The Northern District of California denied class certification in a data breach suit against Zoosk, an online dating service, concluding that the lead plaintiff had waived any right to represent a class by agreeing to a class-action waiver.  See Order Denying Class Certification, Flores-Mendez v. Zoosk, Inc., No. 3:20-04929-WHA (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2022).

Continue Reading Class Certification Denied in Data Breach Class Action Based on Class-Action Waiver in Terms of Service

On July 21, the federal district court denied remand of a proposed class action against Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to remand based merely on Build-A-Bear raising lack of standing as an affirmative defense in its answer.  See Order Denying Motion to Remand, Ruby v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-01152-JAR (E.D. Mo. July 21, 2022).

Continue Reading Court Denies Motion to Remand Build-A-Bear TCPA Suit When Standing Raised as an Affirmative Defense

Can plaintiffs spring a class action on defendants in the late stages of a case?  The Seventh Circuit recently answered no in Ali v. City of Chicago, 34 F.4th 594 (7th Cir. 2022), rejecting so-called stealth class actions and reaffirming a seemingly obvious rule: a class action “must be brought as a class action.”

Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Rejects “Stealth” Class Actions

After several twist and turns, on July 7th Intel Corp. succeeded in achieving final dismissal of class claims alleging that Intel knew about purported security vulnerabilities in its microprocessors and failed to disclose or mitigate those vulnerabilities.  The case, In Re Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 3:18-md-02828, had a long history—a narrowed set of class claims had survived three prior rounds of motions to dismiss.  Had the claims been allowed to go forward a fourth time, businesses may have faced additional liability concerns for attempting to address cyber vulnerabilities in their products before those exploits became public and susceptible to exploitation by hackers.

Continue Reading Court dismisses class claims related to cyber vulnerability embargo

Last week, an Illinois federal district court granted the defendant’s motion to stay in Stegmann v. PetSmart, No. 1:22-cv-01179 (N.D. Ill.).  The case implicates the evolving law surrounding the scope of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) and  a pending Illinois Supreme Court case that could provide an important defense to certain BIPA suits.

Continue Reading Federal Court Stays Suit Implicating Accrual of Claims Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

Recent months have seen a growing trend of data privacy class actions asserting claims for alleged violations of federal and state video privacy laws.  In this year alone, plaintiffs have filed dozens of new class actions in courts across the country asserting claims under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), Michigan’s Preservation of Personal

Manufacturers of over-the-counter (OTC) medications often move to dismiss consumer class actions based on federal preemption.  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) contains an express preemption clause that forbids states from enforcing laws relating to OTC drugs that are “different from or in addition to, or that [are] otherwise not identical with, a requirement under” the FDCA.  21 U.S.C. § 379r(a).  (Section 379r also contains a savings clause that exempts product liability actions from its preemptive scope.  See id. § 379r(e).)  Similar preemption provisions exist for food and cosmetics.  Id. §§ 343-1(a), 379s(a).  Although most courts have interpreted the FDCA’s express preemption provisions broadly, a minority have limited their application.  As discussed below, the minority view involves distinguishable circumstances and is inconsistent with the FDCA’s statutory text.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Express Federal Preemption for OTC Medications Subject to Monographs

The Third Circuit’s recent decision in Allen v. Ollie’s Bargain Outlet, Inc., — F.4th —-, 2022 WL 2284654 (3d Cir. 2022), gave close scrutiny to two elements of the class certification inquiry – numerosity and commonality – that are often deemed satisfied with little analysis, and rejected the district court’s reliance on inferences drawn from limited evidence. 

Continue Reading Third Circuit Refuses to Accept Inferences to Support Findings of Numerosity and Commonality

In a typical situation, defendants argue that plaintiffs lack standing and plaintiffs insist otherwise.  But, sometimes, the lack of standing can work in plaintiffs’ favor.  In Benton v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2022 WL 1750462 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2022), plaintiffs took the unusual step of arguing that they lacked Article III standing to bring their claims in federal court in order to have their case remanded back to state court.

Continue Reading To Defeat Dismissal, Plaintiffs Win By Losing Standing

A rare class action trial that resulted in a jury verdict against a defendant may set a precedent for the amount of statutory damages that can be recovered under New York’s General Business Law (GBL) when a class action proceeds to trial.  After a jury found that Joint Juice deceptively labeled its beverages and awarded actual damages to the class, the plaintiffs moved for $140 million in statutory damages.

Continue Reading Plaintiffs Seek $140 Million In Statutory Damages After Trial Win