Litigation

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

In In re: Crop Inputs Antitrust Litigation, No. 24-3104, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust class action alleging that suppliers of seeds, pesticides, and other agricultural inputs conspired to refuse to sell their products to direct-to-consumer e-commerce platforms.  According to plaintiffs, defendants—which included manufacturers, wholesalers, and authorized retailers—agreed to boycott the platforms to prevent the emergence of price transparency, which defendants allegedly feared farmers could use to negotiate lower prices.

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Class Action Alleging Group Boycott of Agricultural E-Commerce Platforms for “Impermissible Group Pleading”

We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them.  One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone Inc., and remanding it to state court.  

The case, Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., No. 25-1760 (3d. Cir. 2026), involved plaintiff’s allegations that Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone tracked her browsing activity on Harriet Carter’s website while she shopped for pet stairs, purportedly in violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.  After removal, the district court twice granted summary judgment for the defendants, and both decisions were appealed to the Third Circuit. 

Continue Reading Stand Aside:  Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds

We previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to deny rehearing in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022), which had held that district courts may not approve incentive awards for class representatives in class action settlements.  Since that time, we have also covered decisions from other courts (including the Seventh Circuit) which declined to follow the Eleventh Circuit, leaving that court standing alone in barring incentive awards. The Federal Circuit has now also declined to follow the Eleventh Circuit’s minority view. 

Continue Reading Federal Circuit Agrees with Majority View on Class Representative Incentive Awards

Many California-based privacy claims have turned on the application of longstanding statutes to modern technologies, with courts frequently holding that certain online tracking technologies can qualify as impermissible trap-and-trace devices in violation of California Penal Code section 638.51, part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).  A recent decision from the Central District of California, however, signals that these arguments will not always succeed.

Continue Reading Federal Court Rejects Claim that Cookies Are Illegal Trap and Trace Devices