The Ninth Circuit on Friday held that vehicle infotainment systems that illegally record private communications might generate an injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy Article III standing—but (without more) such recordings fail to injure a plaintiff’s “person,” “business,” or “reputation” as is required to gain statutory standing under the Washington Privacy Act (“WPA”).
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that separate claims under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) accrue “with every scan or transmission” of a person’s biometric information—rejecting the idea that only a single claim accrues at the start of a series of similar scans or disclosures.
The decision, Cothron v. White Castle, substantially increases potential damages exposure for BIPA defendants. The potential for large monetary awards is likely to spur more BIPA lawsuits in Illinois—and potentially beyond, as several other States have similar privacy laws taking effect in 2023. At the same time, however, Cothron establishes that trial courts have discretion to determine the appropriate amount of statutory damages (subject to a $5,000-per-violation cap), and suggests that it would be an abuse of discretion for a trial court to permit such a sizeable award that a company’s financial viability would be threatened.
A settlement class that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan (S.D.N.Y.) was likely to approve circa June 2021 was rejected “on further reflection” last week, due to a lack of information about how the lead plaintiff stacked up against a class of largely “anonymous” crypto investors.
Continue Reading Crypto Class Settlement Nixed Due to Insufficient Data on “Anonymous” Investors
The Seventh Circuit recently shed light on what defendants need not do when invoking an affirmative defense that the defendant contends undermines predominance: establish that the affirmative defense would, on the merits, defeat at least some class claims.