“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—AgainWashington Anti-Spam Law Decision Addresses Article III Standing in CEMA Cases
By Jehan Patterson & Irene Kim on
Posted in Advertising & Marketing
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 CasesStanding Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of Causation
By Sam Greeley on
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 CausationNinth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid
By Stephen Rees on
We previously covered the Southern District of California’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice candy was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product contained synthetic malic acid that functioned as a flavor. Last week, in Trammell v. KLN Enters., Inc., —…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Based on Malic AcidThird Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—Again
By Marianne Spencer on
The Third Circuit continues to draw a firm line on Article III standing in website “wiretapping” cases. Just weeks after the court’s decision in Harriet Carter Gifts, the court has issued yet another decision reinforcing that the alleged collection of data through third party tools does not create a concrete injury unless the tools capture truly sensitive, identifying information.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—AgainTenth Circuit Emphasizes Prior Holding that Ascertainability Does Not Require Administrative Feasibility
By Stephen Rees on
Posted in Tenth Circuit
As we previously covered, the Tenth Circuit in Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 159 F.4th 11711 (10th Cir. 2025) adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Rule 23. Instead, the Tenth Circuit held that…
Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Emphasizes Prior Holding that Ascertainability Does Not Require Administrative FeasibilityEighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”
By Maya McCollum & Brandon Gould on
In In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust class action alleging that suppliers of seeds, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs conspired to refuse to sell their products to direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms. According to plaintiffs, defendants—which included manufacturers, wholesalers, and authorized retailers—agreed to boycott the platforms to prevent the emergence of price transparency, which defendants allegedly feared farmers could use to negotiate lower prices.
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations Rejected
By Rachel Lia & Steve Petkis on
Continuing the trend of early dismissals in website wiretapping cases, a California federal court has dismissed a putative class action challenging the use of third-party pixel technology on nonprofit food bank websites. Timothee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-CV-05106-LB, 2026 WL 1130363 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026). The court held plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead concrete injury to establish Article III standing, consented to the third party’s receipt of their information, and proposed an impermissibly broad nationwide class.
The plaintiffs in Timothee alleged that several nonprofit food banks embedded third-party pixel technology into their websites, which collected and transmitted users’ addresses and “intent to receive nutrition assistance.” Some plaintiffs further alleged that the pixel technology collected detailed information about “financial hardship,” “disability status, mobility status, and urgency of [their] need for food assistance.” According to plaintiffs, this information was then used by the third party to target them with advertisements. The plaintiffs claimed these transmissions violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Federal Wiretap Act, and various California privacy and common-law doctrines. The court disagreed, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, with leave to amend, on three grounds.
Continue Reading Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations RejectedOne Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution Cases
By Samuel Crimmins & Nick Pastan on
In Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial, Inc., 169 F.4th 459 (4th Cir. 2026), the Fourth Circuit delivered a significant win for defendants facing ERISA class actions. Reversing a district court’s certification order, the court held that claims under ERISA § 502(a)(2) seeking monetary relief for alleged fiduciary breaches in a defined contribution plan cannot be certified as a mandatory class under Rule 23(b)(1). The court also rejected the notion that ERISA fiduciary-duty claims “inherently” satisfy Rule 23’s commonality requirement.
Continue Reading One Plan, Many Accounts: Fourth Circuit Slams the Door on Mandatory ERISA Classes in Defined Contribution CasesOverpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing
By Samuel Crimmins on
Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation. While that may be enough to establish Article III standing in some cases, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the theory has limits.
Continue Reading Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing