113 results for 'cat:"Privacy" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. Freeman grants in part class certification in a privacy dispute with Google in which consumers say they were recorded without permission by Google Assistant devices. While certification on some of the privacy claims is denied due to a lack of "defined harms" on the record, certification is approved on the contract claims for consumers who purchased certain Google-made devices, such as the Google Home and Google Nest Hub.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Freeman, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 5:19cv4286, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: privacy, class Action, Contract
J. Bress finds that the district court properly dismissed a class action matter due to lack of specific personal jurisdiction over a company that offers a web-based payment processing platform to merchants. When processing payments, the company obtains the personal information of its customers. There was no relationship between the company's business contacts in California and class members' claims because these contacts did not cause class members' harm. The district court’s denial of a request for jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Bress, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 22-15815, Categories: privacy, Jurisdiction, class Action
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Chen allows some class claims to continue against Disney from consumers who say the company tracked and collected their keystrokes, mouse clicks and page viewing data from the ESPN website without their permission. While they have standing to pursue some of their statutory privacy claims, their proposed nationwide class is reduced to a California and Pennsylvania class and the court requests that the class bring forward more information on exactly what kind of personal information was intercepted.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Chen, Filed On: November 8, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv2500, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action
Per curiam, the Ninth Circuit finds that the district court properly dismissed a matter for failure to state a claim in which a class alleged that Ford Motor Company made unlawful recordings of individuals’ private communications in violation of the Washington Privacy Act (WPA). The class action claim that a violation of the WPA itself is an invasion of privacy that constitutes remediable injury was rejected. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: 22-35447, Categories: privacy, class Action
J. McKeown finds that the district court properly dismissed challenged statements regarding the risk of security breaches and the risk of the public not perceiving Facebook’s products to be “useful, reliable, and trustworthy” in a class action third amended complaint concerning the purchase of Facebook common stock in 2017 and 2018. The class alleges a violation of the Securities Exchange Act concerning an incident in March of 2018 when news broke that Cambridge Analytica improperly harvested personal data from millions of unwitting Facebook users and retained copies of the data beyond Facebook’s control. Facebook also allowed "whitelisted third-party apps" to access users’ Facebook friend data without the users’ friends’ consent. The public later learned that Facebook had known of Cambridge Analytica’s misconduct for over two years and failed to inform affected users. Cambridge Analytica and whitelisting revelations, and not any other factor, caused a July 2018 stock drop. The panel reversed the lower court’s dismissal of claims as to Facebook’s statements regarding data control that predated the whitelisting revelation. Affirmed in part.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: McKeown, Filed On: October 18, 2023, Case #: 22-15077, Categories: Securities, privacy, class Action
J. Cole denies, in part, the vision benefits company's motion to dismiss, ruling the increase in spam calls to policyholders involved in the data breach is a concrete injury directly traceable to the company's failure to maintain adequate security protocols and grants the class standing to pursue its negligence and contract claims.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Cole, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv36, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Negligence, privacy, class Action
J. Johnston dismisses an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act class action accusing the dating app of collecting users' facial geometry without consent as part of its "lookalikes" feature, which matched people with dates who resembled celebrities or other romantic interests. The case is dismissed on procedural grounds, as the dating app operators had insufficient service of process and the court lacks jurisdiction over several of them.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Johnston, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv50457, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, Jurisdiction, class Action
J. Orrick allows class claims to continue against Meta from consumers who say the Meta Pixel tech allows the social media company to intercept and monetize confidential medical information. Several of the claims, such as contract and unjust enrichment claims, may proceed on grounds that Meta appears to have known about the transfer of sensitive information but did little to improve its tech's filters or show why the transfer was necessary for its advertising goals. A series of other trespass and privacy claims are tossed with a leave to amend.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Orrick, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv3580, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: privacy, class Action, Contract
J. Quraishi denies without prejudice the employer's motion to compel arbitration for claims brought by one of its former employees in a suit stemming from a data breach, finding that such questions cannot be resolved without considering the arbitration agreement at issue, which is evidence extraneous to the current pleadings. The parties are ordered to conduct expedited discovery on that issue and the employer may file a renewed motion to compel arbitration. Claims brought by a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement are stayed until resolution of this issue, and the employer's motion to dismiss is otherwise denied.
Court: USDC New Jersey, Judge: Quraishi, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv6739, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Arbitration, privacy, class Action
J. Tigar dismisses privacy claims against Home Depot from a class of consumers who say the chat feature used on the company's website records conversations without permission. The consumers' claims are based on conclusory allegations that do not prove evidence of injury or actual interception of the conversation. The third parties utilized by Home Depot were merely a tool used to record the conversations and there is no evidence that these third parties can use the information for any other purposes than to relay it to Home Depot.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Tigar, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 4:23cv995, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Communications, privacy, class Action
J. Marbley denies the patients' motion for class certification, ruling that while the health care provider admits it sent more than 20,000 letters in the wake of a data breach, the class representatives have submitted no evidence to indicate what percentage of those letters were sent to patients and, therefore, they cannot meet numerosity requirements.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 2:19cv4453, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: privacy, class Action
J. Matsumoto adopts a magistrate’s report and recommendation and preserves, in part, a putative class action lawsuit against Geico on allegations that it exposed its customers’ driver’s license numbers through the use of an autofill feature on its sales website. The court allows claims for negligence and equitable relief, as well as a claim under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act to proceed to trial, finding the class members sufficiently allege Geico knowingly disclosed their private information.
Court: USDC Eastern District of New York, Judge: Matsumoto, Filed On: August 28, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv2210, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action, Technology
J. Robinson finds that the district court improperly dismissed claims in which plaintiff contends her employer caused potential injury when a data hack exposed her personal information. The prospect of identity theft was sufficiently concrete to constitute injury in fact, and by pleading such injury, plaintiff plausibly established a claim for relief through damages. Reversed.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 22-319, Categories: Damages, privacy, class Action