The legal battle over Chicago’s ubiquitous food delivery robots has officially escalated to the courtroom, with two local customers filing class-action lawsuits accusing the companies behind the automated couriers of illegally harvesting their biometric data without consent.

The separate lawsuits, both filed Oct. 9 in Cook County court against Coco Robotics and Serve Robotics, allege that the autonomous machines violated Illinois’ strict state privacy laws. The plaintiffs claim that the robots’ onboard cameras and laser-mapping sensors scanned their faces and hands without their knowledge, permission, or any prior written disclosure. Both companies have strongly disputed the allegations, signaling a high-stakes legal confrontation over the limits of surveillance and automation on public sidewalks.

According to the legal complaints, the robots rely on a combination of high-definition cameras and LiDAR—a remote sensing technology that emits laser pulses to measure exact distances and map surrounding environments. As customers approach the machines to retrieve their delivered food or grocery orders, these sensors allegedly capture detailed measurements of their faces, heads, and hands.

Mitchell Breidinger, a resident of Chicago’s Near North Side, found himself at the center of the dispute with Coco Robotics. In his lawsuit, Breidinger states that he ordered groceries through DoorDash in September 2025 and never selected an option for robot delivery. Nevertheless, his order was automatically assigned to a Coco machine. When the robot arrived at his location, Breidinger was forced to stand in close proximity to the device to punch in a numeric retrieval code and collect his bags.

Breidinger alleges that during this interaction, the robot’s cameras recorded his face, head, and hands, while its LiDAR sensors measured the geometry of those body parts. Furthermore, his lawsuit claims that a remote human operator actively watched live video footage of the delivery in real time. According to the filing, Coco failed to provide written notice stating that it would collect biometric information, neglected to explain how long that data would be retained, and never obtained his written consent.

A parallel grievance was filed by Barry Schain, a resident of Lincoln Park, regarding his experiences with Serve Robotics. Schain claims he has received three deliveries from Serve machines, most recently on Oct. 4, when an Uber Eats order was automatically routed to a robot despite his having never chosen that delivery method.

Both lawsuits assert that the companies retain the video and sensor logs captured during these deliveries to train and refine artificial intelligence systems. Schain’s legal filing points to public disclosures made by Serve regarding its practice of licensing video and LiDAR datasets to third parties for AI training purposes. Meanwhile, Breidinger’s lawsuit claims that Coco has shared data harvested by its delivery fleet with OpenAI and other corporate partners.

In both instances, the lawsuits allege that customers’ biometric measurements are stored directly alongside their names and addresses within corporate data systems, effectively linking sensitive physical measurements to personally identifiable individuals.

The legal actions contend that these practices violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The landmark state law strictly mandates that any company collecting biometric identifiers must provide clear written notice detailing what is being collected and why, secure explicit written consent from the individual, and maintain a publicly available retention and destruction schedule outlining how the data will eventually be purged.

Spokespersons for both Coco and Serve firmly denied that their companies collect biometric information from customers or everyday passersby. A representative for Serve Robotics stated that the company "will defend against" the litigation, while a Coco spokesperson expressed confidence that the "frivolous lawsuit will go away."

"This lawsuit fundamentally misunderstands our technology, we have not collected biometric data in Chicago," a Coco spokesperson said in a public statement, adding that regulatory compliance and privacy protection remain top priorities for the enterprise.

"The data we share is navigational data used to make sidewalks safer for all users," the Coco spokesperson continued, explaining that the company provides real-time sidewalk hazard data to BlindSquare, a specialized navigation application designed for blind and low-vision individuals. "We do not share data from the beginning or end of delivery trips under our data sharing partnerships. Privacy and compliance with the law are top priorities in everything we do."

Similarly, the Serve spokesperson emphasized that the company’s robots utilize cameras and environmental sensors strictly to navigate crowded city sidewalks safely.

"Serve does not use that data to identify individuals and our systems are not designed to identify individuals or create biometric profiles," the spokesperson said.

The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages of $1,000 for each negligent violation of the privacy act, or up to $5,000 for every intentional or reckless violation, alongside other legal relief.

These lawsuits compound an already mounting wave of public scrutiny directed at delivery robots, which have become a common and polarizing fixture on Chicago sidewalks. Beyond privacy worries, local residents have increasingly voiced concerns regarding physical safety, sidewalk accessibility for disabled individuals, potential surveillance risks, and the displacement of traditional delivery jobs.

Chicago initially launched its delivery robot pilot program back in 2022 under former Mayor Lori Lightfoot. Coco introduced its fleet to the city in late 2024, followed by Serve Robotics in September 2025. The pilot initiative, which is jointly overseen by the Chicago Department of Transportation and the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection, is scheduled to expire in May 2027 unless the City Council votes to approve an official extension.

Friction between residents and the robotics companies has steadily intensified. In Lincoln Park, resident Josh Robertson launched a public petition last year calling on the city to immediately halt the pilot program until officials release comprehensive safety and accessibility data, host public hearings, and establish stricter operational guidelines. More than 4,500 individuals had signed the petition by last month. Local residents have frequently reported instances of robots blocking narrow sidewalks and crosswalks, creating severe hazards for pedestrians with disabilities, while simultaneously raising alarms over the constant recording of public spaces by onboard cameras.

The political backlash has also found a home in City Hall. In February, Ald. Daniel La Spata of the 1st Ward rejected proposed plans to expand robot operations across wide swaths of his ward after more than 83 percent of constituents who participated in an online survey expressed strong opposition to the expansion.

To help manage public complaints, the city established a dedicated 311 reporting category allowing residents to log safety violations and general grievances regarding the autonomous devices.

Physical incidents have further fueled public anxiety. In March, a Serve robot smashed directly through the glass panels of a Chicago Transit Authority bus shelter in West Town, scattering dangerous shards of glass across the public walkway. Just days later, a Coco robot collided with another bus shelter in Old Town. Representatives from both companies stated they were actively investigating the mechanical or navigational errors behind the crashes and accepted full financial responsibility for repair costs.

In September, a video showing more than a dozen Coco robots seemingly circling one another and becoming deadlocked on a Lincoln Park sidewalk went viral on social media, accumulating hundreds of thousands of views and drawing renewed ridicule and criticism toward the technology.

Despite the growing opposition from residents, lawmakers, and now the courts, delivery robot operators continue to defend their fleets, arguing that the machines offer a safer, more sustainable alternative for short-distance food deliveries that can ultimately reduce automobile traffic and urban carbon emissions.