> Plaintiffs ask the Court to do something that no court appears to have ever done before—issue a preliminary injunction under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Plaintiffs make their unprecedented requestbased on noevidence of a BIPA violation or imminent harm to the putative class. They submit not a single affidavit or declaration in support,and offer nothing more than citations to newspaper articles in support of their claims. That alone is sufficient reason to deny Plaintiffs’ motion, which requires them to come forward with evidencein support of their claims. Instead of providing evidence, Plaintiffs focus on their own, unsubstantiated and speculative opinions of the “dangers” of Clearview’s product, while ignoring the substantial, concrete harm that Clearview and the public would experience if an injunction issued. Plaintiffs’ speculation does not warrant a grant of the “extraordinary and drastic remedy” of a preliminary injunction. Goodman v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005). Because it fails to satisfy every element necessary for an injunction to issue, Plaintiffs’ motion should be denied.