Complaint Filed by Stephanie Bianco, Eugenia Rukhin, Lauren Barone, Stephanie Bianco, O/b/o Minor Child H.B.; Jury Demand. Filing Fee $ 405, Receipt Number AILNDC-24915814.(Keller, Amy)

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................... 8 III. PARTIES ........................................................................................................................... 9

IV.

A.

Genetic Information Is Highly Valuable and Sensitive ........................................ 17 B.

Because of its Value and Sensitivity, Illinois Law Specifically Protects Genetic Information ........................................................................................................... 18 C.

Ambry Genetics Collects Personally Identifying Genetic Information from Plaintiffs and Class Members ............................................................................... 21 D.

Tempus AI Targeted Ambry Because its Business Model Depends on Amassing Genetic Information ............................................................................. 24

1.

How Artificial Intelligence Platforms Are Developed and Improved ...... 26

2.

Tempus AI Needs Massive Health Data Sets to Develop, Enhance, and Market its AI Products .............................................................................. 28

3.

Tempus AI’s Business Model Depends on Collecting and Disclosing Genetic Health Information ...................................................................... 28

4.

AstraZeneca Also Needs Health And Genetic Information and Aids and Abets Tempus AI’s GIPA Violations to Obtain It .................................... 31

5.

Tempus AI’s Foundation Models and Other Large Genetic Datasets Are Not Anonymized or De-Identified ..................................................... 39

E.

Tempus AI Targets Ambry Genetics as a One-Stop Shop for Troves of Genetic Information ........................................................................................................... 43 F.

Industry Standards Call for Data Transfer Consent in Acquisition Deals ............ 45 G.

Tempus AI and Ambry’s Public Claims to Only Disclose De-Identified Genetic Information are False ............................................................................... 46 1.

Relatedly, GIPA’s Safe Harbor Provisions for De-Identified Information and “Limited Data Sets” Cannot Apply ............................... 48

V.

VI.

Case: 1:26-cv-03516 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 2 of 80 PageID #:2

INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT (“GIPA”) 410 ILCS 513/1, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs, the Nationwide Class, and the Illinois Subclass against Tempus AI) ... 57

Civil Code §§ 56, et. seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs, the Nationwide Class, and the California Subclass against Tempus AI) ...................................................................... 60

COMPETITION LAW (“UCL”) Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiffs, the Nationwide Class, and the California Subclass against Tempus AI) ...................................................................................................................... 61

BUSINESS LAW § 349 (On behalf of Plaintiff Bianco, Plaintiff Bianco on Behalf of H.B., and the New York Subclass against Tempus AI) ........................................... 62 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT (On behalf of Plaintiffs and the

Nationwide Class against Tempus AI) .......................................................................... 65 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (On behalf of

Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class against Tempus AI) ............................................ 67

PRACTICES ACT 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 510/2, et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff Barone and the Illinois Subclass against Tempus AI) ................................................. 67

PROTECTION ACT 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 530/10(A), et seq. (On behalf of Plaintiff Barone and the Illinois Subclass against Tempus AI) .................................. 70

the CMIA (On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class, against AstraZeneca) ................................................................................................................... 71

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................. 75 VIII. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .......................................................................................... 77

Case: 1:26-cv-03516 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 3 of 80 PageID #:3 Plaintiffs Lauren Barone (“Plaintiff Barone”), Eugenia Rukhin (“Plaintiff Rukhin”), Stephanie Bianco (“Plaintiff Bianco”), and Stephanie Bianco on behalf of her minor child H.B. (“Plaintiff H.B.”), individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated (the “Classes”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring this class action against Defendants Tempus AI, Inc. (“Tempus AI”), AstraZeneca PLC, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca LP (collectively with AstraZeneca PLC, AstraZeneca AB, and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, “AstraZeneca”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and allege, upon personal information and belief and the investigation of their counsel, including consultation with experts, that Tempus AI compelled Ambry Genetics Corporation (“Ambry Genetics” or “Ambry”) to disclose, as a condition of an acquisition agreement, valuable, highly sensitive genetic information Ambry collected from patients. Tempus AI caused the transfer and disclosure of this personally identifying, highly sensitive medical and genetic information for its own commercial benefit, without providing Ambry patients with notice of the disclosure, the opportunity to opt out or consent, or compensation for the value of their data. Worse, Tempus AI subsequently disclosed this genetic information to additional entities, including Defendant AstraZeneca, which knowingly aided and abetted Tempus AI’s continuing violations of applicable privacy laws for their own commercial gain. For these reasons, and the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs assert claims for damages and other legal and equitable remedies for common law violations and violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), 410 ILCS 513/1, et seq., the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 56.101 et seq., and various state consumer and data protection statutes.

Case: 1:26-cv-03516 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 4 of 80 PageID #:4 I.

1.

Genetic information is among the most sensitive types of personal information because it makes us who we are. Specifically, genetic information is a type of protected health information that provides significant insights into an individual’s health including, cancer risk, likelihood of developing reproductive health issues, predisposition to serious diseases, and likelihood of passing genetic conditions to children.2,3

2.

Because genetic data is incredibly personal and revealing, federal and state regulations protect genetic information and treat it with some of the greatest protections to prevent unauthorized disclosure and misuse.

3.

For example, Illinois codified the Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”), which provides that “genetic testing and information derived from genetic testing is confidential and privileged and may be released only to the individual tested and to persons specifically authorized, in writing . . . by that individual to receive the information.” 410 ILCS 513/15(a). GIPA further mandates that persons or entities may not disclose or compel disclosure of “the identity of any person upon whom a genetic test is performed or the results of a genetic test in a manner that” identifies the subject of the test without legal authorization. Id. 513/30(a).

4.

Despite these explicit protections, Tempus AI has built its artificial intelligence business on the collection and use of millions of patient records containing individuals’ highly 1 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis herein is added. 2 See, e.g., Does the HIPAA Privacy Rule protect genetic information?, U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS. (Dec. 20, 2002), https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/faq/354/does-hipaa-protect-genetic- information/index.html (“Yes, genetic information is health information[.]”). 3 Lisa Bastarache et al., Characterizing trends in clinical genetic testing: A single-center analysis of EHR data from 1.8 million patients over two decades, 112(5) AM. J. OF HUM. GENETICS 1029-38 (Apr. 17, 2025), https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12120179/; see also Genetic testing moving into the mainstream,

UTSW study finds, UT SW. MED. CTR. (Dec. 17, 2024),

https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2024/dec-genetic-testing- mainstream.html#:~:text=Using%20data%20from%20the%202022,and%20personal%20trait%20(6%25) (“81% of Americans are aware of genetic testing and 40% have undergone at least one test”).

Case: 1:26-cv-03516 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/30/26 Page 5 of 80 PageID #:5