A Closer Look

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

            December 1 marks an important and long-awaited change to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  The Rule, pertaining to the testimony of expert witnesses, has not received a substantive update since 2000, when it was amended in the wake of the Daubert decision.  Now, more than 20 years later—and after years of study—the Rule has been amended to make two issues clear:  (1) that the proponent of an expert’s testimony must establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of his or her methodology to the case.  These changes reinforce the key gatekeeping role that courts play in ensuring that only helpful, reliable expert testimony is heard by the factfinder. …

Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Changes To F.R.E. 702 Will Help Ensure Courts Follow The Expert ‘Gatekeeping’ Function

On November 3, the Second Circuit reversed a lower court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action against Klarna.  See Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 85 F.4th 695 (2d Cir. 2023).  The decision offers guidance (and support) for companies looking to enforce similar “click-wrap” agreements with mandatory arbitration provisions.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Second Circuit Steps In to Reverse Decision Refusing To Enforce “Click-Wrap” Mandatory Arbitration Agreement

The Sixth Circuit vacated an order certifying five statewide classes alleging a common brake defect in Ford Motor Company’s F-150 pickup trucks, remanding the case to the district court “for more searching consideration” of whether commonality under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) was satisfied.

In Weidman v. Ford Motor Co., 2022 WL 1071289 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 8, 2022), plaintiffs had filed a putative class action against Ford over an alleged defective brake cylinder in their F-150 pickup trucks.  The district court certified five statewide classes on three issues under Rule 23(c)(4): (1) whether the trucks’ brake systems were defective; (2) whether Ford possessed pre-sale knowledge of the defect; and (3) whether concealed information about the defect would be material to a reasonable buyer.

On a Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory review, the Sixth Circuit vacated the class certification order, finding that the district court’s “cursory treatment of commonality, one of the four necessary class action ingredients, failed to meet Rule 23’s stringent requirements.”  In Re Ford Motor Co., 2023 WL 7877971, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023).…

Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Pumps the Brakes on Class Certification Alleging Common Defects in Ford F-150 Pickup Trucks

In a decision that could be useful to defendants in highly-regulated industries that face class action claims predicated on violations of federal law, a recent Sixth Circuit opinion confirmed that implied preemption applies to state-law claims predicated on violations of the EPA’s vehicle fuel economy and emissions regulations. This decision confirms the expansion of the implied preemption defense to a new industry, and may signal further expansions in the future. …

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Sixth Circuit Expands Implied Preemption Defense

Late last year, our colleagues highlighted a wave of class action litigation asserting novel claims under state wiretap laws against website operators that use session replay software and chatbots on consumer websites.  Federal district courts in California have now ruled on the first round of chatbot cases, most brought by a handful of “tester” plaintiffs under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq., and have nearly uniformly rejected the claims.  These initial favorable rulings should be helpful for defendants facing similar claims.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Courts Reject California Wiretap Claims Based on Website Chat Features

On February 22, 2023, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York issued a first-of-its-kind order allowing a securities class action lawsuit to proceed against the issuer of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the grounds that the NFTs are securities for purposes of federal securities laws. Friel v. Dapper Labs, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05837-VM (S.D.N.Y). NFTs are digital tokens, frequently associated with digital content, for which ownership of the tokens is recorded on a blockchain. The order was issued in the context of a lawsuit against Dapper Labs, the creator and issuer of NBA Top Shot “Moments.” Moments are digital video clips of NBA game highlights and their associated NFTs minted by Dapper Labs. Moments are offered and sold on Dapper Labs’ proprietary digital platform, validated on Dapper Labs’ private blockchain (the “Flow Blockchain”) and trade on a secondary marketplace controlled by Dapper Labs. The lawsuit claims that Moments are securities and Dapper Labs offered and sold those securities in violation of the registration requirements of the federal securities laws. Dapper Labs filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and the court rejected the motion, concluding that Moments are securities.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Federal Court Concludes that Certain NFTs May Be Securities: Preliminary Determination in Ongoing NBA Top Shot Litigation

From the implementation of the EU Representative Actions Directive to an explosion of claims in the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, coupled with an ever-increasing role for litigation funders, class actions in both the UK and the EU are now taking off. We take a look at some of the key developments below.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: The Rise of Class Actions in the UK and the EU

Under the Ninth Circuit’s 2020 decision in Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), plaintiffs cannot recover equitable relief in federal court if they have an adequate legal remedy.  More than two years later, district courts remain divided on how to apply Sonner at the pleading stage, with some postponing the analysis to later stages and others routinely dismissing equitable claims.  In courts that take the stricter view, Sonner can be a useful tool for narrowing the claims class action defendants must litigate in a federal case, particularly in California, where common consumer protection claims are largely limited to equitable remedies.  That said, a pair of recent Ninth Circuit decisions highlights that defendants should carefully consider the risk that a plaintiff will refile dismissed equitable claims in state court.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Equitable Jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit After Sonner

If a tree falls in the forest but no one is around to hear it, did it make a sound?  Philosophers disagree.  If a product contains a contaminant but no one gets sick, did it cause an injury?  Judges disagree.

In the 2000s, enterprising plaintiffs’ attorneys attempted to push the boundaries of existing tort law by arguing that plaintiffs are entitled to damages for defects even when they cause no physical injury.  These so-called “no-injury” theories of liability were largely rejected by courts.  E.g., Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Lab’ys, 283 F.3d 315, 320–21 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing “no-injury products liability law suit”); Johnson v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4494284, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 12, 2014) (recognizing that in the “consumer product context, courts routinely find lack of standing where—while a product may have been defective in the hands of others—the individual plaintiffs did not suffer the defect and, therefore, suffered no injury”).

While these cases closed the door on “no-injury” product liability claims, they left open the possibility of other “no-injury” claims, such as claims that a manufacturing defect breached a warranty or constituted fraud.  E.g., Cole v. Gen. Motors Corp., 484 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Notably in this case, plaintiffs may bring claims under a contract theory based on the express and implied warranties they allege.”).

Whether and when “no-injury” claims are viable is a hotly debated question.  As more fully discussed below, courts disagree on whether a plaintiff who has purchased a contaminated or defective product—but who has successfully used the product for its intended purpose while suffering no physical injury—can maintain a claim.…

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Does Purchasing a Defective or Contaminated Product Always Cause an Article III Injury?