In Trump v. Casa, Inc., et al., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts lack authority to issue so-called “universal” (or “nationwide”) injunctions that extend beyond the case or controversy presented by the specific parties who are before them. In so doing, the Court will propel many litigants challenging federal statutes and policies to opt for Rule 23(b)(2) class actions in order to secure broad injunctive relief.Continue Reading End of Universal Injunctions, Re-Emergence of Rule 23(b)(2) Class Actions
Class Action Procedure
California Federal Court Holds VPPA Claims Are Not Assignable, Rejecting Third-Party Opt-Out Scheme
In a decision with implications for classwide settlement of privacy lawsuits, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California held that claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) are personal to individual class members and therefore not assignable to third parties. The decision, Stark v. Patreon, Inc., No. 22-cv-03131-JCS (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), invalidated a mass opt-out effort orchestrated by Lexclaim Recovery Group US LLC (“Lexclaim”), a third-party entity that claimed it was founded to “help people recover a greater share of the money to which they would be entitled in class action cases.”Continue Reading California Federal Court Holds VPPA Claims Are Not Assignable, Rejecting Third-Party Opt-Out Scheme
Ghee, I Can’t Believe I Need Evidence: N.D. Cal. Denies Class Certification in Food Labeling Case
Food mislabeling class actions are increasingly common. Last week, the Northern District of California denied a motion for class certification involving allegations of false labeling on ghee, a clarified butter product, because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence
Defendant Ancient Organics, a ghee manufacturer, made representations on its packaging…
Continue Reading Ghee, I Can’t Believe I Need Evidence: N.D. Cal. Denies Class Certification in Food Labeling CaseA Closer Look: Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)
On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, 604 U.S. ___ (2025), a case addressing the pleading standard for prohibited-transaction claims under § 406(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Section 406(a) proscribes certain transactions between plans and “parties in interest” absent a statutory exemption enumerated under ERISA § 408. The core question on appeal was whether plaintiffs must allege, as an element of a prohibited-transaction claim under § 406(a), that an exemption under § 408 does not render the challenged transaction lawful.
In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications, the Court held that exemptions under § 408 provide affirmative defenses to liability under § 406(a). Consequently, plaintiffs need not allege that any of the exemptions set forth in § 408 are unavailable to state a plausible claim for relief. Rather, the burden falls on plan fiduciary defendants to plead and prove that an exemption under § 408 nullifies a plaintiff’s claim.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Pleading Standard for Prohibited-Transaction Claims under ERISA § 406(a)
Illinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics Case
An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics. In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.
In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles. Id. The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief. Id. at *2, *6. Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims. Id. at *6.
On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rejects Fiji Water Microplastics Case
No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie
In Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court has clarified who qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorneys’ fees under certain statutes. The decision carries significant implications for the availability of attorneys’ fees in class action cases where defendants are able to moot claims before a court enters a final judgment.
At issue in Lackey was whether plaintiffs could obtain attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988(b), which allows the “prevailing party” to recover attorneys’ fees in certain civil rights cases. Plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction but were not able to obtain any further relief (including a final judgment) because the government voluntarily ceased the challenged conduct. In a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “prevailing party.”Continue Reading No Final Judgment, No Attorneys’ Fees: The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Prevailing Party” in Lackey v. Stinnie
Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Putative Data Breach Class Action
The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that the named plaintiff in a putative data breach class action lacked standing to pursue her claims given that her private personal information had not actually been misused by a third party.Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiff Lacks Standing to Bring Putative Data Breach Class Action
Fourth Circuit Concludes TransUnion Demands Evidence of Injury for All Class Members
In TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that “every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.” 594 U.S. 413, 427, 431 (2021) (cleaned up). Post-TransUnion, courts have grappled with that guidance, especially as to whether a class that contains uninjured class members may permissibly be certified. As set forth in our recent post, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a circuit split on that issue.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Concludes TransUnion Demands Evidence of Injury for All Class Members
Pennsylvania Court Dismisses A Trio of Defendants in Website Wiretapping Suit Challenging Email Marketing Program
A Pennsylvania court recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against a trio of defendants for lack of Article III standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim in Ingrao v. Addshoppers, Inc., 2024 WL 4892514 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2024).
The two plaintiffs in this case…
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Court Dismisses A Trio of Defendants in Website Wiretapping Suit Challenging Email Marketing ProgramUnique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages
Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC. Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024).
In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol. The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages. The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.” Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages