PHILADELPHIA — Pennsylvania Attorney General (AG) Josh Shapiro on March 5 filed suit against Uber Technologies Inc. in Pennsylvania state court, alleging violation of state consumer protection and notification laws in the ride-sharing service’s yearlong delay in informing its drivers in the commonwealth about a 2016 data breach that exposed their personally identifiable information (PII) (Pennsylvania v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. NA, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.).
BLUEFIELD, W.Va. — A businessowners liability insurer on Feb. 12 moved for judgment on the pleadings in its declaratory judgment lawsuit challenging coverage for seven lawsuits alleging that the insured's employee filed fraudulent tax returns (Ohio Security Insurance Co. v. K R Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 15-16264, S.D. W.Va.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Feb. 27 from the U.S. government and Microsoft Corp. as to whether a warrant issued under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) can compel disclosure of data that is stored in overseas servers (United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by Facebook Inc. sufficiently alleged concrete injury under the statute, a California federal judge ruled Feb. 26, denying the social network’s motion to dismiss for what it called the plaintiffs’ failure to allege real world harm (In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-03747, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30727).
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on Feb. 12 granted a motion jointly filed by both parties to seal the entire administrative record of a disability insurance dispute, finding that the plaintiff’s right to medical privacy and the inability to redact portions of the record outweigh the public’s right to access the information (David Alan Anderson v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. C17-0659-JCC, W.D. Wash., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22661).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 20 brief opposing certiorari, the siblings of a deceased Massachusetts man tell the U.S. Supreme Court that a state court ruling ordering the disclosure of the contents of their brother’s Yahoo email account does not run afoul of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and creates no questions or conflicts meriting high court review (Oath Holdings Inc. v. Marianne Ajemian, et al., No. 17-1005, U.S. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Plaintiffs alleging negligence by Intuit Inc. related to incidents of fraudulent tax return filings were denied the opportunity to pursue an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling arbitration on Feb. 16, when a California federal judge concluded that an appeal would not serve to advance resolution of the case (In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-01778, N.D. Calif.).
CINCINNATI — A federal judge in Kentucky erred when dismissing a count from an indictment charging a pharmacist with aggravated identity theft, a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Feb. 20, finding that the defendant used the identities of a doctor and patient for the purpose of submitting a fraudulent claim to an insurance company (United States of America v. Philip E. Michael II, No. 17-5626, 6th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3918).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Feb. 20 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari by a health insurer that argued that the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals did not apply the proper actual or imminent harm standing in determining class members’ standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution related to the exposure of their personally identifiable information (PII) in a 2014 data breach (CareFirst Inc., et al. v. Chantal Attias, et al., No. 17-641, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1356).
ATLANTA — In a Feb. 16 brief to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a group of financial institutions (FIs) that achieved a successful settlement of their claims related to the 2014 Home Depot Inc. data breach oppose the home improvement chain’s appeal of a subsequent $15.3 million attorney fees award, calling the amount reasonably calculated and in line with the efforts undertaken by class counsel (Northeastern Engineers Federal, et al. v. Home Depot Inc., et al., No. 17-14741, 11th Cir.).
PHOENIX — Granting a joint discovery resolution motion filed by the parties in a wrongful termination suit, an Arizona federal magistrate judge on Feb. 14 found that an employee who was purportedly terminated for whistleblowing related to data breaches experienced by his former employer was entitled to conduct discovery into why documents related to lawsuits over those breaches were designated as confidential (Miguel Corzo v. Maricopa County Community College District, et al., No. 2:15-cv-02552, D. Ariz.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — With oral arguments approaching on Feb. 27, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a reply brief on behalf of the federal government with the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 12, arguing that the presumption against extraterritoriality does not prevent Microsoft Corp. from producing foreign-stored emails under a Stored Communications Act (SCA) warrant because the firm’s compliance with the warrant would occur domestically (United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 12 reply brief, a man convicted of firearms violations asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether law enforcement’s use of a device called a cell-site simulator to track his location violated his Fourth Amendment rights (Damian Patrick v. United States, No. 17-6256, U.S. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The city of Providence, R.I., on Feb. 12 filed a consumer protection class action complaint against Intel Corp. in California federal court, charging the microprocessor chip manufacturer with unfair competition and warranty violations related to the recently discovered “Meltdown” and “Spectre” security vulnerabilities that can reportedly affect millions of computers and devices worldwide, resulting in the exposure of users’ sensitive information (Providence v. Intel Corp., No. 5:18-cv-00894, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Arguing in a Feb. 9 brief that they sufficiently alleged such elements as reliance, damages and unconscionability, the lead plaintiffs in a consolidated lawsuit over data breaches experienced by Yahoo Inc. oppose the internet firm’s motion to dismiss in California federal court (In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 5:16-md-02752, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Five and a half months after preliminarily approving a settlement between Google LLC and a class of non-Gmail users, a California federal judge on Feb. 9 granted the plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement in which Google agrees to stop scanning emails sent to Gmail users (Daniel Matera, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 5:15-cv-04062, N.D. Calif.).
CHICAGO — A customer of Uber Technologies Ltd. on Feb. 5 filed a motion to stay his putative class action in Illinois federal court over the ride-sharing service’s 2016 data breach, in light of a pending motion to consolidate 18 such cases before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) (Bradley West v. Uber USA LLC, et al., No. 1:17-cv-08593, N.D. Ill.).
BALTIMORE — A Maryland federal judge on Jan. 26 granted a motion to intervene filed by media organizations in a tenant class complaint against the companies that own more than a dozen Maryland apartment complexes, companies that are owned in part by the son-in-law of the president of the United States; the motion to intervene was filed for the purpose of opposing the defendants’ motion for leave to file the supplemental removal statement under seal (Tenae Smith, et al. v. Westminster Management, LLC, et al., No. 17-3282, D. Md., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12780).
CLEVELAND — An Ohio federal judge on Jan. 25 denied a motion to stay or transfer the second class complaint filed against Whole Foods Market Group Inc. over a data breach, finding that there is no overlap in the state law claims made in the two suits and that the case should proceed without interruption (Patricia Banus, et al. v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., No. 17-2132, N.D. Ohio, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12289).
PITTSBURGH — Employees of a Pennsylvania hospital whose personally identifiable information (PII) was stolen in a 2014 data breach argue in a Dec. 28 brief to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that the state’s economic-loss doctrine does not bar their negligence claim against the hospital or related damages (Barbara A. Dittman, et al. v. UPMC, et al., No. 43 WAP 2017, Pa. Sup.).