Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis presented a question central to modern class action litigation: whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured. We previously highlighted the Supreme Court’s decision to hear argument in the case, which had the potential to resolve a widening circuit split on this issue—some courts have held that uninjured class members preclude certification entirely, others ask whether uninjured class members can be identified and excluded without requiring predominance-defeating “mini-trials,” and others (incorrectly, in our view) defer the inquiry until later stages of the case unless a “great many” of the class members are uninjured.  Despite its clear interest in resolving this split, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that Laboratory Corporation had too many procedural quirks to reach the question presented, holding in an 8-1 decision that certiorari was “improvidently granted” and dismissing the appeal.Continue Reading Supreme Court Delays Resolution of Uninjured Class Member Debate

In what the court described as “a shoe shrinking croc-nundrum,” a court in the Northern District of California recently granted summary judgment to Crocs Inc in a false advertising claim, where class certification had already been denied. Martha Valentine et al., v. Crocs, Inc., 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (May 19, 2025). 

The…

Continue Reading Summary Judgment Granted on a Shoe Shrinking Croc-Nundrum

Food mislabeling class actions are increasingly common.  Last week, the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification involving allegations of false labeling on ghee, a clarified butter product, because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence  

Defendant Ancient Organics, a ghee manufacturer, made representations on its packaging…

Continue Reading Ghee, I Can’t Believe I Need Evidence: N.D. Cal. Denies Class Certification in Food Labeling Case

Companies who rely on arbitration agreements that select the American Arbitration Association (AAA) consumer arbitration rules for dispute resolution should take note of a recent decision by the Eleventh Circuit affirming the denial of a motion to compel arbitration and emphasizing the importance of proactively complying with the AAA’s rules and policies.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Decision Underscores Importance of Complying with AAA Rules

Health-related websites are increasingly targeted with wiretapping suits if they use pixels or other third-party technologies to power their websites.  A few months ago, a California court dismissed on multiple grounds one such suit challenging the use of website pixels by Clearblue, a company that offers home pregnancy and fertility test kits.  Saedi v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics d/b/a Clearblue, 2025 WL 1141168 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2025).Continue Reading Home Pregnancy Test Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit

“Session replay” software is one of many website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping suits under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  Last month, a California federal court confirmed one of the many reasons why the use of this software does not violate CIPA section 631: A defendant cannot “read” (or attempt to read) session replay data “in transit,” as CIPA requires, because “events recorded by” this software “do not become readable content until after they are stored and reassembled into a session replay.”  Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., 2025 WL 1135088 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025). Continue Reading Court Grants Summary Judgment: Website Vendor Cannot Read “Session Replay” Data “In Transit” Under CIPA

On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408.  The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a).  Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief.  Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)

Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), holding that the alleged transmission of code containing video titles and a unique user ID to a third-party is not a disclosure of “personally identifiable information” (PII). The decision, Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., 23‐7597 (2d Cir. May 1, 2025), aligns the Second Circuit with the Third and Ninth Circuits in holding that the VPPA only prohibits the disclosure of information that would “readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual’s video-watching behavior.” Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms VPPA Dismissal: Data Is Not “Personally Identifiable Information” If Only Experts Can Decipher It

Lawsuits targeting businesses’ use of website tools under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) increasingly are filed by so-called “tester” plaintiffs.  These plaintiffs seek out websites to “test” for potential CIPA violations and then file lawsuits seeking damages for those alleged violations.  A California federal court recently confirmed that…

Continue Reading “Tester” Plaintiff Who “Actively Seeks Out Privacy Violations” Lacks Standing to Pursue CIPA Claim

Does a plaintiff’s use of a website constitute consent to a privacy policy linked in the website’s footer?  A Pennsylvania federal court answered yes in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., 2025 WL 896938 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025), granting summary judgment in favor of an online retailer (Harriet Carter Gifts) and its marketing partner (NaviStone) accused of collecting data about plaintiff’s website visit in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“WESCA”).Continue Reading Implied Consent to Privacy Policy in Webpage Footer Forecloses Website Wiretapping Claim