Litigation

In Smith v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc., No. 24-cv-06709-RFL (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2026), Plaintiffs sought class certification on claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632, and the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).  Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant Rack Room, an online shoe retailer, helped third-party pixel-tracking services intercept private communications containing personally identifiable information.  The Court found that Plaintiffs had no Article III standing, rejecting harm theories based on both actual and attempted interception of private information, and dismissed those claims without prejudice while denying class certification.

Continue Reading Pixel Tracking Technologies and Article III Standing: Lessons from the Rack Room Shoes Decision

A recent Ninth Circuit decision, Rushing v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 2026 WL 2731408 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026), confirms that defendants seeking to compel arbitration based on internet contracts must do more than submit exemplar screenshots of webpages containing arbitration-related disclosures.  Rather, to meet their evidentiary burden, defendants must tie that visual evidence to the specific users at issue—showing that the webpages actually appeared as depicted in the exemplars at the time those users accessed them.

In Rushing, the plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging false advertising related to the thread count of defendants’ bedding products.  After the district court certified a class of California consumers, the defendants moved to compel arbitration of claims by class members who had purportedly agreed to defendants’ arbitration agreement.  In support, defendants submitted declarations and accompanying exemplar screenshots of checkout and account sign-up processes on their webpages that contained language disclosing that taking some action on the page constituted agreement to defendants’ terms and conditions, which included an arbitration agreement.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Emphasizes Importance of Connecting Visual Proof to Class Members for Motions to Compel Arbitration

Does class certification strip a defendant of its right to compel arbitration against unnamed class members?  The Third Circuit recently held that it does not, unless the party seeking arbitration has waived that right by expressly or impliedly demonstrating an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of it.  Salvatora v. XTO Energy, Inc., ___ F.4th ___, *3 (3d Cir. 2026).  What, then, constitutes such a demonstration?

Continue Reading Preserving the Right to Arbitrate Against Unnamed Class Members

In a recent decision challenging Google’s Gemini AI features, a California federal court held that allegations concerning an AI tool’s capabilities, without facts showing actual access or use of plaintiffs’ data, were insufficient to demonstrate the “concrete” harm required for Article III standing.  Thele v. Google LLC, 2026 WL…

Continue Reading Gemini Tracking Allegations Fall Short of Article III Standing

Owning a product that might malfunction isn’t enough for Article III standing—the defect must actually manifest. That’s the message from Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., __ F.4th __, 2026 WL 2054200 (8th Cir. July 16, 2026), where the Eighth Circuit vacated class certification and dismissed the case after the named plaintiff admitted his firearm had never malfunctioned.

Continue Reading No Misfire, No Case: Eighth Circuit Decertifies Gun-Defect Class Action Over Standing

A plaintiff’s failure to satisfy basic pleading requirements can be a potent defense to class actions.  That was illustrated by a recent Pennsylvania federal court decision granting defendants’ motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a class action alleging that major food companies manufactured and marketed addictive ultra-processed foods (“UPFs”) that caused the plaintiff’s health conditions.  Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., Inc. et al., 2026 WL 1878602 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2026). 

Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Ultra-Processed Food Addiction Lawsuit for Failure to Plead But-For Causation

Standing remains a powerful defense to putative class actions.  Recently, a New Jersey federal court relied on Article III standing to dismiss a lawsuit against Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. alleging that it made false and misleading representations about the safety and efficacy of certain cholesterol drugs despite initiating a recall of…

Continue Reading New Jersey Court Dismisses Complaint in Recalled Drugs Suit for Lack of Article III Standing

In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from recruiting each other’s senior-level personnel and thereby suppressed compensation for all employees with similar qualifications.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis of employee compensation under Rule 702, the Court determined that plaintiffs’ remaining non-statistical evidence did not show common proof of classwide antitrust impact.

Continue Reading Non-Statistical Evidence in No-Poach Antitrust Litigation Not Enough to Certify Class, Says Illinois Court

In a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.  The decision exemplifies a theme in such data breach cases: even where plaintiffs clear the Article III standing hurdle, their allegations may still fail to state a claim.

Continue Reading Standing Found, But Negligence Fails: Eastern District of Michigan Dismisses Data Breach Claims for Lack of Causation