In 2018, the Ninth Circuit held in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A. that California’s interest-on-escrow law was not preempted by the National Bank Act because the California law did not prevent or significantly interfere with the bank’s exercise of its powers.  883 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2018).  Six years after Lusnak, the Supreme Court held in Cantero v. Bank of America that test for preemption under the National Bank Act requires courts to “make a practical assessment of the nature and degree of the interference caused by a state law,” and courts should do so by engaging in a “nuanced comparative analysis” that compares the interference caused by previous state laws that were challenged as preempted before the Supreme Court to the law at issue.  602 U.S. 205, 219–21 (2024). Continue Reading Post-Cantero, Ninth Circuit Allows Prior National Bank Act Preemption Decision To Remain Standing

Lenders often require borrowers to keep money in a mortgage escrow account, and those funds are used to pay taxes, mortgage insurance, and other costs throughout the year.  At least 12 states require lenders to pay the borrower interest on the money held in these escrow accounts.  And for more than a decade, certain national banks have challenged the applicability of those state laws to them, arguing the laws are preempted by the National Bank Act because they would significantly interfere with the exercise of a federally granted banking power.[1]  

These cases have resulted in a trip to the Supreme Court.  In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court explained that the test for preemption under the National Bank Act requires courts to “make a practical assessment of the nature and degree of the interference caused by a state law,” and courts should do so by engaging in a “nuanced comparative analysis” that compares the interference caused by previous state laws that were challenged as preempted before the Supreme Court to the law at issue.[2]  602 U.S. 205, 219–21 (2024). Continue Reading Post-Cantero, First Circuit Sets Demanding National Bank Act Preemption Test

A court in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed class action alleging that consumers paid a premium for juice products advertised as “made simply” with “all natural ingredients,” reasoning that the plaintiff lacked standing in light of flaws in his testing allegations.  See Lurenz v. Coca-Cola…

Continue Reading District Court Requires Specific Testing Allegations in Dismissing PFAS Class Action

A federal court in North Carolina dismissed a putative data breach class action against Bojangles because the plaintiffs failed to show that there was an actual or imminent misuse of their personal information as a result of the breach.  Dougherty v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., 2025 WL 2810673 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2025).Continue Reading Federal Court Fries Data Breach Class Action for Lack of Standing

Recently, a California federal judge dismissed a suit alleging that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California law by allegedly installing “tracking technology” on two hotel websites. Crano v. Sojern, Inc., 2025 WL 2689267 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2025).Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Website Wiretapping Suit Based on “In Transit” Requirement

A court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the food and beverage industry “implemented addiction science techniques and predatory marketing campaigns” related to ultra-processed foods (UPFs).  Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., No. 2:25-cv-00377, 2025 WL 2447793, at *1, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2025).  While acknowledging concerns about the alleged effects of UPFs on the American diet, the court nonetheless held that the plaintiff’s “woefully deficient” complaint “mandat[ed] dismissal.”Continue Reading District Court Junks Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit

A divided Ninth Circuit panel recently affirmed a district court’s denial of class certification based on a lack of predominance.  See Ambrosio v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 2025 WL 2628179 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2025).  The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of drivers asserting breach-of-contract and other related claims against an auto insurer.  The drivers alleged the insurer’s use of a “projected sold adjustment” (“PSA”) to calculate the market value of insured drivers’ vehicles after a total loss led the insurer to uniformly underestimate vehicle value, which they contended violated the terms of their insurance policies.  Agreeing with the district court’s reasoning, the Ninth Circuit held that, because the insurer’s use of the PSA did not by itself violate the terms of the policies, each plaintiff would need to adduce individual evidence to prove that the PSA had caused them measurable damages—an essential element of a claim for breach of contract under Arizona law. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Class Certification Finding Lack of Predominance

In Ward v. J.M. Smucker Co, No. 24-3387, 2025 WL 2613489 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action regarding allegedly contaminated peanut butter because Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claims.  Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Rejects Food Contamination Claims for Lack of Standing

On August 15, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint in Gibson v. Cendyn Group, No. 24-3576, rejecting plaintiffs’ arguments that Las Vegas hotels violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act through their common use of revenue management software.  The decision follows…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rejects Vegas Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims

The Third Circuit recently rejected the so-called “reasonable indication” opt-out standard, which refers to whether a class member can opt out of a class action by merely providing a “reasonable indication” of their intent to do so, regardless of whether this indication adheres to the letter of the procedures established by the district court. See Perrigo Institutional Investor Group v. Papa, No. 24-2861, 2025 WL 2315977 (3rd Cir. Aug. 12, 2025).

Appellants inadvertently failed to opt out of class membership in a securities-related class action. This failure came to light on the eve of settlement in parallel litigation, which was premised on the erroneous assumption that Appellants had properly opted out. On appeal, Appellants urged the Third Circuit to adopt the “reasonable indication” standard and conclude the separate litigation was sufficient evidence of their intention to opt out of the class. The Third Circuit declined to do so, reasoning that it was contrary to the text of Rule 23 and that it would complicate administrability of class membership opt-outs.Continue Reading Third Circuit Rejects “Reasonable Indication” Opt-Out Standard