Plaintiffs in Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1802667 (2d. Cir. 2025), asserted false advertising claims against a manufacturer of flushable wipes, alleging that they paid a price premium based on the representation that the wipes were “flushable” when they in fact allegedly caused plumbing damage. 

The district court granted preliminary approval for a “claims made” settlement for up to $20 million in compensation to the class.  At the claim filing deadline, only $1 million had been claimed.  After fairness hearings, the district court approved the class settlement and later approved $3.1 million in attorneys’ fees for class counsel.  A class member objected to the settlement, arguing that a disproportionate amount of the total recovery went to class counsel instead of the class.Continue Reading Second Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Attorneys’ Fees in Class Action Settlement

In Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1775640 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class with multiple state-law causes of action and multiple subclasses when it vacated a district court order certifying multiple state-specific subclasses of automotive purchasers.Continue Reading En Banc Sixth Circuit Criticizes Certification of Multi-State Class

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit resurrected a lawsuit against a bank involving “Authorized Positive, Settled Negative” (“APSN”) overdraft fees and nonsufficient funds (“NSF”) fees. Gardner v. Flagstar Bank, No. 24-1436, 2025 WL 1721191 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025). The plaintiff argued that these fees violated the operative Terms & Conditions. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicated that she did not read the T&Cs and thus could not advance her own interpretation of the contract.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Revives Overdraft Fee Lawsuit Based on Ambiguous Contractual Terms

In Trump v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack authority to issue so-called “universal” (or “nationwide”) injunctions that extend beyond the case or controversy presented by the specific parties who are before them. In so doing, the Court will propel many litigants challenging federal statutes and policies to opt for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions in order to secure broad injunctive relief.Continue Reading End of Universal Injunctions, Re-Emergence of Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions

The enforceability of an arbitration clause is often a hotly disputed issue in class action lawsuits. But may a party who is not a signatory to a contract invoke its arbitration provisions to compel the arbitration of claims brought by a party who is? The First Circuit recently held that a defendant was unable to meet the high burden to enforce an arbitration agreement based on a contract that it is not a party to in Morales-Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc., 2025 WL 1703513 (1st Cir. June 18, 2025).Continue Reading Non-signatory Defendant Unable to Meet High Burden for Compelling Arbitration

This week, the Ninth Circuit held that state law mislabeling claims were not preempted at the pleading stage simply because the plaintiff failed to allege use of an FDA-approved sampling process when testing the product’s nutritional content.  Scheibe v. ProSupps USA, LLC, __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 1430272 (9th Cir. Jun. 23, 2025). Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Limits FDCA’s Preclusive Sweep at Pleading Stage in Food Mislabeling Case

In a decision with implications for classwide settlement of privacy lawsuits, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California held that claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) are personal to individual class members and therefore not assignable to third parties.  The decision, Stark v. Patreon, Inc., No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), invalidated a mass opt-out effort orchestrated by Lexclaim Recovery Group US LLC (“Lexclaim”), a third-party entity that claimed it was founded to “help people recover a greater share of the money to which they would be entitled in class action cases.”Continue Reading California Federal Court Holds VPPA Claims Are Not Assignable, Rejecting Third-Party Opt-Out Scheme

Many businesses are being hit with demand letters and lawsuits challenging their use of website marketing tools, such as pixels, under a lesser-known provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) prohibiting the use of “trap and trace devices.”  A California court recently added clarity to the meaning of this term: a pixel tool that captures the “contents” of a plaintiff’s website communications is “definitionally not a trap and trace device.”  Price v. Headspace, 2025 WL 1237977 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Apr. 1, 2025).Continue Reading Website Pixel Tool “Definitionally Not a Trap and Trace Device” Under CIPA

User consent bars website wiretapping claims brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported on here, one way users may consent to the use of third-party website technologies is during a checkout process, such as via a checkbox indicating agreement to a website’s privacy policy.  But is consent negated if a 10-minute timer begins counting down the moment a user enters that checkout process?  A California court answered no in Washington v. Flixbus, Inc., 2025 WL 1592961 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), rejecting a plaintiff’s argument that a countdown timer “imposes undue pressure that negates any consent.”Continue Reading User Consent Provided Under Time Pressure Is Still Consent Barring CIPA Suit

Capture of personal or private information is a prerequisite to Article III standing in wiretapping cases brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported on here, when a plaintiff fails to plead the capture of any such information, courts have dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint for…

Continue Reading Collection of Website Visit Time Stamp Not Enough to Confer Article III Standing