Recently, a California federal judge dismissed—for the second time—a suit asserting that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California privacy laws by allegedly deploying “tracking technology” on two hotel websites. Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2026 WL 1670136 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2026).
Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Hotel Website Wiretapping Suit for Lack of Article III StandingLitigation
First Circuit Scrutinizes Causation Issues to Find No Article III Standing in Data Breach Case
By Nathan Lange on
The First Circuit recently affirmed a Puerto Rico district court’s ruling dismissing a class action suit arising from a 2019 ransomware attack against a hospital in which 522,493 patients’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) was allegedly accessed by hackers, albeit in “encrypted” form. See Santos-Pagán v. Bayamon Medical Center, No. 24-2018, 2026 WL 1693930 (1st Cir. June 11, 2026).
Continue Reading First Circuit Scrutinizes Causation Issues to Find No Article III Standing in Data Breach CaseNon-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court
By Brandon Gould & Madeleine Scherer on
In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications. After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.
Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois CourtFederal Court Allows Plaintiff to Cure Standing Defect Through Early Amendment
By Kevin Hoogstraten & Kanu Song on
Posted in Article III Standing, Class Action Procedure
A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied Lyft’s motion to dismiss a putative class action on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds after the plaintiff voluntarily amended her complaint under Rule 15 to cure standing issues raised by Lyft. Zigler v. Lyft, Inc., 2026 WL 1557553 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2026).
Continue Reading Federal Court Allows Plaintiff to Cure Standing Defect Through Early AmendmentStanding Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of Causation
By Sam Greeley on
In a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. The decision exemplifies a theme in such data breach cases: even where plaintiffs clear the Article III standing hurdle, their allegations may still fail to state a claim.
Continue Reading Standing Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of CausationThird Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—Again
By Marianne Spencer on
The Third Circuit continues to draw a firm line on Article III standing in website “wiretapping” cases. Just weeks after the court’s decision in Harriet Carter Gifts, the court has issued yet another decision reinforcing that the alleged collection of data through third party tools does not create a concrete injury unless the tools capture truly sensitive, identifying information.
Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses Standing in Website Wiretapping Claims—AgainEighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”
By Maya McCollum & Brandon Gould on
In In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust class action alleging that suppliers of seeds, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs conspired to refuse to sell their products to direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms. According to plaintiffs, defendants—which included manufacturers, wholesalers, and authorized retailers—agreed to boycott the platforms to prevent the emergence of price transparency, which defendants allegedly feared farmers could use to negotiate lower prices.
Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations Rejected
By Rachel Lia & Steve Petkis on
Continuing the trend of early dismissals in website wiretapping cases, a California federal court has dismissed a putative class action challenging the use of third-party pixel technology on nonprofit food bank websites. Timothee v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-CV-05106-LB, 2026 WL 1130363 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2026). The court held plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead concrete injury to establish Article III standing, consented to the third party’s receipt of their information, and proposed an impermissibly broad nationwide class.
The plaintiffs in Timothee alleged that several nonprofit food banks embedded third-party pixel technology into their websites, which collected and transmitted users’ addresses and “intent to receive nutrition assistance.” Some plaintiffs further alleged that the pixel technology collected detailed information about “financial hardship,” “disability status, mobility status, and urgency of [their] need for food assistance.” According to plaintiffs, this information was then used by the third party to target them with advertisements. The plaintiffs claimed these transmissions violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Federal Wiretap Act, and various California privacy and common-law doctrines. The court disagreed, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims, with leave to amend, on three grounds.
Continue Reading Wiretapping Suit Meets Triple Defeat: No Standing, Consent Established, Class Allegations RejectedOverpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III Standing
By Samuel Crimmins on
Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation. While that may be enough to establish Article III standing in some cases, the Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the theory has limits.
Continue Reading Overpayment Claims Don’t Always Fly: The Fifth Circuit on Article III StandingSensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under Popa
A recent decision from the Southern District of California underscores a point courts have made increasingly clear after the Ninth Circuit’s precedential decision in Popa v. Microsoft: alleging the disclosure of online activity—even activity touching on sensitive health topics—is not enough, by itself to establish Article III standing. As the Court put it, the mere allegation that a defendant disclosed “sensitive health related” search terms, without any indication in the search terms that they “were tied to his personal medical history,” cannot establish a concrete injury. Maghoney v. Dotdash Meredith, Inc., 2026 WL 497402 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2026) (emphasis added).
Continue Reading Sensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under Popa