14 results for 'cat:"Privacy" AND cat:"Class Action" AND cat:"Technology"'.
J. Menendez partially grants the healthcare provider's motion to dismiss the patient's proposed class action alleging that it improperly used the technology company Meta's tracking software to collect and transmit patients' data when they accessed its website. A claim under Minnesota's consumer fraud is dismissed, because the patient has failed to allege a misrepresentation connected to merchandise, and an invasion of privacy claim fails because, as alleged, any interception of the patient's data was Meta's, not the health care provider's. The patient has plausibly alleged claims under state and federal wiretap statutes, Minnesota deceptive trade practices and health records statutes, and for common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Menendez, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv440, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
J. Tunheim partially grants the healthcare provider's motion to dismiss the patient's putative class action alleging that it improperly shared personal information with the technology company Meta through its website. The patient's claims for violations of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and for unjust enrichment survive, since the patient has plausibly alleged that the healthcare provider deceived patients as to the extent of its use of patients' data and a failure to comply with HIPAA, that his proposed class action would serve a public benefit, and that the healthcare provider receives benefits from the use of his personal information. His intrusion on seclusion claim fails because he voluntarily provided his data to the healthcare provider, and he has not provided sufficiently specific examples of his use of the website to support a Minnesota Health Records Act claim. He has also not pleaded an unlawful interception of data under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Tunheim, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv482, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
J. Battaglia rules that a class of consumers may pursue California Invasion of Privacy Act and California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act violations against Kohl's alleging that its website chat feature may be facilitating eavesdropping. The consumers sufficiently allege that the website chat feature operates through a third-party's servers, allowing real-time interception of chats between website users and Kohl's customer service representatives. The consumers also sufficiently allege that there is a market for website users' data from which Kohl's and the third party profit.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Battaglia, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv1988, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
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. Lorenz grants JP Boden Services' motion to dismiss the consumer's Video Privacy Protection Act claims alleging that the company captures visitors' personal identifiable information while they view videos on its website. The consumer fails to plausibly allege that she "acted as a 'purchaser' or 'subscriber' sufficient to constitute a 'consumer' under the VPPA upon viewing a six-second video snippet when she landed on the Boden retail website." Therefore, the protections of the VPPA do not extend to her.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Lorenz, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv534, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
J. Rothstein dismisses the consumers' class action asserting that some versions of Microsoft Edge secretly collect the consumers' data while they browse the internet and then send the data to Microsoft, even if the consumers use "private" mode. The consumers do not prove that they have sufficient Article III standing for their claim, because they do not show that the collected browser information that is central to their complaint is a legally protected privacy right.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Rothstein, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv1104, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
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. Rochon grants the NBA's motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the association violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing his personal viewing information with Facebook without his knowledge or consent. The basketball fan does not plausibly allege he became a video service subscriber by signing up for NBA.com's newsletter or signing on to the NBA app. Viewing videos on the NBA's website or app does not require a viewer to be a subscriber or have an account.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Rochon, Filed On: August 7, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv7935, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology
J. Jenkins grants a television channel’s motion to dismiss a privacy class action, brought by viewers who claim it illegally scraped their video viewing data off of Facebook. The court finds the class of viewers failed to state a claim, as they purchased no service from the television channel and are thus not “consumers” per the Video Privacy Protection Act.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Jenkins, Filed On: July 6, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv5963, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action, technology