In January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (No. 22-11873), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by retail investors alleging that Robinhood, a zero-fee stock brokerage platform, conspired with Citadel Securities, a high-frequency trading firm and short-seller, to block trading in “meme stocks” like GameStop, AMC Entertainment, and Bed Bath & Beyond.  Although the investors alleged that prices fell in the meme stocks they owned, the court held that those losses were not “anticompetitive effects” arising in the relevant antitrust markets the investors pleaded in their complaint.

Continue Reading Game Stopped:  Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Meme Stock Antitrust Lawsuit

In a putative class action in the District of Delaware against Match Group, Inc., a magistrate judge has recommended that a motion to dismiss be granted based on finding that alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery, opinion, and/or forward-looking statements.  The opinion offers a useful analysis, with examples, of how these concepts are appropriately applied.

Match Group owns and operates several online dating services, including Tinder, Hinge, Match.com, and OkCupid. Plaintiffs, including a shareholder seeking to recover on behalf of all Match Group investors, brought claims under the Securities Exchange Act alleging that Match Group made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding a) the integration of Hyperconnect (a “social discovery and video technology” company acquired by Match Group); and b) the performance of two new Tinder product offerings, Explore (an interactive social discovery interface, seeking to match users based on similar interests) and Tinder Coins (an in-app currency).

The magistrate judge agreed with Match Group that the complaint should be dismissed because the statements in question were either accurate and non-contradictory, or non-actionable puffery, opinion, and/or forward-looking statements. See Bardaji v. Match Group Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00245 (D. Del. June 27, 2024).

Continue Reading District of Delaware Magistrate Finds Dating App Misrepresentation Claims Non-Actionable

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court underscores why courts should be hesitant to grant class certification in cases in which the learned intermediary doctrine applies.  

Continue Reading California Supreme Court Decision Highlights Potential Class Certification Defenses for Manufacturers of Prescription Drugs & Medical Devices

In Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3213277 (9th Cir. June 28, 2024), a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that private plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of California’s food labeling law that mirror federal law requirements, even though private plaintiffs lack a cause of action to enforce federal law directly.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preempt private enforcement of California’s Sherman Law, even though the Sherman Law incorporates the FDCA by reference and private plaintiffs typically cannot sue to enforce the FDCA.

Continue Reading Split Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards

A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently dismissed a class action complaint accusing Google of unlawfully wiretapping calls to Verizon’s customer service center through its customer service product, Cloud Contact Center AI.  See Ambriz v. Google, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05437 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024).

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses Complaint Accusing Google of Wiretapping Customer Service Calls

An Illinois federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging X Corp. violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) through its use of PhotoDNA software to create “hashes” of images to scan for nudity and related content. The court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that the hashes identified photo subjects and therefore failed to allege that the hashes constituted biometric identifiers. Martell v. X Corp., 2024 WL 3011353, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2024).

Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses BIPA Suit Against X, Holding “Biometric Identifiers” Must Identify Individuals

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently held that when there is ambiguity about the scope of a putative or certified class, American Pipe statute of limitations tolling should generally apply to potentially excluded class members.  This question is likely to arise where a proposed class definition is narrowed during the course of litigation such that certain putative members may no longer fit within the definition.  Should those now-excluded bystander plaintiffs argue that American Pipe tolling applies to their claims, courts in the Ninth Circuit are now instructed to resolve that ambiguity in favor of such bystander plaintiffs.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Extends American Pipe Tolling to Potentially Excluded Class Members in Face of Ambiguous Class Definitions

Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB to address two important questions on the standard for pleading securities fraud claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”): (1) whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents, and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review Securities Pleading Standard

A federal court in the Northern District of California recently dismissed the majority of claims from a putative class action against Western Digital, in which plaintiffs claim that alleged security flaws in the manufacturer’s data storage devices allowed cyber hackers to access and delete plaintiffs’ data.  See Riordan v. W. Digital Corp., No. 21-CV-06074-EJD, 2024 WL 2868152 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2024).  The court previously granted in part Western Digital’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Continue Reading Multiple Claims Dismissed from Putative Class Action Involving Cyber Attack on Data Storage Devices