Photo of Jordan Joachim

Jordan Joachim

Jordan Joachim is a litigator focused on complex commercial and class action litigation, including breach of contract, privacy, cybersecurity, securities, and shareholder derivative matters. He has worked with clients in a wide range of industries, including technology, financial services, life sciences, energy, and media and has extensive experience handling cases involving complex technologies.

Jordan has experience representing clients at all stages of litigation, from case inception through trial and appeal. He has drafted dispositive motions, managed complex discovery, taken and defended depositions, cross-examined witnesses at trial, and briefed appeals in federal and state courts.

Contact:Read more about Jordan JoachimEmail

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”) into law. We previously wrote a blog post about the Act, which was introduced to 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 proposed legislation was previously announced by New York Attorney General Letitia James on March 13, 2025, and was passed through the New York State Senate and State Assembly on June 18, 2025.

Between its announcement in March and its passage into law, the Act underwent significant changes.  Among other notable changes:Continue Reading New York Passes the FAIR Business Practices Act

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

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

Recently, a California federal judge dismissed a suit alleging that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California law by allegedly installing “tracking technology” on two hotel websites. Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2025 WL 2689267 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025).Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Website Wiretapping Suit Based on “In Transit” Requirement

Heath and health-adjacent websites, from home pregnancy test companies to eyewear companies, continue to be a target for wiretapping lawsuits if they use pixels or other common-place third-party technologies.  A Texas federal court recently dismissed one such suit challenging the use of website pixels by Eyemart Express, LLC, a company…

Continue Reading Eyewear Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit

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

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

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

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