WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its May 22 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a newspaper’s petition for certiorari over privacy rights connected to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for booking photos, letting stand a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that found an FOIA exemption protecting certain “embarrassing” facts from disclosure (Detroit Free Press Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 16-706, U.S. Sup., 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3246).
MINNEAPOLIS — After previous settlement in a class over the 2013 Target Corp. data breaches was rejected by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a Minnesota federal judge on May 17 granted a renewed certification motion by a class of consumers whose personally identifiable information (PII) was compromised in the breaches, stating that the required “rigorous analysis” confirmed the adequacy of class representation and revealed no intra-class conflict that would render the settlement unfair (In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 14-2522, D. Minn., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75455).
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on May 16 remanded a class suit accusing Costco Wholesale Corp. of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to provide a full and correct disclosure when requesting authorization to conduct background checks of job applicants, finding that a lack of subject matter jurisdiction warranted sending it back to state court and not dismissing it (Julius Terrell v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 16-1415, W.D. Wash., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74567).
MIAMI — In a May 12 amended complaint in Florida federal court, two cell phone owners bring privacy class claims against the phones’ manufacturer and a Chinese firmware designer that they claim is responsible for surreptitiously intercepting and forwarding their personally identifiable information (PII) (In Re BLU Products Inc. Privacy Breach, No. 1:16-cv-24892, S.D. Fla.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 2 reply brief supporting his petition for certiorari, a New York City taxi driver asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether a city-run commission’s tracking of cabs via global positioning system (GPS) constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Hassan El-Nahal v. David Yassky, et al., No. 16-830, U.S. Sup.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — In a May 9 brief in California federal court, a fan of National Basketball Association team the Golden State Warriors defends her suit alleging interception of her private conversations via the team’s smartphone application, opposing the defendants’ dismissal motions and asserting that she sufficiently pleaded interception under the Electronic Communications Privacy App (ECPA) (LaTisha Satchell v. Sonic Notify Inc. d/b/a Signal360, et al., No.3:16-cv-04961, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Because the plaintiffs in a privacy lawsuit against Facebook Inc. agreed to the social network’s data and privacy policies, a California federal judge on May 9 found that their claims related to the purported sharing of information gathered from visits to health-related websites failed in light of this consent (Winston Smith, et al. v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 5:16-cv-01282, N.D. Calif.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — In a May 4 brief in California federal court, a putative class of Vizio Inc. smart TV owners oppose the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss some claims and strike the proposed class, arguing that previously identified deficiencies in its federal and state wiretap claims have been cured (In Re: Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 8:16-ml-02693, C.D. Calif.).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A telehealth provider on May 2 moved to dismiss a putative privacy class action against it in Florida federal court, asserting that a user of its mobile application failed to plead an injury that established standing or to identify any contractual violations in the sharing of certain user medical information with a third-party vendor (Joan Richards v. MDLive Inc., No. 0:17-cv-60760, S.D. Fla.).
CHICAGO — An employee of the Dillard’s department store chain saw her motion to certify a class action over a 2013 data breach denied May 3, when an Illinois federal judge found that individual issues dominated breach of contract claims against the retailer’s insurer, which the plaintiff faulted for permitting employees’ personally identifiable information (PII) to be exposed to identity thieves (Anne Dolmage v. Combined Insurance Company of America, No. 1:14-cv-03809, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67555).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A player of the popular mobile game Pokémon GO saw his privacy and unfair trade practices complaint against the game’s developer get dismissed May 1, with a Florida judge finding that the plaintiff lacked standing under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (DUTPA) because he failed to allege any actual injuries (David J. Beckman v. Niantic Inc., No. 2016-CA-008330, Fla. Cir., 15th Jud. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a May 1 reply brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the lead plaintiffs in a putative class action against Zappos.com Inc. argue that the theft of their personally identifiable information (PII) in a 2012 data breach constituted a concrete injury that established their standing to pursue negligence and deceptive trade practices claims against the online retailer (Theresa Stevens, et al. v Zappos.com Inc., No. 16-16860, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK — A Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 2 affirmed dismissal of a putative class action against Michaels Stores Inc., finding that the lead plaintiff failed to allege any damages from the retail chain’s data breach and, thus, did not establish standing (Mary Jane Whalen, et al. v. Michaels Stores Inc., No. 16-260 and 16-352, 2nd Cir.).
CHICAGO — A group of Chicago police officers who sued a newspaper for violating the Drivers Privacy and Protection Act (DPPA) by publishing their personal information moved for a protective order in Illinois federal court on April 28, contending that the newspaper continues to seek improper and irrelevant information in discovery requests despite a previous order precluding it from doing so (Scott Dahlstrom, et al. v. Sun-Times Media LLC, No. 1:12-cv-00658, N.D. Ill.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — A California federal judge on April 26 granted a motion to preliminarily approve settlement of a class action that accused Facebook Inc. of privacy violations related to the social network’s scanning of users’ private messages (PMs) for advertisement purposes (Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 4:13-cv-05996, N.D. Calif.).
NEWARK, N.J. — After an appeals court revived a putative class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) related to the theft of laptops containing policyholders’ personally identifiable information (PII), an insurer on April 21 filed a renewed dismissal motion in New Jersey federal court, arguing that statute governs actions of credit-reporting agencies, not health insurance providers (In Re Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 2:13-CV-07418, D. N.J.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — In an April 21 brief in California federal court, Experian Information Solutions Inc. opposes a motion to compel by the plaintiffs in a putative data breach class action, contending that a forensic consultant’s report on the breach constitutes legal advice that is exempt from discovery under attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine (In Re Experian Data Breach Litigation, No. 8:15-cv-01592, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an April 19 ruling, a California federal magistrate judge denied Google Inc.’s motion to quash a warrant, issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA), for foreign-stored data, concluding that the warrant on California-based Google constituted a domestic application of the statute that does not run afoul of the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. laws (In the Matter of the Search of Content That is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 3:16-mc-80263, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59990).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A Utah woman filed a putative class complaint April 18 against the provider of a physician consultation smartphone app, telling a Florida federal court that the app shares users’ sensitive medical information with a third-party firm, breaching the app maker’s duty to keep this information confidential (Joan Richards v. MDLive Inc., No. 0:17-cv-60760, S.D. Fla.).