A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., reinforces that Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling, and that federal courts in the Fifth Circuit will enforce that, notwithstanding federal tolling rules for class actions.  Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3039221 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).

Following chemical explosions at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas facility in 2017, property owners filed a federal class action seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The district court certified a class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) but declined to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After the injunctive claims settled, nearly 800 class members filed individual suits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages.  All were filed well outside the two-year limitations period under Texas law.  The cases were then removed to federal court, and the defendant moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Plaintiffs argued that the federal class action tolled the state limitations period under the rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).  Arkema responded that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling. The district court agreed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing two of its prior decisions. In Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit had first addressed whether Texas would adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling and concluded it would not, emphasizing that tolling rules applicable to claims brought under Texas law are grounded in state—not federal—law. Later, in Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that holding, rejecting arguments that tolling should apply when defendants had notice of claims or when property-related claims were involved. Both cases underscore that Texas courts have recognized tolling only for class actions filed in Texas state courts and that this rule remains binding for Texas state-law claims in federal court.

Judge Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the court should have certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. The dissent highlighted practical concerns, noting that requiring individuals to file separate suits while a class action is pending undermines judicial efficiency and the purpose of class actions.

This decision confirms that, where state-law claims are at issue, American Pipe tolling will not override state law that does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling.

 …
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Clarifies No Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling in Texas

In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondeléz International, Inc. (“Mondeléz”).  Salguero v. Mondeléz Int’l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025).  Mondeléz, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars (“Zbars”) while labeling the packaging as “climate neutral certified.”  Id.  The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California’s consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.  Id.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Action Against Snack Food Company

On October 20, a California trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in Mach v. Yardi Systems, Inc., rejecting class plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, through their common use of rental pricing software.  The decision, which relied on “critical” evidence produced…

Continue Reading California Court Rejects First Algorithmic Price Fixing Case to Reach Summary Judgment

On October 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a memorandum opinion the dismissal of a proposed class action asserting that the owner of a cybersecurity browser extension violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) by intercepting communications between extension-users and search engines. Karwowski v. Gen Digital, Inc., No. 24-7213, 2025 WL 3002610 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (mem.).  The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Defendant was not a party to the communications.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Wiretap Claims Based on Party Exception

In a win for businesses using third-party technologies to power their websites, a California federal court applied the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corporation to dismiss a “pen register” claim brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) for lack of Article III standing.  Khamooshi v. Politico LLC, No. 24-cv-07836-SK, 2025 WL 2822879 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025).  “As in Popa,” the Khamooshi court held that the plaintiffs—who alleged the collection of their device type, browser type, and “device fingerprints”—“identifie[d] no embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected,” as required to establish an Article III injury. Continue Reading Court Applies Popa to Dismiss CIPA Pen Register Claim for Lack of Article III Standing

In its recent decision in Clippinger v. State Farm, the Sixth Circuit addressed the certification of a class in a breach-of-contract dispute over insurance valuation claims, in which the defendant contended that individualized evidence would be needed to determine whether the alleged breach caused actual monetary injury to class members.  Similar class certification issues have been addressed by several other circuits, including by the Ninth Circuit just last month. In its decision, however, the Sixth Circuit went its own way: (1) the court found that an alleged breach of contract was alone sufficient to create Article III standing, and (2) the court split from five other circuits in affirming certification of the class.Continue Reading Valuation and Standing—The Sixth Circuit Creates a Class Action Split

In a win for implied preemption, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of supplement marketing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  The case, Bubak v. Golo, LLC, No. 24-492 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), held that the plaintiff’s UCL claim was impliedly preempted because it depended entirely on alleged violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which may be enforced only by the federal government.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Supplement Marketing Claims as Impliedly Preempted

Courts continue to grapple with the type of “concrete harm” that is required to confer Article III standing under TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021), particularly in data breach and privacy class actions.  On October 14, the Fourth Circuit contributed to this debate, holding that allegations that plaintiffs’ driver’s license data had been leaked and appeared on the dark web were sufficient to establish standing.

Holmes v. Elephant Ins. Co., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2907615 (4th Cir. 2025), started with a 2022 data breach of Elephant Insurance Company’s networks.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs were Elephant customers whose driver’s license numbers were compromised in the breach.  Id.  They sued Elephant for alleged harms stemming from the breach.  Id. at *3.  Two plaintiffs specifically alleged that they had found their driver’s license numbers on the dark web; the others did not.  Id. at *2.  The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, holding that none of the alleged injuries were sufficient to confer standing.  Id.  But the Fourth Circuit disagreed in part, reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the two plaintiffs who alleged that their driver’s license information appeared on the dark web, but affirming dismissal of the other two. Continue Reading Standing in the Dark:  Fourth Circuit Finds Standing for Driver’s License Information on the Dark Web

The SEC has long had a policy that effectively prohibited public companies from requiring arbitration of shareholder claims under the Securities Act[1] and Securities Exchange Act.[2] Last month, the SEC announced a change to that policy. In its September 17, 2025 Policy Statement, the SEC stated that, effective September 19, 2025, “the presence of an issuer-investor mandatory arbitration provision will not impact decisions [on] whether to accelerate the effectiveness of a registration statement under the Securities Act.”

The SEC’s Policy Statement eliminates one of the most significant impediments to public companies requiring arbitration for securities claims. But it leaves unresolved several important issues concerning the viability and impact of issuer-investor arbitration clauses.  Continue Reading SEC Changes Policy on Issuer-Investor Arbitration Provisions With Important Implications for Securities Class Actions

In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Georgia N. Alexakis narrowed and struck class claims alleging that the University of Chicago Medical Center’s use of pixel technology violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

The plaintiff, Sophia Hartley, asserted on…

Continue Reading Illinois Court Narrows Lawsuit Over Medical Center’s Use of Pixel Technology and Strikes Class Claims