112 results for 'cat:"Privacy" AND cat:"Class Action"'.
J. Wood grants the individual's motion to remand a putative negligence, invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary duty class action against the hospital back to Coffee County superior court. The individual claimed the hospital violated HIPAA rules and FTC standards by disclosing confidential and protected health information to third parties, including Facebook and Google, via tracking technologies on the hospital's website. Although the individual's action references federal law, the hospital failed to show that the individual's state law claims raise a federal issue. The individual's motion for attorney fees is denied.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Wood, Filed On: April 29, 2024, Case #: 5:24cv5, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, class Action
J. McCafferty grants a body product company’s motion to dismiss a class action brought against it by a customer claiming the company violated the New Hampshire Driver Privacy Act by sending information from the customer’s driver’s license to a third party without his consent. The customer failed to make a plausible argument that the company sold, rented, offered or exposed for sale his driver’s license or the information contained in it.
Court: USDC New Hampshire, Judge: McCafferty, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv432, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Consumer Law, privacy, class Action
J. Cole mostly denies a class of truck drivers’ motion for more discovery in this long-running case over a railroad operator potentially violating biometric privacy law. The court broadly sides with the railroad operator in its assertion that it has already provided the class of drivers with all the discovery documents they are entitled to, but nevertheless orders the operator to compile a privilege log regarding its communications with a third-party software company.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Cole, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv390, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: privacy, Discovery, 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 several class negligence and privacy-related claims to proceed against Kaiser from users of their medical apps who say Kaiser has allowed third parties to collect and store private health information from the apps without permission. Kaiser moved to toss most of the claims on procedural and preemption grounds, and while that is true for some, to toss all claims on that basis would be putting "form over substance." Many of the claims survive as a result.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Chen, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv2865, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, class Action
J. Westmore allows a single negligence claim to proceed against X Corp. in a class privacy dispute stemming from a 2022 data breach. X is shielded from the bulk of the contract and unjust enrichment claims by the Terms of Service agreement between it and its users, thought those claims are tossed with leave to amend in the event that users can prove the Terms of Service are "unconscionable." A negligence claim is allowed to survive at this stage, but its future survival is also predicated on the ability to prove that the Terms of Service are void.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Westmore, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 4:23cv186, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Negligence, privacy, class Action
J. Schiltz grants the data aggregators' motion to dismiss the consumer's suit alleging that a now-defunct company they sold her data to damaged her reputation by claiming on its website that she had a poor "reputation score." The consumer has alleged an injury-in-fact, traceable to the aggregators, that could be redressed with a favorable judgment. She has not, however, sufficiently pleaded that the defunct company was acting as an agent of the aggregator. Her federal claims fail on that basis, and the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law claims.
Court: USDC Minnesota, Judge: Schiltz, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 0:23cv1769, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Consumer Law, privacy, class Action
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. Dalton grants final approval to a class action settlement and certifies a settlement class in the consumer's suit alleging repeated telephone solicitations made to consumers on the national Do-Not-Call registry. The settlement, which affords $160 to each of the 32,738 putative class members who submits an approved claim, is fair, reasonable and adequate, the class representative and counsel have adequately represented the class and the settlement was negotiated at arm's length.
Court: USDC Middle District of Florida, Judge: Dalton, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 6:22cv1047, NOS: Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) - Other Suits, Categories: Settlements, privacy, class Action
J. Pitts allows several class action claims to proceed against Meta from consumers who say the social media company collected their personal tax data without permission using tracking tools on a handful of popular tax preparation websites. While several theft and theft-related claims are tossed due to the class not meeting the definition of "customers" under the law, many of their negligence claims survive. There are still several factual disputes over whether consumers were properly warned on the tax filing websites that Meta was using their sites to collect financial data.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Pitts, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv7557, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, class Action
[Consolidated.] J. Chun grants the patients' motion to remand a putative class action alleging that the cancer research institute's negligence allowed hackers to access patient contact information. The institute is based in Washington and the data breach primarily involved Washington patients. Furthermore, three causes of action in the lawsuit are based on Washington statutes and none of the causes of action involve another state's law. Therefore, the discretionary home-state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act applies.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1893, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: privacy, Jurisdiction, class Action
J. Gilliam dismisses privacy claims against Western Union Financial Services and a handful of other financial service companies over allegations that the companies have turned over private financial records to the Department of Homeland Security without permission. Those bringing the suit have not shown they are "customers" of any of the companies, and as a result, largely lack standing to continue their claims or request relief. Only a single unfair competition claim is allowed to continue.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Gilliam, Filed On: March 21, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv7996, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Unfair Competition, privacy, class Action
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
J. Estudillo dismisses all but one claim in the consumers' class action accusing Zoom Technologies of selling their personal information without consent. The consumers lack standing to pursue their Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act claims. Their California Invasion of Privacy Act claim survives because the consumers adequately allege that the interception of their data took place in real time. However, because this is the only remaining claim, the consumers must show cause as to whether this claim meets the Class Action Fairness Act's requirements for this court to maintain jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Estudillo, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv5453, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Communications, privacy, class Action
J. Anello declines to grant preliminary approval of a $350,000 settlement in a class action alleging that the healthcare company failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent a cyberattack and thereby protect the patients' personal health information. The amount in controversy does not exceed the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the parties fail to show that minimal diversity exists. Additionally, here is no federal question at issue in this case, so the court lacks jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Anello, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv570, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: privacy, Jurisdiction, class Action
J. Carr denies the newspapers' motion to dismiss, ruling their disclosure of subscribers' personal information to Meta whenever they interacted with a video on the newspapers' websites constitutes a concrete injury and gives the subscribers standing to pursue claims under the Video Privacy Protection Act. Meanwhile, the subscribers are considered consumers under the Act because the purpose of their accounts and submission of personal data is to access the newspapers' main business, the distribution of news, including the videos, which are not ancillary services.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Carr, Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv302, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Consumer Law, privacy, class Action
J. Illston allows class privacy claims to proceed against Meta from a class of Illinois consumers who say Meta took their voiceprints without permission. California and Illinois law conflict with each other somewhat in terms of what voiceprint privacy measures are protected, but there are enough allegations at this stage that Meta is using its Messenger app, Facebook or other third parties to collect personal information from consumers without their knowledge or consent. Claims that Meta does not properly protect their private data once collected and leaves the data open to cyber-attacks are tossed, however, because the class has not put forward any evidence that ties to how Meta stores their biometric information, ill-gotten or otherwise.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Illston, Filed On: February 27, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv4181, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, class Action
J. Pechman grants the customers' unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of a $2.45 million settlement for their class action accusing the consumer debt collector of not taking adequate measures to protect the customers' sensitive data from a data breach. Class members may seek up to $1,500 for ordinary out-of-pocket expenses related to the data breach or up to $10,000 for extraordinary expenses.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Pechman, Filed On: February 20, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv1558, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Settlements, privacy, class Action
J. Tigar grants class certification and puts in place a preliminary injunction in a civil rights dispute with San Francisco over the Sheriff's office's use of electronic monitoring practices for criminal defendants on pretrial release. A four-way search provision that allows an officer to search a pretrial releasee and their property upon encountering them without a warrant, as well as a data sharing rule that lets the Sheriff's office share GPS ankle monitor data with other agencies, could pose unlawful privacy risks that have not been proven to be necessary. The practices are barred from being enforced while the dispute plays out.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Tigar, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv5541, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, privacy, class Action
J. Boulee grants the corporation's motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action brought by the news website subscriber alleging that the corporation shared her personal information without her consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The subscriber, who signed up for an account on the news website via Facebook, agreed to the arbitration provision through a valid browsewrap agreement when she registered her account.
Court: USDC Northern District of Georgia, Judge: Boulee, Filed On: February 12, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv4462, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Arbitration, privacy, class Action