Courts are increasingly addressing putative class actions aimed at curbing allegedly illegal government conduct.  An Oregon federal court recently certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class action in a challenge to alleged ICE warrantless arrest practices, holding that plaintiffs may proceed on behalf of people arrested, or at risk of arrest, without a warrant and without pre-arrest individualized probable-cause assessments.  See M-J-M-A- et al. v. Lyons et al., No. 6:25-CV-02011-MTK, 2026 WL 1815866 (D. Or. June 24, 2026).

Continue Reading Class Certification Granted in ICE Warrantless Arrest Lawsuit

Recently, a California federal judge dismissed—for the second time—a suit asserting that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California privacy laws by allegedly deploying “tracking technology” on two hotel websites.  Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2026 WL 1670136 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2026).

Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Hotel Website Wiretapping Suit for Lack of Article III Standing

The First Circuit recently affirmed a Puerto Rico district court’s ruling dismissing a class action suit arising from a 2019 ransomware attack against a hospital in which 522,493 patients’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) was allegedly accessed by hackers, albeit in “encrypted” form.  See Santos-Pagán v. Bayamon Medical Center, No. 24-2018, 2026 WL 1693930 (1st Cir. June 11, 2026).

Continue Reading First Circuit Scrutinizes Causation Issues to Find No Article III Standing in Data Breach Case

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of international law and that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Curtails ATS and TVPA Class Action Lawsuits

In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.

Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court

The Fourth Circuit recently vacated a district court’s grant of class certification based on a lack of commonality and predominance.  See Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 2026 WL 1718962 (4th Cir. June 15, 2026).  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of hourly employees asserting claims based on allegations that their employer had a corporate policy of not compensating all mandatory pre- and post-shift work.  The alleged uncompensated tasks included “donning/doffing PPE, complying with the COVID-19 health protocols, partaking in shift-handoff meetings, and securing and putting away tools.”  The district court certified a class, but the Fourth Circuit reversed.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Vacates Grant of Class Certification for Lack of Commonality and Predominance

A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied Lyft’s motion to dismiss a putative class action on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds after the plaintiff voluntarily amended her complaint under Rule 15 to cure standing issues raised by Lyft.  Zigler v. Lyft, Inc., 2026 WL 1557553 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2026). 

Continue Reading Federal Court Allows Plaintiff to Cure Standing Defect Through Early Amendment

“Class action counsel serve a valuable role in our legal system and deserve to be paid. But not twice.”  Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 24-2721, 2026 WL 1691583, at *1 (3d Cir. June 11, 2026) (“Gelis II“).  With that admonition, the Third Circuit for the second time vacated a $3.7 million fee award to class counsel in a consumer class action alleging that BMW sold vehicles with defective timing chains. See also Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (“Gelis I“), 49 F.4th 371, 376–77, 380 (3d Cir. 2022) (“Gelis I“) (first rejection of the $3.7 million award).

Continue Reading Third Circuit Vacates Class Counsel Fee As Excessive—Again

A federal court recently addressed whether plaintiffs alleging misleading commercial email practices in violation of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) have Article III standing to pursue claims. The ruling suggests that alleged violations of CEMA, standing alone, could constitute a concrete injury for Article III standing, where the asserted…

Continue Reading Washington Anti-Spam Law Decision Addresses Article III Standing in CEMA Cases

In a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.  The decision exemplifies a theme in such data breach cases: even where plaintiffs clear the Article III standing hurdle, their allegations may still fail to state a claim.

Continue Reading Standing Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of Causation