The Ninth Circuit recently reversed an $800,000 attorney fee award in a data breach class action because the award accounted for too large a portion of the total value of the settlement. In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litig., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 583419 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action

A fan of celebrity LL Cool J filed a wiretapping suit against Community.com (“Community”), claiming that Community accessed her text message to LL Cool J in violation of the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  In an unpublished opinion highlighting that Section 632 of CIPA does not protect communications that are by nature a recorded medium, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims. See Boulton v. Community.com, Inc., No. 23-3145, 2025 WL 314813 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of CIPA and Wiretap Act Claims Against Celebrity Platform

In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court has clarified who qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorneys’ fees under certain statutes.  The decision carries significant implications for the availability of attorneys’ fees in class action cases where defendants are able to moot claims before a court enters a final judgment.   

At issue in Lackey was whether plaintiffs could obtain attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in certain civil rights cases.  Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction but were not able to obtain any further relief (including a final judgment) because the government voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct.  In a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “prevailing party.”Continue Reading No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie

Companies with arbitration agreements should carefully consider potential arbitration providers’ mass arbitration procedures and fee structures if they could be at risk of becoming the target of a mass arbitration. FedArb, an ADR provider, recently updated its consumer and employment Mass Arbitration Rules to include a robust affirmation requirement, similar to the “reasonable inquiry” standard embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Specifically, the new rules require claimants’ counsel to (1) submit a spreadsheet identifying each claimant and (2) submit a sworn declaration averring that the information in both the arbitration demand and the spreadsheet is true and correct to the best of counsel’s knowledge after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances. It also empowers the arbitrator to impose sanctions for violation of the affirmation requirement, including dismissal of the claim or payment of attorney’s fees.Continue Reading FedArb Updates Mass Arbitration Rules to Incorporate Affirmation Requirement

Website analytics and advertising tools, such as pixels, are regularly targeted in lawsuits brought under various wiretap laws, including the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Over the last several months, we have featured posts discussing an important decision from Massachusetts’ highest court about the availability of website wiretap suits under Massachusetts law, an opinion from a California court about a new “pen register” theory under CIPA, and more.  These posts, and other highlights, include the following:Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Litigation: Recent Decisions and Developments

A court in the Northern District of California recently denied Google’s request to prevent more than 69,000 putative class members from opting out of a certified class in favor of pursuing individual arbitration of their claims against Google.  See In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig., 2025 WL 510435, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2025)Continue Reading California Federal Court Permits Thousands of Arbitration Opt-Outs from Certified Class

Last month, a New Jersey federal judge applied Third Circuit precedent to hold that the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) does not impose liability for commonplace use of website marketing/analytics pixels under the well-established party exception.  Cole v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 2025 WL 88703 (D.N.J. Jan. 14, 2025).Continue Reading New Jersey Court Applies CIPA’s Party Exception to Pixel Wiretap Complaint

The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the named plaintiff in a putative data breach class action lacked standing to pursue her claims given that her private personal information had not actually been misused by a third party.Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Putative Data Breach Class Action

In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that “every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.”  594 U.S. 413, 427, 431 (2021) (cleaned up).  Post-TransUnion, courts have grappled with that guidance, especially as to whether a class that contains uninjured class members may permissibly be certified.  As set forth in our recent post, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a circuit split on that issue.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Concludes TransUnion Demands Evidence of Injury for All Class Members

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed an antitrust class action brought by yacht sellers against yacht brokers, brokerage trade associations, and multiple listing services for preowned yachts.  In Ya Mon Expeditions LLC v. International Yacht Brokers Association Inc., 1:24-cv-20805, the yacht sellers alleged that yacht brokers conspired through trade associations to fix uniform brokerage commissions on preowned yacht sales and exclude from yacht listing services sellers who were not represented by licensed brokers.Continue Reading Court Takes Wind Out of the Sails of Yacht Sellers’ Antitrust Suit