WASHINGTON, D.C. — Denying the U.S. government’s motion to dismiss and a privacy rights group’s motion to amend its complaint in a July 19 order, a District of Columbia federal judge anticipated “that no further adjudication” would be necessary in a lawsuit over a now-dissolved presidential commission’s collection of voter data in light of the impending destruction of the disputed data (Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01320, D. D.C.).
ATLANTA — Three weeks after moving to dismiss consumer class claims over its 2017 data breach, Equifax Inc. on July 16 filed a motion in Georgia federal court to dismiss claims brought by a group of financial institutions (FIs) for failure to plead any injuries attributable to the breach (In Re: Equifax Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:17-md-2800, N.D. Ga.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and a contractor filed appellee briefs with the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals July 19, arguing that a trial court correctly dismissed two employee unions’ negligence and privacy claims related to a 2015 data breach for lack of standing and under the doctrine of sovereign immunity (In Re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 17-5217 & 17-5232, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 17 per curiam order, a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel denied the U.S. government’s motion to consolidate an appeal over purported unconstitutional government surveillance of U.S. citizens with two pending, consolidated appeals involving the same appellant related to the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) bulk metadata collection program (Larry Klayman v. James Comey, et al., No. 18-5097, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court received 13 amicus curiae briefs on July 16 offering opinions on the fairness of an $8.5 million cy pres settlement of a privacy class action against Google LLC, with the U.S. government voicing its concerns over jurisdiction, possible collusion and unfair attorney fee awards in such settlements (Theodore H. Frank, et al. v. Paloma Gaos, et al., No. 17-961, U.S. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A class of purchasers of Lenovo (United States) Inc. computers on July 11 asked a California federal judge to grant preliminary approval of a proposed settlement of privacy and computer fraud claims over the computer manufacturer’s use of intrusive adware, which would set up an $8.3 million settlement fund for affected consumers (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif.).
CINCINNATI — In light of a stipulation of dismissal filed by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. and two of its policyholders that had sued the insurer over a 2012 data breach, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 12 issued an order dismissing the insureds’ appeal of a trial court’s ruling that had disposed of their lone remaining claim for bailment (Mohammad S. Galaria, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., No. 18-3063 and 18-3064, 6th Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A proposed $600,000 settlement of a putative class action over a hotel chain’s 2016 data breach was denied preliminary approval July 12 by a California federal judge, who enumerated “glaring issues” related to explanations of class member payments and class notice procedures (Andrew Parsons v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group LLC, No. 3:16-cv-05387, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two objectors to the $8.5 million settlement of a privacy class action against Google LLC tell the U.S. Supreme Court in a July 9 merits brief that the distribution of settlement funds to cy pres recipients, rather than class members, does not constitute a “fair, reasonable, and adequate” settlement of the class claims per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (Theodore H. Frank, et al. v. Paloma Gaos, et al., No. 17-961, U.S. Sup.).
PHOENIX — Motel 6 Operating L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC, doing business as Motel 6, and guests who filed a class complaint over the motel chain’s policy of voluntarily turning over guest registration information to agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a joint notice of settlement on July 6 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona and noted that it needed additional time to finalize the documentation (Jane V., et al. v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., et al., No. 18-242, D. Ariz.).
BALTIMORE — In supplemental briefs filed July 6 in Maryland federal court, Wikimedia Foundation and the U.S. government debate whether an in camera review provision in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the state secrets privilege regarding documents withheld from discovery by the government in a lawsuit over communications intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) as part of its upstream surveillance program (Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00662, D. Md.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal judge on July 3 granted a motion by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to dismiss a lawsuit over the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC’s) database, finding that the plaintiffs, whose emails were made public in the incident, failed to establish jurisdiction (Roy Cockrum, et al. v. Donald J. Trump For President Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01370, D. D.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110948).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 6 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that a firm's multimillion dollar loss due to a fraudulent wire transfer scheme constituted computer fraud under the company's executive protection insurance policy (Medidata Solutions Inc v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 17-2492, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18376).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals defied the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear holding when it ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) doesn’t preempt state law and the lack of reference to class arbitration in an employment agreement is not “silence” as defined by Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010), an employer argues in a petitioner brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9 (Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Frank Varela, No. 17-988, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a June 29 motion, an Illinois state’s attorney asks the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to vacate its recently issued conditional order, as it relates to the state of Illinois, which consolidated lawsuits over Facebook Inc.’s recent data-sharing incident in a California federal multi-district litigation (MDL) (In re Facebook Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, No. 2843, JPMDL).
SAN FRANCISCO — Consumer privacy organization The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed an amicus curiae brief on June 26, urging the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to find that Facebook Inc.’s use of persistent cookies to track the private internet browsing activity of social network users, even after they were logged out of the service, was “an invasive business practice in violation of privacy laws” (In re: Facebook Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 17-17486, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its June 28 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a convicted felon’s petition for certiorari over whether law enforcement’s tracking of his location via a cell-site simulator violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Damian Patrick v. United States, No. 17-6256, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4030).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Less than a week after issuing a decision in Timothy Ivory Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402, U.S. Sup., the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 applied that ruling, which required a warrant issued with probable cause for the search of a suspect’s cell site location information (CSLI) records, to five similar cases, granting certiorari in each, also vacating the underlying judgments based on warrantless searches and remanding to their respective courts of appeal (Tobias O. Reed v. Virginia, No. 17-5402, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4042; Antoine Chambers v. United States, No. 17-5692, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4063; Anthony C. Thompson v. United States, No. 17-5964, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4056; Gareic J. Hankston v. Texas, No. 17-6213, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4057; Albert D. Banks v. United States, No. 17-6704, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 4050).
SAN FRANCISCO — Reconsidering an earlier ruling allowing a former Lyft Inc. driver to pursue a claim against Uber Technologies Inc. under the California unfair competition law (UCL), a California federal magistrate judge on June 21 held that the driver did not establish entitlement to injunctive or restitutive relief under the statute based on Uber’s obtaining data on the rival firm’s drivers via spyware (Michael Gonzales v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-02264, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104332).
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 25 found that a federal court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings and dismissing all claims against an insurer in a coverage dispute arising from the hacking of a specialty retail chain insured’s credit card network (Spec's Family Partners, Limited v. The Hanover Insurance Co., No. 17- 20263, 5th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17246).