A Central District of California court recently dismissed a putative privacy class action after determining that the movie theater defendants were not Video Tape Service Providers as defined by the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). See Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC, 2024 WL 3593569 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024). Two other California federal courts recently have reached similar conclusions, and appeals of those rulings are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1171737, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024); Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 700 F. Supp. 3d 921 (C.D. Cal. 2023).Continue Reading Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.
Seventh Circuit Reverses Order Compelling Payment of Mass Arbitration Fees
A recent Seventh Circuit decision, Wallrich v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 3249646 (7th Cir. July 1, 2024), will be of interest to companies facing mass arbitration demands.Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Reverses Order Compelling Payment of Mass Arbitration Fees
Illinois Federal Court Dismisses BIPA Suit Against X, Holding “Biometric Identifiers” Must Identify Individuals
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging X Corp. violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) through its use of PhotoDNA software to create “hashes” of images to scan for nudity and related content. The court held that Plaintiff failed to allege that the hashes identified photo subjects and therefore failed to allege that the hashes constituted biometric identifiers. Martell v. X Corp., 2024 WL 3011353, at *4 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses BIPA Suit Against X, Holding “Biometric Identifiers” Must Identify Individuals
JAMS Implements New Procedures for Mass Arbitrations
JAMS recently has become the latest arbitral institution to publish rules tailored to the unique issues presented by mass arbitration filings. Mass arbitration filings have become a popular tactic among plaintiffs’ lawyers and a significant source of potential exposure for companies.
Effective May 1, 2024, parties agreeing to arbitration under the JAMS Rules will be able to opt into the application of the Mass Arbitration Procedures and Guidelines (the “Procedures”) and an accompanying Mass Arbitration Procedures Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) for certain mass filings. The Procedures and Fee Schedule include features similar to those available under the rules of other arbitral institutions, including the American Arbitration Association (the “AAA”) and National Arbitration and Mediation, including the designation of a Process Administrator to hear and determine preliminary and administrative matters in a more streamlined and cost-efficient manner. For JAMS to assign a Process Administrator, the parties must pay a flat fee of $7,500, at least $5,000 of which shall be paid by the business in consumer mass arbitrations.
We previously discussed here the AAA’s mass arbitration procedures, which were last updated on April 1. The Procedures adopted by JAMS differ from the AAA’s current mass arbitration procedures in several notable ways, including those summarized in the table below.Continue Reading JAMS Implements New Procedures for Mass Arbitrations
Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Dismiss Claims Pending Arbitration When Stay is Requested
On Tuesday May 16th, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court does not have discretion to dismiss a case where all claims are subject to arbitration and a party has requested a stay. This resolves a long-standing circuit split. Continue Reading Supreme Court Says Courts Cannot Dismiss Claims Pending Arbitration When Stay is Requested
Employers Beware: New Wave of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act Litigation
Likely spurred by plaintiffs’ recent successes in cases under Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a new wave of class actions is emerging under Illinois’s Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”). While BIPA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of biometric data, GIPA regulates that of genetic testing information. Each has a private right of action and provides for significant statutory damages, even potentially where plaintiffs allege a violation of the rule without actual damages.[1] From its 1998 enactment until last year, there were few GIPA cases, and they were largely focused on claims related to genetic testing companies.[2] More recently, plaintiffs have brought dozens of cases against employers alleging GIPA violations based on allegations of employers requesting family medical history through pre-employment physical exams. This article explores GIPA’s background, the current landscape and key issues, and considerations for employers.Continue Reading Employers Beware: New Wave of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act Litigation
AAA Introduces Rule Changes Tailored for Mass Arbitrations
The American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) recently published a set of modified Mass Arbitration Supplementary Rules and a new Consumer Mass Arbitration and Mediation Fee Schedule, both effective January 15, 2024. The modified rules and fee schedule aim to address the increasingly prevalent tactic of plaintiffs’ firms launching mass arbitration campaigns against defendants with arbitration agreements in their consumer contracts.
The AAA defines a mass arbitration as 25 or more similar demands for arbitrations filed against or on behalf of the same party or related parties where representation of all parties is consistent or coordinated across arbitrations. The modified rules implement the following key changes:Continue Reading AAA Introduces Rule Changes Tailored for Mass Arbitrations
Illinois Federal Court Partially Dismisses Wiretapping, BIPA Claims Involving Home Security Products
The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently granted in part a motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint asserting wiretapping, Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), and consumer protection claims relating to their eufy home security cameras and video doorbells (the “Eufy Products”). See Sloan, et al. v. Anker Innovations Ltd., No. 22-CV-7174 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024). Plaintiffs contend in their complaint that the Eufy Products applied a facial recognition program to differentiate images of known and unknown individuals within home security services and purportedly misrepresented data storage and encryption practices for the Eufy Products.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Partially Dismisses Wiretapping, BIPA Claims Involving Home Security Products
Ninth Circuit Finds No Personal Jurisdiction in California Over Website
The Ninth Circuit recently upheld a California district court’s dismissal of a proposed class action against Shopify for lack of personal jurisdiction, cautioning that subjecting web-based platforms to jurisdiction in every forum in which they are accessible would lead to the “eventual demise of all restrictions” on personal jurisdiction.
In Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2022 WL 1427324 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022), the plaintiff alleged that Shopify, a Canadian-based company that provides online merchants throughout the United States with an e-commerce payment platform, violated California privacy and consumer protection laws by allegedly collecting his sensitive personal information while using a California-based retailer’s website. The district court in the Northern District of California dismissed the action, finding that it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Shopify.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that Shopify could not be subjected to jurisdiction in California where it did not expressly aim the alleged conduct implicated by the lawsuit toward California. Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 2023 WL 8225346 (9th Cir. Nov. 28, 2023). Briskin confirms the Ninth Circuit’s view that for interactive websites and other web-based services and platforms that operate nationwide, “something more” is needed to satisfy the express aiming requirement for personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Finds No Personal Jurisdiction in California Over Website
Federal Court Dismisses Chatbot Claim for Lack of Article III Standing Where Plaintiff Could Not Show Concrete Injury
A federal district court in the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a putative class action where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631 for using a third-party chat feature on its website. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for lack of Article III standing but granted leave to amend.Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Chatbot Claim for Lack of Article III Standing Where Plaintiff Could Not Show Concrete Injury