Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers.  Although the plaintiffs offered statistical evidence suggesting that Keurig’s coffee pod prices were elevated on average, the court held that individual issues of antitrust impact predominated over common questions because Keurig directly negotiated prices with large buyers that might fully offset any increase in average prices.Continue Reading Aggregate Damages Model, List Prices Insufficient to Demonstrate Classwide Antitrust Injury, Says Federal District Court

A Washington State Supreme Court decision last spring that construed that state’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) to broadly prohibit any misleading information in retailers’ email subject lines has opened the floodgates to similar state spam claims. In the past six months, there have been eight putative class action complaints alleging that retailers’ misleading email subject lines violate CEMA, and more alleging similar claims under other state spam laws. Businesses face heightened exposure to liability for marketing practices that seek to convey a sense of urgency with respect to promotional timelines. This spate of litigation raises important questions about the scope and enforceability of state anti-spam laws, including whether such claims are preempted under the federal Controlling the Assault of Non–Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (“CAN-SPAM Act”).  Continue Reading Recent Class Actions Under State Anti-Spam Laws Target Retail Email Marketing Practices and Raise Questions about CAN-SPAM Act Preemption

In Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), 2025 WL 3199871 (10th Cir. Nov. 17, 2025), the Tenth Circuit adopted the majority view that “administrative feasibility” for identifying class members is not an independent requirement for certifying a class under Federal Rule 23.  The ascertainability standard endorsed by the court requires…

Continue Reading Tenth Circuit Adopts Majority View not Requiring “Administrative Feasibility” for Ascertainability

Last week, the Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of a putative class action asserting that defendant Quest Diagnostics violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”) by employing a website pixel to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes.  See Cole v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., No. 25-1449, 2025 WL 3172640 (3d Cir. Nov. 13, 2025).  The Third Circuit held that Quest was not liable under CIPA for aiding and abetting wiretapping because no wiretapping had occurred, nor under CMIA because Plaintiffs had not alleged the disclosure of protected “medical information.”Continue Reading Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of CIPA and CMIA Claims

Recently, a California federal court granted summary judgment for defendant Eating Recovery Center (“ERC”) on a plaintiff’s California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) § 631(a) wiretapping claim, joining other California federal courts that have granted summary judgment on CIPA claims for a plaintiff’s failure to “satisfy [CIPA’s] ‘in transit’ requirement as a matter of law.”  In granting summary judgment, the court critiqued CIPA’s language as “ill-suited for application to internet communications” and called upon the California Legislature to “step up” and “speak clearly” about whether and how CIPA applies to website-based data collection tools.  Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr., LLC, –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 2971090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025).Continue Reading California Court Grants Summary Judgment for Defendant, Urging the California Legislature to “Bring CIPA”—“A Total Mess”—“Into the Modern Age”

In 2023, a train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio, sparking a class action lawsuit against the railway company and others involved in the derailment.  In re: East Palestine Train Derailment, — F. 4th –, 2025 WL 3089606, at *1 (6th Cir. November 5, 2025).  The class-action lawsuit concluded…

Continue Reading High Price of Dissent: Court Upholds Substantial Bond on Objectors To The In Re: East Palestine Train Derailment Class Action Settlement

A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., reinforces that Texas law does not permit cross-jurisdictional tolling, and that federal courts in the Fifth Circuit will enforce that, notwithstanding federal tolling rules for class actions.  Ackerman v. Arkema Inc., — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 3039221 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2025).

Following chemical explosions at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas facility in 2017, property owners filed a federal class action seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The district court certified a class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) but declined to certify a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3). After the injunctive claims settled, nearly 800 class members filed individual suits in Texas state court seeking monetary damages.  All were filed well outside the two-year limitations period under Texas law.  The cases were then removed to federal court, and the defendant moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Plaintiffs argued that the federal class action tolled the state limitations period under the rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).  Arkema responded that Texas does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling. The district court agreed, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, citing two of its prior decisions. In Vaught v. Showa Denko K.K., 107 F.3d 1137 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit had first addressed whether Texas would adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling and concluded it would not, emphasizing that tolling rules applicable to claims brought under Texas law are grounded in state—not federal—law. Later, in Newby v. Enron Corp., 542 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed that holding, rejecting arguments that tolling should apply when defendants had notice of claims or when property-related claims were involved. Both cases underscore that Texas courts have recognized tolling only for class actions filed in Texas state courts and that this rule remains binding for Texas state-law claims in federal court.

Judge Haynes dissented in part, arguing that the court should have certified the question to the Texas Supreme Court. The dissent highlighted practical concerns, noting that requiring individuals to file separate suits while a class action is pending undermines judicial efficiency and the purpose of class actions.

This decision confirms that, where state-law claims are at issue, American Pipe tolling will not override state law that does not recognize cross-jurisdictional tolling.

 …
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Clarifies No Cross-Jurisdictional Tolling in Texas

In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondeléz International, Inc. (“Mondeléz”).  Salguero v. Mondeléz Int’l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025).  Mondeléz, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars (“Zbars”) while labeling the packaging as “climate neutral certified.”  Id.  The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California’s consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.  Id.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Action Against Snack Food Company

On October 20, a California trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in Mach v. Yardi Systems, Inc., rejecting class plaintiffs’ claims that defendants violated California’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act, through their common use of rental pricing software.  The decision, which relied on “critical” evidence produced…

Continue Reading California Court Rejects First Algorithmic Price Fixing Case to Reach Summary Judgment

On October 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a memorandum opinion the dismissal of a proposed class action asserting that the owner of a cybersecurity browser extension violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”) by intercepting communications between extension-users and search engines. Karwowski v. Gen Digital, Inc., No. 24-7213, 2025 WL 3002610 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (mem.).  The Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to allege that the Defendant was not a party to the communications.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Wiretap Claims Based on Party Exception