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

On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that courts must provide class-wide notice of an attorney fee motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h).   Morrow v. Jones, No. 23-40546, 2025 WL 1634785 (5th Cir. June 10, 2025).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Reaffirms that Courts Must Provide Class-Wide Notice of Attorney Fee Motions

Whether the presence of uninjured class members can defeat class certification is a hot-button topic in class action litigation.  Just four days after the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis regarding whether class certification is permissible under Rule 23(b)(3) when some members of the putative class are uninjured (we described this case here), the Sixth Circuit affirmed class certification in Pickett v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, despite defendant’s argument that up to twenty percent of the class did not suffer an economic injury.  — F. 4th —-, 2025 WL 1622110 (6th Cir. June 9, 2025).
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Despite Potential Presence of Class Members Who Did Not Suffer Economic Injury

Last month, a California federal court highlighted one of the “serious problems that the class action plaintiffs’ bar desperately needs to rectify”: “the failure to properly vet named plaintiffs.”  Lineberry v. Addshoppers, Inc., 23-cv-01996-VC, 2025 WL 1533136 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2025).Continue Reading For Peet’s Sake!  Court Calls Out Class Action Plaintiffs’ Bar’s Failure to Properly Vet Named Plaintiffs in CIPA Suit