Photo of Kathryn Cahoy

Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm's Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer products, and financial services. Kate has also played a key role in developing the firm’s mass arbitration defense practice. She regularly advises companies on the risks associated with mass arbitration and has a proven track record of successfully defending clients against these challenges.

Leveraging her success in class action litigation and arbitration, Kate helps clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging legal issues. She has extensive experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), along with common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.

Recent Successes:

Represented Meta (formerly Facebook) in a putative nationwide advertiser class action alleging violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to charges from allegedly “fake” accounts. Successfully narrowed claims at the pleadings stage, defeated class certification, opposed a Rule 23(f) petition, won summary judgment, and defended the victory on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Daily Journal selected Covington’s defense of Meta as one of its 2021 Top Verdicts, and Law.com recognized Kate as a Litigator of the Week Shoutout.
Defeated a landmark class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI contending that the defendants scraped data from the internet for training generative AI services and incorporated data from users’ prompts, allegedly in violation of CIPA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and other privacy and consumer protection laws.

Kate regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in a Litigation Daily interview titled “Where Privacy Laws and Litigation Trends Collide.” In recognition of her achievements in privacy and antitrust class action litigation, the Daily Journal named her as one of their Top Antitrust Lawyers (2024), Top Cyber Lawyers (2022), and Top Women Lawyers in California (2023). Additionally, she received the Women of Influence award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal and was recognized by Daily Journal as a Top Attorney Under 40.

Contact:Read more about Kathryn CahoyEmail

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Binance’s appeal after a lower court declined to stay a proposed class action and enforce an arbitration agreement contained in Binance’s terms and conditions. The decision carries implications for companies who do retail business or distribute products in multiple jurisdictions, including in Canada.

Background

As a Cayman Islands company, Binance Holdings Limited (“Binance”), together with associated companies, marketed and sold cryptocurrency derivative contracts to Canadian retail investors though the Binance website. In the wake of Binance’s exit from the Ontario market, in June 2022 a proposed class filed an action against Binance in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. The proposed class of retail investors argued that Binance distributed securities and investment contracts under Canada’s securities laws, but failed to file or deliver a prospectus required by law.Continue Reading Canadian Appellate Decision Highlights Class Action and Mass Arbitration Risks for Companies in Operating in Multiple Jurisdictions

An Illinois federal court has held that the state’s recent amendment to its Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) capping damages to one recovery for repeated identical violations applies to cases filed prior to its enactment. Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC, 2024 WL 4766297, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024).Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rules BIPA Single-Violation Amendment Applies Retroactively

Massachusetts’s highest court has ruled that website operators’ use of third-party technology, including Google Analytics and Meta Pixel, to collect data on individuals’ browsing of and interactions with websites does not violate the state’s anti-wiretapping law. Vita v. New England Baptist Hospital, No. SJC-13542, 2024 WL 4558621, at *16 (Mass. Oct. 24, 2024). The court explained that those activities do not clearly amount to the person-to-person communications the 1960s-era statute is intended to cover.Continue Reading Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds That Third-Party Technologies Relating to Web Browsing Do Not Violate Massachusetts Wiretap Act

In a significant decision for businesses who are attempting to revise their consumer arbitration clauses to address the prospect of mass arbitration, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s motion to compel arbitration, based largely on the content of the mass arbitration provisions of their arbitration agreement.  Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., – F.4th –, 2024 WL 4586971 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024).  The court concluded that the “dense, convoluted and internally contradictory” arbitration rules cross referenced in Ticketmaster’s arbitration provision, along with other elements of the provision, rendered it unenforceable.  The court also held, on an alternate basis, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not even apply to the mass arbitration procedure at issue because it is “not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA.”Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Holds Arbitration Agreement with Certain Mass Arbitration Protocols Unenforceable

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.

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

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 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

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

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