Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.” McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023). The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate. See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims
California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid
By Stephen Rees & Cort Lannin on
In the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product…
Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidNinth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision
By Marianne Spencer & Andrew Soukup on
In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts. See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision
California State Court Holds That A Concrete Injury-In-Fact Is Required To Bring Claims Under CIPA
By Dominic Booth & Matthew Verdin on
The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) provides a private right of action only to those who have “been injured by a violation of” CIPA. A California Superior Court decision, Rodriguez v. Fountain9, Inc., 2024 WL 3886811, at *4 (Cal. Super. July 9, 2024), confirmed that a plaintiff cannot satisfy this statutory standing requirement unless the plaintiff alleges “a concrete injury-in-fact.”Continue Reading California State Court Holds That A Concrete Injury-In-Fact Is Required To Bring Claims Under CIPA
Post-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds
By Brandon Gould & Kyle W. Chow on
In Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, no. 22-cv-10462-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy between Deutsche Bank and Rabobank to manipulate prices of European government bonds. Plaintiffs, certain U.S.-based pension funds, alleged that the defendants manipulated the prices they offered to investors to buy or sell EGBs in order to widen the resulting “bid-ask spread” between those prices and increase their profits. Continue Reading Post-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds
Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.
By Marianne Spencer & Kathryn Cahoy on
A Central District of California court recently dismissed a putative privacy class action after determining that the movie theater defendants were not Video Tape Service Providers as defined by the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). See Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC, 2024 WL 3593569 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024). Two other California federal courts recently have reached similar conclusions, and appeals of those rulings are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1171737, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024); Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 700 F. Supp. 3d 921 (C.D. Cal. 2023).Continue Reading Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.
Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Second Chance at $91 Million in Statutory Damages
By Dillon Grimm on
In Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3659589 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s statutory damages award, holding that an aggregate award of statutory damages is not subject to the Supreme Court’s State Farm due process standard for punitive damages, but should instead be assessed in light of the proportionality and reasonableness of the aggregate award considering the legal violation committed. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Second Chance at $91 Million in Statutory Damages
Judge Makes Class Action Claims Against “Magic Avatar” AI App Disappear
By Matt Cullen on
On August 6, 2024, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order dismissing Brantley v. Prisma Labs, Inc., a proposed class action suit against the creator of the “Magic Avatar” AI app for lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction over the representative plaintiff Tyrone Brantley.Continue Reading Judge Makes Class Action Claims Against “Magic Avatar” AI App Disappear
Court Tosses Google Pixel Wiretap Complaint: Plaintiffs Fail to Allege How Pixel Was Configured or Intent to Collect Health Data
By Austin Riddick & Matthew Verdin on
Website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping lawsuits, such as pixels, often allow businesses to shield or mask collected data to avoid the transmission of sensitive data. A California federal judge recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against Google that glossed over this nuance “to the point of seeming intentionally slippery” in John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC, 23-cv-02431, 2024 WL 3490744 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2024).
The twelve plaintiffs in this case claimed that their healthcare providers installed Google technology on their websites, including Google Analytics, to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes. Among the data allegedly collected was the plaintiffs’ “personal health information.” Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Google, asserting a mix of privacy claims, including under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). According to the plaintiffs, Google unlawfully wiretapped the plaintiffs’ communications with their healthcare providers’ websites, obtaining allegedly sensitive health data in the process.Continue Reading Court Tosses Google Pixel Wiretap Complaint: Plaintiffs Fail to Allege How Pixel Was Configured or Intent to Collect Health Data
California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to Defendant in CIPA Website Wiretapping Case
By Erin Moore & Matthew Verdin on
Delivering a significant win for businesses hit with website wiretapping lawsuits, a California federal judge granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) in Gutierrez v. Converse Inc., 2024 WL 3511648 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2024).
The website tool at issue in this case, like hundreds of other cases, was a third-party-enabled chat feature that businesses install on their websites to connect customers with live customer service agents. Plaintiff Nora Gutierrez alleged that she visited Defendant Converse’s website with this chat feature installed, and that the chat provider stored her chat communications with Converse’s customer service agents on its servers. Gutierrez characterized this practice as “wiretapping” and she asserted a claim against Converse for aiding and abetting the alleged wiretapping in violation of the first and second clause of CIPA section 631(a).Continue Reading California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to Defendant in CIPA Website Wiretapping Case