Technology

A court in the Northern District of California recently granted summary judgment to DDR Media LLC and Jornaya in a website wiretapping lawsuit under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  See Williams v. DDR Media, LLC, 2024 WL 4859078 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2024).  This decision represents a meaningful victory for defendants facing similar wiretapping claims.Continue Reading California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment to CIPA Defendants

Dozens of lawsuits have started challenging businesses’ use of website tools to collect IP addresses under the “pen register” and “trap and trace device” provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  As we reported last month, a California court dismissed one of these lawsuits because of a…

Continue Reading Another California Court Holds CIPA’s Pen Register Provision Does Not Prohibit the Collection of IP Addresses

Websites cannot load without the transmission of an IP address, which tells websites where to deliver the webpages displayed on a user’s browser.  Yet a number of lawsuits have started challenging this routine transmission of IP addresses under a lesser-known provision of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) that…

Continue Reading Court Holds CIPA’s Pen Register Provision Does Not Impose Liability for “What Makes the Internet Possible.”

On Wednesday, November 13, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case NVIDIA Corp. v. Ohman J, a class action suit filed in the Northern District of California alleging securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.  Early signals from the Justices’ questions have led observers to believe that the Court may affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and remand the decision granting Nvidia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Continue Reading Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

On September 30, a New Jersey federal court dismissed with prejudice an antitrust class action complaint alleging that several Atlantic City hotel operators engaged in a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy through their use of software algorithms to set room rental rates.  Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment, No. 1:23-CV-02536 (D.N.J.).

According to the court, class plaintiffs’ allegations concerning Atlantic City hoteliers suffered from the “same factual deficiencies identified” by a Nevada federal court in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 2:23-cv-00140 (D. Nev.), which rejected price-fixing allegations arising from Las Vegas hotels’ use of the same software.  The court concluded that, in both cases, plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege the existence of unlawful agreements between the hotels at the “rim” of the alleged “hub-and-spoke” price-fixing conspiracy for several reasons.Continue Reading New Jersey Court Dismisses Software Price-Fixing Claims Against Atlantic City Casinos

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.

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

A Central District of California court recently dismissed a putative privacy class action after determining that the movie theater defendants were not Video Tape Service Providers as defined by the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”).  See Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC, 2024 WL 3593569 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024).  Two other California federal courts recently have reached similar conclusions, and appeals of those rulings are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.  See Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1171737, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024); Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 700 F. Supp. 3d 921 (C.D. Cal. 2023).Continue Reading Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.

On August 6, 2024, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the Northern District of Illinois issued an order dismissing Brantley v. Prisma Labs, Inc., a proposed class action suit against the creator of the “Magic Avatar” AI app for lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction over the representative plaintiff Tyrone Brantley.Continue Reading Judge Makes Class Action Claims Against “Magic Avatar” AI App Disappear

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