In a recently published award, an arbitrator rejected claims that Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Dick’s”) violated the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) by purportedly installing website analytics and marketing technologies on its website after an evidentiary hearing.  Asad v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 5220005532 (Dec. 8, 2025).Continue Reading Arbitrator Rejects Website Wiretapping Claims After Hearing

In many privacy and other technology-related class actions, the question of whether consumers consent to the practice at issue is central.  In these cases, class action defendants have defeated motions for class certification by successfully arguing that consent is an individualized issue that is not susceptible to common proof.  And though class action plaintiffs may try and avoid this problem by excluding consenting individuals from their class definition, that solution can create new problems, including impermissible “fail-safe” classes—i.e., classes that cannot be defined until a case is resolved on the merits.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Denies Permission to Appeal Class Certification Order Raising Questions of Consent and Fail-Safe Classes

The Eighth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action asserting that defendant Cinema Entertainment Corporation, a regional movie theater chain, violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by disclosing website visitors’ information through a third-party pixel.  See Christopherson v. Cinema Ent. Corp., No. 24-3042, 2025 WL 3512393 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025). Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of VPPA Claim

A defendant can waive a right to compel arbitration if it intentionally relinquishes or abandons its known right. One way to waive a right to compel arbitration is by implied waiver: acting inconsistently with an intent to assert the right to arbitrate.  But what should a defendant do to preserve…

Continue Reading Third Circuit Holds Providing Clear Notice of Intent to Compel Arbitration Preserves Right to Compel Arbitration Once Right Becomes Enforceable

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”) into law. We previously wrote a blog post about the Act, which was introduced to update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), to encompass a broader range of practices and claims.  The proposed legislation was previously announced by New York Attorney General Letitia James on March 13, 2025, and was passed through the New York State Senate and State Assembly on June 18, 2025.

Between its announcement in March and its passage into law, the Act underwent significant changes.  Among other notable changes:Continue Reading New York Passes the FAIR Business Practices Act

The first Federal Rule focused specifically on multidistrict litigation—which has long been a staple of complex, high-stakes litigation—took effect on December 1, 2025, as part of the 2025 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Provides Guidance for Early MDL Case Management

An oft-litigated issue in false-advertising class actions is whether a plaintiff can show that each class member relied on the challenged statement when they made their purchasing decision.  The Eighth Circuit recently offered an example of how this issue can pose a significant roadblock to class certification in In re…

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Ices False Labeling Class Action on Predominance Grounds

Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers.  Although the plaintiffs offered statistical evidence suggesting that Keurig’s coffee pod prices were elevated on average, the court held that individual issues of antitrust impact predominated over common questions because Keurig directly negotiated prices with large buyers that might fully offset any increase in average prices.Continue Reading Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court

A Washington State Supreme Court decision last spring that construed that state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) to broadly prohibit any misleading information in retailers’ email subject lines has opened the floodgates to similar state spam claims. In the past six months, there have been eight putative class action complaints alleging that retailers’ misleading email subject lines violate CEMA, and more alleging similar claims under other state spam laws. Businesses face heightened exposure to liability for marketing practices that seek to convey a sense of urgency with respect to promotional timelines. This spate of litigation raises important questions about the scope and enforceability of state anti-spam laws, including whether such claims are preempted under the federal Controlling the Assault of Non–Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM Act”).  Continue Reading Recent Class Actions Under State Anti-Spam Laws Target Retail Email Marketing Practices and Raise Questions about CAN-SPAM Act Preemption

In Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 2025 WL 3199871 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the Tenth Circuit adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Federal Rule 23.  The ascertainability standard endorsed by the court requires…

Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Adopts Majority View not Requiring “Administrative Feasibility” for Ascertainability