In a concise decision issued earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that individuals failed to state a claim against YouTube and parent company Google based on alleged violations of Oregon’s Automatic Renewal Law (“ARL”) and Free Offer Law (“FOL”).  See Walkingeagle v. Google, LLC, 2024 WL 4379734 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).  The appellants initially brought their claims as a putative class action, alleging that YouTube/Google failed to comply with ARL and FOL requirements related to subscription services YouTube Music, YouTube Premium, and YouTube TV.  The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Putative Class Action Against YouTube Based on Oregon’s Autorenewal Laws

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a defendant brings a factual challenge to jurisdiction, the district court may resolve factual disputes so long as the jurisdictional and merits inquiries are not intertwined.  But where the jurisdictional and merits inquiries are intertwined, the court must treat the motion like a motion for summary judgment and “leave the resolution of material factual disputes to the trier of fact.”  The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that the same rules apply to a factual challenge to Article III standing.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds Courts Cannot Decide Factual Disputes in Standing Challenges Where Standing and Merits Analyses Are Intertwined

The Seventh Circuit has added its voice to a growing circuit split on Rule 23(c)(4) issue classes.  In Jacks v. DirecSat USA, LLC—a long-running class action alleging wage and hour violations by DirectSat satellite service technicians—that court weighed in on the scope of Rule 23(c)(4) and its interplay with Rule 23(b).  Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, __ F.4th __, 2024 WL 4380256 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024).             

Jacks had a lengthy procedural history.  After initially certifying a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the District Court decertified it following a 2013 Seventh Circuit decision.  Id. at *2.  Thereafter, the District Court certified “fifteen liability-related issues to proceed on a classwide basis under Rule 23(c)(4).”  Id.  Nearly four years later, the case was assigned to a new judge.  Id. at *3.  Three years after that, defendants moved to decertify the issue classes.  Id.  The new judge agreed, decertifying the issue classes because “defendants’ liability [could not] be determined on a classwide basis” and so the classes did not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).  Id. Continue Reading What’s the Issue? Seventh Circuit Clarifies Scope of Rule 23(c)(4) Issue Classes

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

A California federal judge has denied class certification in a data privacy lawsuit against Yodlee, Inc., finding that the proposed class representatives lacked Article III standing and failed to satisfy Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements.  Covington represents Yodlee in this action.  Clark v. Yodlee, No. 20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.)…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Denies Class Certification in Data Privacy Case

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

In the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid

In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts.  See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision

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