Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), holding that the alleged transmission of code containing video titles and a unique user ID to a third-party is not a disclosure of “personally identifiable information” (PII). The decision, Solomon v. Flipps Media, Inc., 23‐7597 (2d Cir. May 1, 2025), aligns the Second Circuit with the Third and Ninth Circuits in holding that the VPPA only prohibits the disclosure of information that would “readily permit an ordinary person to identify a specific individual’s video-watching behavior.” Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms VPPA Dismissal: Data Is Not “Personally Identifiable Information” If Only Experts Can Decipher It
New York Proposes New Consumer Protection Law
On Thursday March 13, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced proposed legislation to expand New York’s consumer protection law: the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”). The Act would update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), to encompass a broader range of practices and claims.
The current versions of Sections 349 and 350 make unlawful certain deceptive business acts and practices and false advertising. The Act would amend Section 349 to cover not only “deceptive” business acts and practices, but also conduct that may fall under vague definitions of “unfair” and “abusive” acts and practices. The Act would further expand Section 349 by making it applicable “regardless of whether or not that act or practice is consumer-oriented [or] has a public impact or impact on consumers ….” The Act would also increase statutory damages to $1,000 and grant standing to organizations and third parties to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law. However, the Act would also create affirmative defenses that limit plaintiffs to individuals and small entities, and excludes acts or practices that could be addressed by federal securities or intellectual property laws or that involve “high-value experienced commercial transaction[s]” directed exclusively to the parties to such transactions.Continue Reading New York Proposes New Consumer Protection Law
Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
On Wednesday, November 13, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case NVIDIA Corp. v. Ohman J, a class action suit filed in the Northern District of California alleging securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Early signals from the Justices’ questions have led observers to believe that the Court may affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and remand the decision granting Nvidia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Continue Reading Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
Supreme Court to Review Securities Pleading Standard
Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB to address two important questions on the standard for pleading securities fraud claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”): (1) whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents, and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.Continue Reading Supreme Court to Review Securities Pleading Standard
Supreme Court rejects pure omission claims under SEC Rule 10b–5
In a short, unanimous opinion on April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court shut the door on “pure omission” claims under Rule 10b–5 and made clear that the Rule is limited to claims based on false or misleading statements.
The case, Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., concerns alleged omissions in Defendant Macquarie’s SEC filings related to its subsidiary’s operation of bulk liquid storage terminals. In 2016, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization issued a regulation limiting this subsidiary’s ability to store high-sulfur fuel oil, its single largest product. Though the regulation was set to take effect in 2020, Macquarie did not discuss the regulation in its public filings.Continue Reading Supreme Court rejects pure omission claims under SEC Rule 10b–5