Litigation

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

In Ohio Carpenters’ Pension Fund v. Deutsche Bank AG, no. 22-cv-10462-ER (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2024), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy between Deutsche Bank and Rabobank to manipulate prices of European government bonds.  Plaintiffs, certain U.S.-based pension funds, alleged that the defendants manipulated the prices they offered to investors to buy or sell EGBs in order to widen the resulting “bid-ask spread” between those prices and increase their profits. Continue Reading Post-Class Period Statistics Alone Cannot Demonstrate Parallel Conduct in Antitrust Action, SDNY Holds

In Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3659589 (9th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024), the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s statutory damages award, holding that an aggregate award of statutory damages is not subject to the Supreme Court’s State Farm due process standard for punitive damages, but should instead be assessed in light of the proportionality and reasonableness of the aggregate award considering the legal violation committed. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Gives Plaintiffs Second Chance at $91 Million in Statutory Damages

Website analytics tools targeted in wiretapping lawsuits, such as pixels, often allow businesses to shield or mask collected data to avoid the transmission of sensitive data.  A California federal judge recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against Google that glossed over this nuance “to the point of seeming intentionally slippery” in John Doe I, et al. v. Google LLC, 23-cv-02431, 2024 WL 3490744 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2024).

The twelve plaintiffs in this case claimed that their healthcare providers installed Google technology on their websites, including Google Analytics, to track and collect data about their website activity for advertising purposes.  Among the data allegedly collected was the plaintiffs’ “personal health information.”  Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Google, asserting a mix of privacy claims, including under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  According to the plaintiffs, Google unlawfully wiretapped the plaintiffs’ communications with their healthcare providers’ websites, obtaining allegedly sensitive health data in the process.Continue Reading Court Tosses Google Pixel Wiretap Complaint: Plaintiffs Fail to Allege How Pixel Was Configured or Intent to Collect Health Data

Earlier this year, we covered the dismissal of a putative class action asserting Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) claims against the operators of a Texas Longhorns email newsletter. A judge in the Western District of Texas has now dismissed those claims, along with a newly asserted Wiretap Act claim, with prejudice. See Brown v. Learfield Commc’ns, LLC, 2024 WL 1477636 (W.D. Tex. June 27, 2024).  Continue Reading District Court Again Rejects VPPA, Wiretap Claims Against University Newsletter Service

In January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation (No. 22-11873), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by retail investors alleging that Robinhood, a zero-fee stock brokerage platform, conspired with Citadel Securities, a high-frequency trading firm and short-seller, to block trading in “meme stocks” like GameStop, AMC Entertainment, and Bed Bath & Beyond.  Although the investors alleged that prices fell in the meme stocks they owned, the court held that those losses were not “anticompetitive effects” arising in the relevant antitrust markets the investors pleaded in their complaint.Continue Reading Game Stopped:  Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Meme Stock Antitrust Lawsuit

In a putative class action in the District of Delaware against Match Group, Inc., a magistrate judge has recommended that a motion to dismiss be granted based on finding that alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery, opinion, and/or forward-looking statements.  The opinion offers a useful analysis, with examples, of how these concepts are appropriately applied.

Match Group owns and operates several online dating services, including Tinder, Hinge, Match.com, and OkCupid. Plaintiffs, including a shareholder seeking to recover on behalf of all Match Group investors, brought claims under the Securities Exchange Act alleging that Match Group made material misrepresentations and omissions regarding a) the integration of Hyperconnect (a “social discovery and video technology” company acquired by Match Group); and b) the performance of two new Tinder product offerings, Explore (an interactive social discovery interface, seeking to match users based on similar interests) and Tinder Coins (an in-app currency).

The magistrate judge agreed with Match Group that the complaint should be dismissed because the statements in question were either accurate and non-contradictory, or non-actionable puffery, opinion, and/or forward-looking statements. See Bardaji v. Match Group Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00245 (D. Del. June 27, 2024).Continue Reading District of Delaware Magistrate Finds Dating App Misrepresentation Claims Non-Actionable

In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit recently held that when there is ambiguity about the scope of a putative or certified class, American Pipe statute of limitations tolling should generally apply to potentially excluded class members.  This question is likely to arise where a proposed class definition is narrowed during the course of litigation such that certain putative members may no longer fit within the definition.  Should those now-excluded bystander plaintiffs argue that American Pipe tolling applies to their claims, courts in the Ninth Circuit are now instructed to resolve that ambiguity in favor of such bystander plaintiffs.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Extends American Pipe Tolling to Potentially Excluded Class Members in Face of Ambiguous Class Definitions

We recently posted about a trend of plaintiffs trying to keep certain class actions, including wiretap cases, in California state court and highlighted potential avenues for removal to federal court. Another federal court has weighed in, declining to remand because the plaintiff did not establish that CAFA’s mandatory local controversy exception applied. Miramalek v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, 2024 WL 2479940 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2024). This recent case offers another potential ground for opposing a motion to remand, though it also underscores the attendant risk of jurisdictional discovery.Continue Reading N.D. Cal. Court Declines Remand of California-Focused Wiretap Class Action