Article III Standing

A federal court in the Northern District of California recently dismissed the majority of claims from a putative class action against Western Digital, in which plaintiffs claim that alleged security flaws in the manufacturer’s data storage devices allowed cyber hackers to access and delete plaintiffs’ data.  See Riordan v. W. Digital Corp., No. 21-CV-06074-EJD, 2024 WL 2868152 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2024).  The court previously granted in part Western Digital’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend.Continue Reading Multiple Claims Dismissed from Putative Class Action Involving Cyber Attack on Data Storage Devices

An Ohio federal district court recently dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a class action complaint asserting claims arising from a data breach experienced by defendant Associated Materials, LLC.  See Marlin v. Associated Materials, LLC, 2024 WL 2319115 (N.D. Ohio May 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ohio Federal Court Dismisses Data Breach Lawsuit for Lack of Article III Standing

In two recent decisions, federal courts of appeals confirmed they are prepared to give close scrutiny to a class settlement that offers a hefty payday to plaintiffs’ counsel with very little genuine benefit to any class.Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Appellate Courts Closely Scrutinize Settlements

Courts have recently been grappling with an influx of class actions alleging that company websites are in violation of wiretapping and other privacy laws when using third-party technology to provide services on their websites.  Three different federal courts recently dismissed cases on similar grounds, demonstrating the challenges plaintiffs face with maintaining them and strategies defendants should keep in mind to defeat them. 

Two of the cases accuse healthcare providers of improperly sharing personal health information with third-party technology companies through the use of pixel technologies on the healthcare provider’s website.  In the first case, Doe v. Davita, Inc., plaintiffs accused Davita—a kidney dialysis provider—of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and other laws by purportedly collecting “patients’ personal and sensitive medical information on the Online Platforms and … improperly shar[ing] [this information] with the Tracking Technologies without patients’ consent.”  2024 WL 1772854, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 24, 2024).  The court disagreed and dismissed the claims, holding that plaintiffs did “not explain what specific information they provided to Defendant” and calling their claims “conclusory.”  Id.  The complaint, said the court, was “devoid of any facts supporting” plaintiffs’ contentions that Davita disclosed “personal, confidential, and sensitive medical information; medical treatment; and payment information” with the third party.  Id. Continue Reading Lack of Plaintiff-Specific Allegations Dooms California, Pennsylvania Privacy-Based Class Actions

A recent New Jersey federal court decision dealt a major blow to class action litigation that seek economic damages associated with the sale of products withdrawn from the market. 

In Gibriano v. Eisai, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 1831546 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2024), the plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a weight-loss medication that was recently voluntarily withdrawn from the market based on FDA’s concerns about potential cancer risk.  The plaintiff did not claim that she had suffered personal injuries.  Rather, she sought money damages, alleging that she over-paid because the medication “did not meaningfully impact her weight” and because the price she paid was “based on the understanding that it was safe.”  She further alleged that, because of the medication’s potential risks, “no reasonable physician would have prescribed [it] and no reasonable consumer would choose to purchase [it].”  In support of her allegations, the plaintiff attached to her complaint a consumer survey suggesting that knowledge of cancer risk would reduce the amount consumers would pay for a medication. Continue Reading Class-action claims seeking economic damages for purchase of withdrawn medicine defeated on Article III standing grounds.

This blog has covered recent decisions from the Eleventh Circuit that have taken a hard look at class action settlements.  For example, we previously discussed the Eleventh Circuit’s per se prohibition on the inclusion of incentive awards for class action representatives in class action settlements.  See Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) (vacating settlement in part because it included incentive awards).  Just recently, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the approval of another class action settlement because it “included relief that [the district court] had no jurisdiction to award.”  Smith v. Miorelli, 93 F.4th 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Vacates Settlement Approval Because Plaintiffs Lacked Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief

A Pennsylvania federal district court overseeing a multi-district litigation recently dismissed various privacy and wiretapping claims against two online retailers, finding that allegations of interception and disclosure of mere “browsing activity” on those retailers’ websites is not “sufficiently personal or private” to confer Article III standing. 

In In re: BPS Direct, LLC, and Cabela’s, LLC, Wiretapping Litigation, 2:23-cv-04008-MAK (E.D. Pa. Dec. 5, 2023), the district court consolidated six proposed class actions involving eight plaintiffs, with each alleging that BPS Direct, LLC and Cabela’s, LLC, who operate retail stores known as Bass Pro Shops and Cabela’s, unlawfully intercepted and disclosed their private information through the use of session replay software on their websites.  The district court dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims, holding that they failed to adequately allege a concrete harm sufficient to support Article III standing.Continue Reading Pennsylvania Multi-District Wiretapping Litigation Finds Website Users Lack Article III Standing

A judge in the Northern District of California recently held that a purchaser of eye makeup allegedly containing eye irritants lacked standing to pursue her claims—given that the product was not banned by the FDA and did not actually harm her eyes.Continue Reading Presence of Eye Irritants in Eye Makeup Is Not Enough for Article III Injury, N.D. Cal. Judge Rules

We are seeing a growing number of class actions alleging consumer harms from corporate carbon offset policies.  On October 13, a California federal court threw out such a case (albeit with leave to amend) against e-commerce site Etsy.   

The lawsuit, Blackburn v. Etsy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05711 (C.D. Cal. 2023), stemmed from a number of carbon offset promises Etsy has made since 2019—that the company engages in “100% offsetting [of] all carbon emissions from shipping[,]” that it was “the first major online shopping destination to offset 100% of carbon emissions generated by shipping[,]” and that its “goal [is] to run a carbon neutral business[.]”  Dkt. No. 20 at 1.  Plaintiffs alleged that the carbon offset promises were false “due to endemic methodological errors and fraudulent accounting on behalf of offset vendors.”  Id.  Plaintiffs claimed that Etsy’s false promises caused them harm because they paid more for products on the site than they otherwise would have under the mistaken belief that Etsy’s shipments were carbon neutral. Continue Reading California Federal Court Throws Out Carbon Offset Class Action Against Etsy

A federal district court in the Northern District of California granted in part a motion to dismiss putative class action claims filed against Western Digital, a hard drive manufacturer whose older devices experienced a cyber-attack, where the plaintiffs alleged that their stored data was deleted but not that it was stolen.  While plaintiffs will be permitted to maintain claims related to the data loss, they lack standing to assert claims based on future data misuse.Continue Reading Federal Court Partially Dismisses Hacked Hard Drive Claims Where Plaintiffs Could Only Show Data Deletion, Not Theft