against Lathem Time Co. (Lathem), a Georgia-based company that designed and sold biometric-based timekeeping systems to his former employer, a lumber sales company, to track the time worked by hourly employees. The employee alleged that, even though he did not work for Lathem, the company violated BIPA by collecting, storing, using and/or disclosing his biometric information without giving notice and obtaining consent from him or establishing a biometric information retention policy as required by BIPA. Lathem moved to dismiss based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 27, 2020, the court granted Lathem’s motion. It held that Lathem did not have sufficient contacts with Illinois to establish personal jurisdiction. In particular, Lathem’s operation of a highly interactive website that could be used in Illinois was insufficient, absent any physical presence ⁠— offices or facilities ⁠— in Illinois or intentional targeting of Illinois customers (i.e., maintaining a sales or marketing program in Illinois, having advertising in Illinois, or sending representatives to Illinois). Moreover, the division of the plaintiff’s former employer with whom Lathem conducted business was actually in Arkansas, not Illinois. As such, the court held that the random, fortuitous or attenuated contacts that Lathem had with Illinois was insufficient for personal jurisdiction.

Lathem provides a reminder that irrespective of the strict nature of BIPA, courts will still require sufficient contacts to Illinois and a company can take proactive steps to avoid establishing these connections by being mindful of its physical presence in Illinois and whether it specifically markets to Illinois customers.

The Duty to Give Notice and the Definition of “Possession”

Many unresolved questions remain on the merit of BIPA claims, including the question of who exactly has the duty to seek consent from consumers ⁠— the initial collector or also other parties that come into possession of biometric information. In Corey Heard v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., Case No. 19 C 4158, a federal court in the Northern District of Illinois shined some light on when the obligations under BIPA to obtain consent are triggered, and what it means to actually “possess” biometric information for purposes of statutory liability.

In Heard, the plaintiff, a respiratory therapist in Illinois, filed a class action lawsuit against Becton, Dickinson and Company (Becton), which manufactured an automated medication dispensing system that was used by the plaintiff. Becton filed a motion to dismiss, contending that, as the manufacturer of devices used by other companies, Becton did not actively collect biometric information and thus it did not have the duty to provide notice and obtain informed consent from consumers, despite the fact that it retained the collected biometric information.

On Feb. 24, 2020, the court granted Becton’s motion, and, carefully construing the language of BIPA, held that the consent requirement (codified in Section 15(b)) only applied to entities that directly collected information, as opposed to a company whose device was merely used for the collection. The court also held that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that Becton had “possession” of biometric information ⁠— so as to invoke other BIPA provisions. The court noted that there were no allegations in the complaint that Becton “exercised any form or control over the data or that it held that data at its disposal.”

Heard is an important case that could have broad-reaching implications. First, it may allow a path to victory for timekeeping or other manufacturing or technology companies whose devices are merely used by another party, and who do not actively target consumers for collection. Heard may also provide a defense to cloud-service companies who have been sued under BIPA, and who merely host biometric data collected by other parties, but do not have actual access to the data in a readable form. Heard also provides a reminder that federal pleading standards are not automatically met by “merely parroting” the statutory language of BIPA in a complaint. Finally, at least one other federal court in the Northern District of Illinois – Figueroa v. Kronos Inc., No 19 C 1306 – has disagreed with the rationale in Heard and has allowed BIPA cases against outside vendors to proceed.

BIPA’s Healthcare Exemption

BIPA contains a statutory provision exempting from its requirements for information captured from a patient in a health care setting, or information collected for health care treatment.

In Vo v. VSP Retail Development Holding, Inc., the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against VSP Retail Development Holding, Inc. (VSP), a manufacturer and seller of prescription and non-prescription eyewear. VSP’s website offered a virtual software that allowed consumers, like the plaintiff, to use their smartphones and other web-camera enabled devices to “try on” eyewear remotely after using the phones’ cameras to scan the consumer’s facial geometry. The plaintiff alleged that VSP scanned her face and used the information regarding her facial geometry without giving notice and obtaining her consent or establishing a biometric information retention policy as required by BIPA. VSP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based upon the healthcare exemption.

On March 25, 2020, the court granted VSP’s motion to dismiss, holding that VSP’s alleged face scan was obtained from a patient in a health care setting. The court examined HIPAA’s definition of “health care,” which is: (1) “[p]reventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care, and counseling, service, assessment, or procedure with respect to the physical or mental condition, or functional status, of an individual or that affects the structure or function of the body” and (2)”[s]ale or dispensing of a drug, device, equipment, other item in accordance with a prescription.” The court noted the complaint alleged VSP manufactured and sold prescription and non-prescription eyewear, which federal regulations classify as Class I medical devices. The court further found that VSP’s collection of facial geometry was similar to the diagnostic service typically performed by an eye care professional in order to ensure the proper fit for the corrective eyewear and that the collection is therefore from a patient in a health care setting.

Under BIPA, the health care exemption can be a powerful weapon for certain defendants, as Vo helps highlight. It can be creatively applied to industries traditionally not considered “healthcare.”

Insurance Coverage for BIPA Claims

In BIPA litigation, a key question is whether the defendant to a BIPA claim is entitled to any insurance coverage under a pre-existing policy. This question is dependent upon the specific coverage language used in the policy.

In West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., the defendant to a BIPA lawsuit, Krishna Schaumburg Tan (Krishna), sought coverage from its insurance carrier West Bend. The carrier agreed to defend Krishna under a reservation of rights, and then filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify Krishna. The trial court held that West Bend had a duty to defend under the insurance agreement.

On March 20, 2020, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District affirmed the trial court’s decision. The key question focused on how to interpret the insurance policy’s definition of “personal injury,” and whether the underlying BIPA lawsuit fell under this term. The policy defined “personal injury,” in part, as injuries arising out of “oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.” The court held the underlying lawsuit’s allegations that Krishna disseminated biometric information to third parties satisfied the “publication” aspect of the policy’s definitions. The court also narrowly interpreted a data-privacy related coverage exclusion, stating that it only applied to violations of statutes governing “methods of communication” such as emails, faxes and phone calls, and “not to other statutes that limit the sending or sharing of certain information.”

The West Bend case has important implications for insurance coverage of BIPA claims. It also has a potentially significant effect on the proper statute of limitations under BIPA, which is silent on the limitations period. Defendants have argued that the one-year catch-all statute of limitations for slander, libel or for publication of matter violating the right of privacy found in the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure applies, and, interestingly, this catch-all has nearly identical language to the policy definition in West Bend. It remains to be seen whether the effects of the West Bend ruling will extend beyond the insurance context.

These cases show that the language of BIPA, as interpreted by the courts, is nuanced and there are some important defenses for defendants to consider. One thing is certain ⁠— due to the hundreds of BIPA cases that have been filed in state and federal courts in the last year, it is expected that there will be many more decisions on important procedural and merits issues in the next six months.

Taft attorneys remain committed to monitoring this ever-changing area of the law and providing counseling and litigation services for companies who are dealing with issues related to the collection of biometric information.

This post originally appeared on the Taft blog, here.

By now, it’s become widely accepted that we’re invariably, and irrevocably, changed. And while some folks like to bemoan their dry hands or cabin fever – we think that it goes deeper than that. Humans are some of the most adaptable, resilient creatures on the planet and nothing shows it better than how we decide to create our new normal. 

Prior to the restrictions, when you walked through the doors at NuCurrent (a wireless power company) it was buzzing with activity: a team of engineers would be in the large conference room meeting with clients; sales was sauntering over to marketing to collaborate on a new pitch; CEO Jacob Babcock would throw you a casual “hey, goodmorning”; while smells of coffee & solder wafted from the lab. 

It was exciting to come to work each day. But within weeks after CES in early January – and cancellations at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona – we knew the rumblings of what made its way to Seattle in March would soon come for Chicago. 

And then we were met with the question: How will NuCurrent continue to provide inductive charging solutions when our team of multidisciplinary engineers will no longer be steps away from each other? In the world of product development, a few weeks “off” can quickly spiral into months-long delays, so it was obvious that closing our doors couldn’t be an option.

Here’s how we successfully managed to split our headquartered office into 35. 

It’s wise to decentralize

Wireless power solutions are created by combining the expertise of antenna, electronics, mechanical, radio frequency and software engineering disciplines. Meaning that a team of five people will touch a prototype before it’s out the door and to the client. This happens every time, for every project. Our heads of engineering and operations had to accurately forecast the next two months of engineering activity based on the project pipeline to determine which teams needed what and when. Each engineer’s survival kit included their testing equipment, hardware prototypes and shipping materials for client deliverables. 

Budget for what you can (and can’t) afford 

Even though each engineer went home with a personalized survival kit based on their roles & projects – some equipment can’t be bought 20 times over. Network, Impedance and Spectrum Analyzers, for example, cost roughly $100K, $20K & $2K and are critical to the work that we do. To remedy this, we created a system to allow individual members of our team to reserve the lab should they need to conduct some testing independently. And, of course, protective equipment was provided and sanitizing wipes were right there to ensure the next person would be safe to run their tests.

Have a contingency plan for your contingency plan

Our new normal rests in the unknown – and we have no choice but to embrace that. For many of us, those are questions like: What if we’re working from home for another year? What if restrictions lift by the end of summer? Which employees would we phase in first, and why? Should we postpone our move to a larger office space? Our leaders are increasing the frequency of their planning cycles to address the day-to-day performance metrics alongside the macro forces (i.e. government health recommendations & economic health) that are now entwined with our business.  

We couldn’t have predicted any of this. Not COVID, and surely not the success of how well our once, in-office wireless power team would adapt to being spread across 35 separate locations around the world. But our people are empowered & are owning the task of shifting our organizational mentality from surviving back to thriving. 

If a stellar job performance goes unrecognized, how often do you think it will be repeated? People need both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to continuously work at their best. When building and showcasing your company culture, employee recognition should be a crucial component. Sure, you may have great products, services, and customers, but that doesn’t mean much without the individuals who work hard every day to make the company successful.

Every company searches for top performers. It’s important to motivate dedicated individuals to join your team by showing them that appreciation for hard work is a foundation of your culture. “At CSC Corptax a job well done is recognized. Your boss reaches out to you. HR rewards us with a pizza party and catered lunches. We get handwritten cards thanking us for our hard work,” says Kathryn, project manager. It doesn’t take a lot to share appreciation, and it goes a long way to help you acquire top talent and encourage current employees to stay and grow with your organization. We have found that employees who hear positive feedback are more motivated to perform at their best every day, an outcome that is supported by research conducted by IBM Smarter Workforce Institute.

General recognition is fine, but its impact only goes so far. Be specific about what your teams and colleagues do well to show that you understand their value. Don’t limit yourself to recognizing only certain segments of the organization—ensure your process stretches across teams and levels and includes peer-to-peer recognition. “Everyone wants to feel validated, and it’s not hard to do. We take time out weekly, monthly, and at the end of the year to recognize top sales efforts. That doesn’t mean just closing the sale—it can be acquiring a prospect, which is a big deal. There are so many integral people involved in our process—we recognize sales engineers who help on the demo, lead-generation folks, the Support and Professional Services teams that help clients implement products and improve business processes. It’s a group effort all the way. You know that hard work pays off at CSC Corptax—be it for a job well done or from a compensation standpoint—it all works,” says Dean, director, Sales at CSC Corptax. Recognizing peers helps build strong relationships and leads to higher levels of collaboration. Don’t limit recognition to big projects and milestones—acknowledging small wins also drives motivation and increases job satisfaction.

At CSC Corptax, one of our values is being genuine. For us, that means being direct, open, and honest in all we do, exhibiting the highest level of integrity, and building trust. Recognizing others is tied directly to the foundation of who we are as an organization. We encourage workplace recognition through formal peer-to-peer recognition programs, celebrations and outings, and a culture of appreciation that starts at the top. “The CEO, directors, and my managers have all recognized me for the work I’ve done and sent personal emails to me which made me feel on top of the world. I receive recognition from other department managers as well, which is fantastic,” says Bharti, senior analyst, Quality Assurance at CSC Corptax.

If you’re ready to take the next step to build a company culture that sets you apart, take some time to invest in recognition, whether it’s formal programs or simply building a culture of kindness. Get buy-in across the organization and be genuine in your approach. If you’re looking for an employer that values recognition, check us out: corptax.com/about/careers/.

Medtelligent, Inc, provider of ALIS software for assisted living, memory care, and independent living communities, today announced that its ALIS Connect product will be offered free through September as assisted living communities increasingly look for ways to efficiently engage families while “no visitor” policies remain in place to slow the spread of coronavirus. 

ALIS Connect includes social sharing, health profile information, and bill payment features that help communities provide excellent customer service while maintaining a focus on resident care. 

“We’ve seen an uptick in demand for ALIS Connect among our existing customers as communities work to keep families up-to-date about what’s going on ‘in the building’,” said John Shafaee, chief executive officer of Medtelligent. “At the same time, staff is burdened by new routines and processes. Communities are looking for efficiencies now more than ever. ALIS Connect can provide that in the form of streamlined communication and realtime access to a resident’s health profile information. If that saves a few minutes or hours of a nurse or community engagement manager’s time, we think that’s a meaningful contribution.” 

ALIS Connect allows invited family members and authorized community team members to:

• Share updates through a private social feed;
• Access health information including assessment and medication information and; 
• View and pay bills through a secure, PCI-compliant web interface.

“We are seeing firsthand how creatively our customers are responding to the changes brought about by the COVID-19 crisis. We’re offering the product free through the summer because we want to make sure price is not a barrier to any community that is trying to keep families as connected to their loved one as possible .” 

Devbridge builds custom enterprise applications that deliver measurable results for Global 2000 organizations and their customers across all industries. Our cross-functional teams use deep expertise across product, design, and engineering to solve some of the most complex business challenges with elegant software. We take ownership of results and ship mission-critical, user-centric software 4x faster than the industry average.

Chicagoan by birth or relocation?

Born and raised in Joliet, Illinois. Always wanted to move to Chicago, moved here shortly after college. Love that Chicago is a city of neighborhoods.

What’s the best advice that you’ve ever received?

It’s an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem.

How did you come to work with Devbridge?

I was fortunate enough to work with Laura Graves (Managing Director, Devbridge) for nearly five years in a past life. A little while after settling in at Devbridge, she told me how much she loved working here and that she thought I would fit in pretty well too. I had the opportunity to meet a handful of Devbridgers and was impressed by everyone I talked to. I was happy to be given the opportunity to join the team and contribute to Devbridge’s impact in Chicago Tech.

Dead or alive, if you could have a dinner party with three famous and influential figures, who would they be and why?

Julia Child, Paula Scher, and Venerable Bede. Julia because of her humanity, humility, and an contagious passion for life. Paula for her shrewdness and sense of humor despite adversity, and Venerable Bede because would it be wild having a conversation with someone methodical and observational who was alive fourteen centuries ago.

What do you think are the top issues facing the Illinois tech community?

Diversity and inclusion in hiring, and reaching out to underserved communities that are not afforded much exposure to the tech scene throughout Chicago. The City of Chicago and the Illinois Technology and Research Corridor are poised to make a significant impact in the lives of many young children and budding technologists. I am pleased to see the outreach that ITA and other organizations are making and am looking forward to seeing these initiatives grow in the future.

CHICAGO, IL – PhysIQ, the Department of Defense, and The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. (HJF), in conjunction with the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND), announced the launch of an initiative to deploy physIQ’s platform to collect and analyze wearable sensor data to better understand the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Continuous monitoring with sophisticated personalized algorithms will be used to evaluate physiologic signals to predict disease progression and early indication of infection, and potentially evaluate novel treatments for COVID-19. This objective corresponds with JPEO-CBRND’s mission to evaluate advanced technologies for disease outbreak preparedness, as well as to understand how patients’ physiological data can be monitored remotely using continuously streaming wearable sensor data and Artificial Intelligence (AI). 

PhysIQ, a company that specializes in collecting and analyzing continuous physiological data collected from wearable biosensors through its pinpointIQTM platform, will deploy kits to individuals associated with military hospitals in the U.S., as well as across sites in Southeast Asia.  Confirmed COVID-19 positive individuals and patients at high risk of exposure will wear a clinical-grade biosensor that continuously streams data to physIQ’s platform where advanced FDA cleared AI-based analytics will process the raw vital sign data.

“We are fortunate to have previously worked with physIQ in our fight against Ebola and Sepsis in Africa and are striving to rapidly translate those novel tools and strategies for the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Dr. Danielle Clark, HJF’s Director of the Austere Environments Consortium for Enhanced Sepsis Outcomes (ACESO) program. “Our goal is to develop a suite of technologies, including physiologic monitoring to identify patients at risk of progression to severe disease, detect infection prior to symptom onset, and ultimately guide clinical decisions. We plan to track thousands of patients and high-risk contacts, as well as front-line healthcare workers. It is critical that we have tools to differentiate those who should self-isolate at home from those who require hospitalization.”

Among the specific objectives of the study are to use continuous physiological data to characterize immune response to infection, evaluate novel diagnostic and prognostic tools, and investigate efficacy of emergency investigational new drug therapies that may be administered to enrolled participants.

“As we find ourselves in these challenging times it is imperative to collaborate with the private sector in order to leverage every tool possible in this fight to understand COVID-19,” said Dr. Matt Hepburn, Joint Project Lead CBRN Defense Enabling Biotechnologies.  “Teaming up with physIQ will give us clinical insights into this virus on a scale that has not been done before, while allowing us to monitor the progress of those with the disease in an outpatient setting 24×7.”  

“Every day it is becoming more obvious that we need to deliver COVID-19 care in the home, as hospital capacity cannot keep up with the fallout of this devastating virus,” said Gary Conkright, CEO of physIQ.  “Achieving this will require clinical and physiological insight traditionally not available in an outpatient environment or with periodic spot checks of vitals that appear to be lagging indicators with this virus.  With wearable biosensors and advanced analytics, we can provide continuous, high-fidelity, multidimensional physiological insight required to understand and better treat this disease.  We are honored to expand upon our breakthrough Ebola work with Dr. Clark to now address the most significant global crisis in our lifetime.”

PhysIQ and HJF clinical teams are currently implementing the global deployment plan and patient enrollment has already begun.  PhysIQ technology is currently being utilized in observational studies on multiple protocols. The goal is to expand its use across additional protocols and clinical studies.  Given the nature of the continuous data collection within the pinpointIQTM platform, study clinicians will have rapid access to the streaming data and analytics to monitor those individuals that have confirmed cases and those that have been exposed. 

###

Cloud Spend Exceeds Budgets as Organizations Expect Increased Cloud Use Due to COVID-19 

Flexera, the company that helps organizations maximize business value from their technology investments, today releases the findings of the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report. In its ninth iteration, the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report (formerly the RightScale State of the Cloud Report) delves into the details of enterprise cloud use, including multi-cloud strategies, spending trends and top cloud initiatives. 

The survey results are available in the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report, which can be downloaded at https://info.flexera.com/SLO-CM-REPORT-State-of-the-Cloud-2020 

The report explores the thinking of 750 global cloud decision-makers and users regarding public, private and multi-cloud options and shares their current and future cloud adoption.  

“The State of the Cloud survey captures insights into how organizations are progressing in their journey to cloud,” said Jim Ryan, President and CEO of Flexera. “That journey is even more important for businesses today as we face the unprecedented operational impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“With employees working from home and more business interactions going digital,” Ryan continued, “more than half of enterprise respondents said their cloud usage will be higher than originally planned at the beginning of the year due to the pandemic. Companies plan to migrate more services to cloud, yet they’re already exceeding cloud budgets. They will need to focus on optimizing workloads as they migrate in addition to cost management and governance to ensure operational efficiency.”

A few key highlights from the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report: 

·       Organizations embrace multi-cloud 

o 93% of enterprises have a multi-cloud strategy; 87% have a hybrid cloud strategy 

o Respondents use an average of 2.2 public clouds and 2.2 private clouds  

·       Public cloud adoption continues to accelerate 

o Twenty percent of enterprises spend more than $12 million per year on public cloud 

o More than 50 percent of enterprise workloads and data are expected to be in a public cloud within 12 months 

o 59% of enterprises expect cloud usage to exceed prior plans due to COVID-19 

o The top challenge in cloud migration is understanding application dependencies  

·       Cloud cost optimization 

o Organizations are over budget for cloud spend by an average of 23 percent, and expect cloud spend to increase by 47 percent next year 

o Respondents estimate that 30 percent of cloud spend is wasted 

·       Cloud initiatives and metrics 

o 73% of organizations plan to optimize existing use of cloud (cost savings), making it the top initiative for the fourth year in a row 

o 61% percent of organizations plan to focus on cloud migration 

o 77% of organizations use cost efficiency and savings to measure cloud progress  

·       Organizational approach to cloud  

o 73% of enterprises have a central cloud team or cloud center of excellence 

o 57% of cloud teams are responsible for governing infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS)/platform-as-a-service (PaaS) usage costs 

·       Cloud challenges 

o 83% of enterprises indicate that security is a challenge, followed by 82 percent for managing cloud spend and 79 percent for governance 

o For cloud beginners, lack of resources/expertise is the top challenge; for advanced cloud users, managing cloud spend is the top challenge 

o 56% of organizations report that understanding cost implications of software licenses is a challenge for software in the cloud
 

The report leveraged a panel of 750 technical professionals from around the globe and across a broad cross-section of industries, providing insight into their adoption of cloud infrastructure. The independent panel comprises vetted respondents with detailed profiles and is rigorously maintained. The survey was conducted in the first quarter of 2020.  

Complete results and highlights are available in the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report. The report results are made available under an Open Source Creative Commons License so the data may be freely shared with the required attribution. 

For more information on the Flexera 2020 State of the Cloud Report: 

·       Download the report here 

·       Sign up for the report webinar here 

FOLLOW FLEXERA 

·       on LinkedIn 

·       on Twitter 

·       on Facebook 

·       on Instagram 

·       on Xing 

ABOUT FLEXERA 

Flexera helps business leaders succeed at what once seemed impossible: getting full visibility into, and control of, their company’s technology “black hole.” From on-premises to the cloud, Flexera helps organizations unravel IT complexity and maximize business value from their technology investments. For more than 30 years, our 1300+ team members worldwide have been passionate about helping our more than 50,000 customers optimize IT to achieve their business outcomes. To learn more, visit flexera.com. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Ashleigh Giliberto 
847-466-4302 
agiliberto@flexera.com