Photo of Alexander Schultz

Alexander Schultz

Alexander Schultz is an associate in the firm’s Los Angeles office where he is a member of the firm’s litigation, class action, and appellate and Supreme Court practice groups. He represents clients in all phases of litigation, and his cases frequently involve difficult technical issues and/or complex legal and regulatory schemes. Alexander also maintains an active pro bono practice focusing on criminal and administrative law matters.

Before joining Covington, Alexander clerked for Judge David J. Barron on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and Judge Susan Oki Mollway on the U.S. District Court for the District of Honolulu. He also worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Appellate Division as a Summer Law Internship Program intern.

Contact:Read more about Alexander SchultzEmail

California’s prohibition on so-called “hidden” or “junk” fees in consumer transactions is set to take effect on July 1, 2024, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for how prices are displayed or offered to consumers in the Golden State – and the potential for a significant wave of new class action litigation.

The law—often referred to by its bill number, SB 478—amends California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) to restrict the prices and fees businesses can offer to California consumers.  The basic prohibition is stated in simple terms:  businesses can no longer “advertis[e], display[], or offer[] a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges” to consumers, with limited exceptions such as for sales tax and certain shipping charges.  SB 478 § 3 (to be codified at Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A)).  But this simple language generates numerous complexities.  For example:  Are clearly disclosed fees prohibited if not folded into the main price, or just fees not presented to consumers in close proximity (in both location and time) to the primary price?  When is a fee “mandatory”?  Can fees that are included in a price still be itemized? Continue Reading Outlawing Hide-and-Seek:  California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect

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”).Continue Reading Are You Not Infotained?  The Ninth Circuit Tightens Statutory Standing Rules for WPA Claims

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. Continue Reading New BIPA Claims Accrue “With Every Scan or Transmission” of Biometric Information, Says the Illinois Supreme Court  

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.Continue Reading Must Defendants Prove Some Class Claims are Subject to an Affirmative Defense Undermining Predominance?  The Seventh Circuit Says No.