A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the alleged inclusion of artificial citric acid in a product rendered the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” representation on the front label false and/or misleading.  Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2024 WL 4766319 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024). Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To Proceed

The First Circuit recently held as a matter of first impression that denial of class certification does not strip a federal court of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), consistent with earlier decisions from the Second, Third and Seventh Circuits.  The opinion also addressed two exceptions to CAFA—the “home state” and “local controversy” exceptions—ultimately finding that the latter did defeat CAFA jurisdiction in the case before it and required remand to state court.  See Kress Stores of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 4750774 (1st Cir. Nov. 12, 2024).Continue Reading First Circuit Agrees with Other Circuits that CAFA Jurisdiction Survives Class Certification Denial

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Cunningham v. Cornell University to address the pleading standard for prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C).Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review ERISA Prohibited Transactions

In a putative consumer data breach class action, a court in the Northern District of California recently denied a cloud solution company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ negligence claim finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the company owed consumers a duty of care. See In re Accellion, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 2024 WL 4592367 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2024).Continue Reading California Federal Court Finds Plaintiffs Plausibly Alleged That Cloud Solution Company Owed Consumers Duty of Care

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Binance’s appeal after a lower court declined to stay a proposed class action and enforce an arbitration agreement contained in Binance’s terms and conditions. The decision carries implications for companies who do retail business or distribute products in multiple jurisdictions, including in Canada.

Background

As a Cayman Islands company, Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”), together with associated companies, marketed and sold cryptocurrency derivative contracts to Canadian retail investors though the Binance website. In the wake of Binance’s exit from the Ontario market, in June 2022 a proposed class filed an action against Binance in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. The proposed class of retail investors argued that Binance distributed securities and investment contracts under Canada’s securities laws, but failed to file or deliver a prospectus required by law.Continue Reading Canadian Appellate Decision Highlights Class Action and Mass Arbitration Risks for Companies in Operating in Multiple Jurisdictions

An Illinois federal court has held that the state’s recent amendment to its Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) capping damages to one recovery for repeated identical violations applies to cases filed prior to its enactment. Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC, 2024 WL 4766297, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rules BIPA Single-Violation Amendment Applies Retroactively

On Wednesday, November 13, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case NVIDIA Corp. v. Ohman J, a class action suit filed in the Northern District of California alleging securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Early signals from the Justices’ questions have led observers to believe that the Court may affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and remand the decision granting Nvidia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Continue Reading Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit held in Sweet v. Cardona that although a third-party intervenor who wishes to object to a class settlement may have Article III standing based on an alleged reputational harm from the settlement, the intervenor nonetheless lacks standing to challenge a district court’s final approval…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Third-Party Intervenors Do Not Have Standing to Challenge Class Action Settlements

Massachusetts’s highest court has ruled that website operators’ use of third-party technology, including Google Analytics and Meta Pixel, to collect data on individuals’ browsing of and interactions with websites does not violate the state’s anti-wiretapping law. Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, No. SJC-13542, 2024 WL 4558621, at *16 (Mass. Oct. 24, 2024). The court explained that those activities do not clearly amount to the person-to-person communications the 1960s-era statute is intended to cover.Continue Reading Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds That Third-Party Technologies Relating to Web Browsing Do Not Violate Massachusetts Wiretap Act

In a significant decision for businesses who are attempting to revise their consumer arbitration clauses to address the prospect of mass arbitration, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s motion to compel arbitration, based largely on the content of the mass arbitration provisions of their arbitration agreement.  Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., – F.4th –, 2024 WL 4586971 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024).  The court concluded that the “dense, convoluted and internally contradictory” arbitration rules cross referenced in Ticketmaster’s arbitration provision, along with other elements of the provision, rendered it unenforceable.  The court also held, on an alternate basis, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not even apply to the mass arbitration procedure at issue because it is “not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA.”Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Holds Arbitration Agreement with Certain Mass Arbitration Protocols Unenforceable