The Ninth Circuit in Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., No. 23-55795, 2025 WL 2268254 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a class action settlement because it found class counsel’s fees likely represented a disproportionate amount of the settlement fund. The settlement at issue sought to resolve two class actions filed against Lufthansa based on an alleged failure to provide timely refunds to customers for cancelling flights during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Continue Reading Fee-versal of FortuneNinth Circuit
California Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing Claims
By Brandon Gould on
Last month, a California federal court in Dai v. SAS Institute, No. 4:24-cv-02537 (N.D. Cal. 2025), dismissed a proposed antitrust class action complaint against six nationwide hotel operators alleging that the hotels’ common use of revenue management software to set their room prices amounted to a per se illegal “hub-and-spoke” conspiracy to fix hotel prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Continue Reading California Court Dismisses Hotel Algorithmic Price Fixing ClaimsNinth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class Action
By Jonah Panikar & Sonya Winner on
Posted in Ninth Circuit, Settlement
The Ninth Circuit recently reversed an $800,000 attorney fee award in a data breach class action because the award accounted for too large a portion of the total value of the settlement. In re California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litig., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 583419 (9th Cir. Feb. 24, 2025).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Shoots Down Fee Award in Data Breach Class ActionSupreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification
By Jonah Panikar & Andrew Soukup on
On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.”
Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class CertificationSupreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
By Jordan Joachim on
On Wednesday, November 13, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case NVIDIA Corp. v. Ohman J, a class action suit filed in the Northern District of California alleging securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Early signals from the Justices’ questions have led observers to believe that the Court may affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and remand the decision granting Nvidia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Regarding Nvidia’s Motion to Dismiss Securities Class ActionA Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Holds Arbitration Agreement with Certain Mass Arbitration Protocols Unenforceable
By Kathryn Cahoy on
In a significant decision for businesses who are attempting to revise their consumer arbitration clauses to address the prospect of mass arbitration, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Live Nation and Ticketmaster’s motion to compel arbitration, based largely on the content of the mass arbitration provisions of their arbitration agreement. Heckman v. Live Nation Ent., Inc., – F.4th –, 2024 WL 4586971 (9th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024). The court concluded that the “dense, convoluted and internally contradictory” arbitration rules cross referenced in Ticketmaster’s arbitration provision, along with other elements of the provision, rendered it unenforceable. The court also held, on an alternate basis, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not even apply to the mass arbitration procedure at issue because it is “not arbitration as envisioned by the FAA.”
Continue Reading A Closer Look: Ninth Circuit Holds Arbitration Agreement with Certain Mass Arbitration Protocols UnenforceableNinth Circuit Holds Courts Cannot Decide Factual Disputes in Standing Challenges Where Standing and Merits Analyses Are Intertwined
By Class Actions Team on
Posted in Article III Standing, Ninth Circuit
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a defendant brings a factual challenge to jurisdiction, the district court may resolve factual disputes so long as the jurisdictional and merits inquiries are not intertwined. But where the jurisdictional and merits inquiries are intertwined, the court must treat the motion like a motion for summary judgment and “leave the resolution of material factual disputes to the trier of fact.” The Ninth Circuit recently confirmed that the same rules apply to a factual challenge to Article III standing.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds Courts Cannot Decide Factual Disputes in Standing Challenges Where Standing and Merits Analyses Are IntertwinedNinth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims
By Cort Lannin on
Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.” McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023). The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate. See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising ClaimsNinth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision
By Marianne Spencer & Andrew Soukup on
In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts. See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court DecisionAnother California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.
By Marianne Spencer & Kathryn Cahoy on
A Central District of California court recently dismissed a putative privacy class action after determining that the movie theater defendants were not Video Tape Service Providers as defined by the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). See Walsh v. California Cinema Investments LLC, 2024 WL 3593569 (C.D. Cal. July 29, 2024). Two other California federal courts recently have reached similar conclusions, and appeals of those rulings are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Garza v. Alamo Intermediate II Holdings, LLC, 2024 WL 1171737, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2024); Osheske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 700 F. Supp. 3d 921 (C.D. Cal. 2023).
Continue Reading Another California Federal Court Rules Movie Theater Is Not “Video Tape Service Provider” Under the VPPA.