Litigation

With the growing popularity in cryptocurrency investments, class actions related to crypto assets have soared.  These lawsuits raise a host of novel legal questions, including how established personal jurisdiction principles apply to crypto companies.  A Colorado federal court recently provided guidance on this question, dismissing a lawsuit involving crypto wallet Atomic Wallet for lack of personal jurisdiction.  See Meany v. Atomic Protocol Sys. OU, 2024 WL 4135762 (D. Colo. Sept. 10, 2024).Continue Reading A Closer Look: Court Applies Established Personal Jurisdiction Principles to Dismiss Crypto Wallet Companies In Class Action Filed After $100 Million North Korean Crypto Hack.

Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.”  McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023).  The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate.  See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) provides a private right of action only to those who have “been injured by a violation of” CIPA.  A California Superior Court decision, Rodriguez v. Fountain9, Inc., 2024 WL 3886811, at *4 (Cal. Super. July 9, 2024), confirmed that a plaintiff cannot satisfy this statutory standing requirement unless the plaintiff alleges “a concrete injury-in-fact.”Continue Reading California State Court Holds That A Concrete Injury-In-Fact Is Required To Bring Claims Under CIPA

In Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, no. 22-cv-10462-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy between Deutsche Bank and Rabobank to manipulate prices of European government bonds.  Plaintiffs, certain U.S.-based pension funds, alleged that the defendants manipulated the prices they offered to investors to buy or sell EGBs in order to widen the resulting “bid-ask spread” between those prices and increase their profits. Continue Reading Post-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds

In Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3659589 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s statutory damages award, holding that an aggregate award of statutory damages is not subject to the Supreme Court’s State Farm due process standard for punitive damages, but should instead be assessed in light of the proportionality and reasonableness of the aggregate award considering the legal violation committed. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Second Chance at $91 Million in Statutory Damages

Website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping lawsuits, such as pixels, often allow businesses to shield or mask collected data to avoid the transmission of sensitive data.  A California federal judge recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against Google that glossed over this nuance “to the point of seeming intentionally slippery” in John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC, 23-cv-02431, 2024 WL 3490744 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2024).

The twelve plaintiffs in this case claimed that their healthcare providers installed Google technology on their websites, including Google Analytics, to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes.  Among the data allegedly collected was the plaintiffs’ “personal health information.”  Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Google, asserting a mix of privacy claims, including under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  According to the plaintiffs, Google unlawfully wiretapped the plaintiffs’ communications with their healthcare providers’ websites, obtaining allegedly sensitive health data in the process.Continue Reading Court Tosses Google Pixel Wiretap Complaint: Plaintiffs Fail to Allege How Pixel Was Configured or Intent to Collect Health Data

Delivering a significant win for businesses hit with website wiretapping lawsuits, a California federal judge granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) in Gutierrez v. Converse Inc., 2024 WL 3511648 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2024). 

The website tool at issue in this case, like hundreds of other cases, was a third-party-enabled chat feature that businesses install on their websites to connect customers with live customer service agents.  Plaintiff Nora Gutierrez alleged that she visited Defendant Converse’s website with this chat feature installed, and that the chat provider stored her chat communications with Converse’s customer service agents on its servers.  Gutierrez characterized this practice as “wiretapping” and she asserted a claim against Converse for aiding and abetting the alleged wiretapping in violation of the first and second clause of CIPA section 631(a).Continue Reading California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to Defendant in CIPA Website Wiretapping Case

Hundreds of lawsuits have accused businesses of using website analytics tools to “wiretap” their customers’ interactions with their website, but these lawsuits often overlook a basic pleading requirement of any wiretapping claim: the collection of a “communication.”  A California federal judge last week added teeth to this requirement, dismissing a wiretapping lawsuit filed against Great Wolf Resorts, Inc. (“Great Wolf”) because the plaintiff failed to plead what “communication” she had with the Great Wolf website in the first place.  See Augustine v. Great Wolf Resorts, Inc., 2024 WL 3450967 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2024).Continue Reading California Federal Court Puts Teeth Behind “Communication” Element of Website Wiretapping Claims

Whether a class representative has actually been injured can determine the suitability of class certification, as a class with an uninjured representative will not be certified.  But as illustrated by the First Circuit in Nightingale v. National Grid USA Service Company, — F.4th —-, 2024 WL 3337766 (1st Cir. July 9, 2024), when class certification is denied based on an erroneous interpretation of a class representative’s injury, that denial will not stand.Continue Reading First Circuit Reverses Denial of Class Certification Based on Erroneous Injury Ruling

Earlier this year, we covered the dismissal of a putative class action asserting Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) claims against the operators of a Texas Longhorns email newsletter. A judge in the Western District of Texas has now dismissed those claims, along with a newly asserted Wiretap Act claim, with prejudice. See Brown v. Learfield Commc’ns, LLC, 2024 WL 1477636 (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2024).  Continue Reading District Court Again Rejects VPPA, Wiretap Claims Against University Newsletter Service