SAN JOSE, Calif. — Granting a motion for partial dismissal by Intuit Inc., a California federal judge on May 15 found that two plaintiffs failed to sufficiently amend their complaint to support negligence and aiding and abetting claims against the tax software firm related to incidents of identity theft and tax fraud due to data theft (Christine Diaz, et al. v. Intuit Inc., No. 5:15-cv-01778, N.D. Calif.; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82009).
OAKLAND, Calif. — After engaging in arbitration, a New York woman filed a stipulation in California federal court May 17, voluntarily dismissing a putative class action under the Electronic Communications Privacy App (ECPA) against National Basketball Association team the Golden State Warriors and a technology firm, disposing of her allegations of eavesdropping via the team’s smartphone app (LaTisha Satchell v. Signal360 Inc., et al., No.3:16-cv-04961, N.D. Calif.).
HELENA, Mont. — A trial court didn’t err when it found that a woman who sued a company performing background checks over the inclusion of obsolete information in checks carried out for potential employers failed to satisfy the element of superiority under Montana Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) in her motion for class certification, a divided Montana Supreme Court ruled May 15 (Nissa Ascencio, et al. v. Orion International Corp., No. DA 17-0353, Mont. Sup., 2018 MT 121).
SAN FRANCISCO — Citing a “multitude of fact disputes,” a California federal judge on May 14 denied summary judgment motions by Facebook Inc. and a group of Facebook users in a class action alleging that the social network operator violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting users’ facial scans in connection with a photo-tagging feature (In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-03747, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81044).
CHICAGO — A panel’s decision that reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a putative class action over a 2012 Barnes & Noble Inc. (B&N) data breach will stand, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 10, denying the retailer’s petition for rehearing (Heather Dieffenbach, et al. v. Barnes & Noble Inc., No. 17-2408, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12331).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a pair of May 10 appellant briefs, two plaintiff employee unions tell the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that they established standing to bring a consolidated class action against the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) related to a series of 2015 data breaches that compromised employees’ personally identifiable information (PII), claiming concrete injuries and constitutional privacy violations (In Re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 17-5217 & 17-5232, D.C. Cir.).
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge on May 9 issued a report and recommendation in a class complaint by banks and credit unions against a fast food company after a hacking incident to apply Ohio law as to the plaintiffs’ negligence and negligence per se claims (First Choice Federal Credit Union, et al. v. The Wendy’s Company, et al., No. 16-506, W.D. Pa., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79088).
SAN FRANCISCO — Uber Technologies Inc. saw negligence and unfair competition claims against it dismissed for a third time May 10, as a California federal magistrate judge found that two former Uber drivers had still failed to establish standing via an injury related to the theft of their personally identifiable information (PII) in a 2014 data breach, despite amending their complaint three times (Sasha Antman, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01175, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79371).
CHICAGO — An Illinois federal judge on April 17 granted dismissal of a class complaint accusing a consumer reporting agency (CRA) of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by releasing the plaintiff’s personal data and the data of others to a marketing agency, after determining that the plaintiff did not identify a concrete injury (Quentin Crabtree, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 16-10706, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67560).
ATLANTA — In an April 30 reply brief in the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a group of financial institution (FI) plaintiffs defend a trial court’s $15.3 million attorney fees award in conjunction with a $25 million settlement of a class action over the 2014 Home Depot Inc. data breach, calling the award reasonable and based on counsel’s efforts in the case (Northeastern Engineers Federal, et al. v. Home Depot Inc., et al., No. 17-14741, 11th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Trade Commission on April 30 announced that it had settled deceptive representation claims against a mobile device company that failed to protect its customers’ data from a third party, with the firm agreeing to a 20-year program of data security and outside compliance monitoring (In re BLU Products Inc., et al., No. 172 3025, FTC).
BALTIMORE — In an April 28 brief in Maryland federal court, the National Security Agency (NSA) says that discovery Wikimedia Foundation seeks to compel in its suit alleging constitutional violations in the agency’s upstream surveillance program comprises “highly sensitive and classified information that is protected by state secrets privilege (Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00662, D. Md.).
ATLANTA — In an April 26 motion to remand, 100 plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation over the 2017 massive Equifax Inc. data breach, told a Georgia federal court that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over them due to damages cap stipulations, seeking to return their respective lawsuits to California state court (In Re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:17-md-2800, N.D. Ga.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 granted certiorari in a dispute over the fairness of the settlement of a privacy class action against Google LLC, in which two objectors contend that the distribution of the $8.5 million settlement to cy pres recipients, rather than to class members, does not constitute a “fair, reasonable, and adequate” settlement of the class claims (Theodore H. Frank, et al. v. Paloma Gaos, et al., No. 17-961, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 30 granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by an employer whose payroll system was hacked and asked the high court justices to decide if the Federal Arbitration Act bars a state law interpretation permitting class arbitration where class arbitration is not specifically mentioned in the agreement (Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Frank Varela, No. 17-988, U.S. Sup.).
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on April 24 certified a class and three subclasses in a suit by unnamed plaintiffs seeking to stop the release of unredacted information regarding the University of Washington’s (UW) purchase or procurement of fetal tissues, organs and cell products over the last eight years (Jane Does 1-10, et al. v. University of Washington, et al., No. 16-1212, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68797).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an April 24 order, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a $35 million penalty agreement with the successor of Yahoo! Inc., by which it settled charges that the internet firm misled investors by failing to report a massive 2014 data breach for two years (In re Altaba Inc., No. N/A, SEC).
CHICAGO — The plaintiffs in two putative class actions alleging violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) lack standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Google LLC says in an April 23 summary judgment motion in Illinois federal court, arguing that the plaintiffs have not established a concrete injury under the act (Lindabeth Rivera v. Google LLC, No. 1:16-cv-02714, and Joseph Weiss v. Google LLC, No. 1:16-cv-02870, N.D. Ill.).
CHICAGO — The plaintiffs in a putative class action against VTech Electronics North America LLC saw their claims related to a 2015 data breach get dismissed a second time April 18, when an Illinois federal judge held that they failed to establish any implied contractual breaches or unfair conduct by the digital toy maker (In re VTech Data Breach Litigation, No. 1:15-cv-10889, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65060).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20 denied a motion by Zappos.com Inc. to reconsider a March panel ruling that found that a putative class of Zappos customers had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue the online retailer over a 2012 data breach that exposed their personally identifiable information (PII) (In re Zappos.com Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 16-16860, 9th Cir.).