SAN JOSE, Calif. — Seven months after a California federal judge preliminarily approved settlement of a class action against Intuit Inc. over a 2014 data breach, the same judge granted final approval May 15 to the settlement, which provides more than $2.8 million in costs, attorney fees and service awards (In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-01778, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Two months after the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a privacy class action against Google LLC for lack of jurisdiction, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 13 granted a motion by Google to further remand the case for a determination of whether the class ever established that it had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (In re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858, 9th Cir.).
TACOMA, Wash. — Plaintiffs, referred to only as John Does, who filed a class complaint against Washington officials seeking to stop the release of the names and addresses of individuals who participated in the state’s bump stock buy-back program, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on May 2 (John Doe 1, et al. v. John R. Batiste, et al., No. 19-5334, W.D. Wash.).
NEWARK, N.J. — A month after a judge changed the dismissal of a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) complaint against J. Crew Group Inc. to without prejudice, a New Jersey man filed a third amended complaint (TAC) May 14 over the retailer’s purported printing of too many credit card digits on receipts, telling a New Jersey federal court that he suffered damages from a heightened risk of identity theft and because he can “no longer merely throw out his credit card receipts” (Ahmed Kamal v. J. Crew Group Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-00190, D. N.J.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Following a hearing on its motion to dismiss and court-ordered depositions of the lead plaintiffs, Facebook Inc. argues in a May 13 supplemental brief in California federal court that a putative class action over a 2018 breach of the social network’s account “view as” feature merits dismissal for a failure to plead any injuries whatsoever (Jasper Schmidt, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:18-cv-05982, N.D. Calif.).
INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana federal court on May 9 granted a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to unseal a grand jury indictment that was filed two days earlier against two residents of China that are charged with partaking in large-scale data breaches of Anthem Inc. and three other companies (United States v. Fujie Wang, et al., No. 1:19-cv-00153, S.D. Ind.).
BALTIMORE — With the filing of a May 2 putative class complaint against T-Mobile US Inc. in Maryland federal court, four major cellular carriers have been hit with lawsuits for allegedly selling their customers’ geolocation data to third-party data aggregators (Shawnay Ray, et al. v. T-Mobile US Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01299, D. Md.).
PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 26 affirmed a lower federal court’s dismissal of complaints alleging that insurers violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA) when they gained unauthorized access to the plaintiff’s personal information from a website, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the website, database or server functioned as an electronic communication service (ECS) provider under the SCA (Hector Casillas v. Cypress Insurance Company, et al., Nos. 17-56065 and 17-56071, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12583).
LOS ANGELES — Two months after a California federal judge struck her amended complaint against Delta Air Lines Inc. and a customer service business partner over a 2017 data breach as untimely, a Florida woman on April 29 refiled her complaint alleging breach of contract and computer fraud two weeks after being granted leave to amend (Teresa J. McGarry v. Delta Air Lines Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-09827, C.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — In a brief filed May 1 in California federal court, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) requests review and vacatur of a magistrate’s order declining to compel suspects to unlock seized electronic devices by biometric means, arguing that even though a new warrant was issued in the underlying case, the matter is not moot because it will certainly arise in future investigations (In re Search of a Residence in Oakland, Calif., No. 4:19-mj-70053, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A class of plaintiffs who sued Google LLC for privacy violations and two class members who objected to a cy pres-only settlement of the class claims filed briefs with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 2, opposing the tech giant’s motion to remand the case to the original trial court for a finding of whether the class has standing following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to not rule on whether the settlement was fair due to uncertainty over the class’ standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution (In re: Google Referrer Header Privacy Litigation, No. 15-15858, 9th Cir.).
ATLANTA — In an April 30 reply brief, three Native American tribes defend their motion to establish a separate track for tribal governments in the multidistrict litigation against Equifax Inc. over its 2017 data breach, arguing to a Georgia federal court that a history of financial discrimination has caused heightened harm to them that necessitates separate class representation and unique discovery (In Re: Equifax Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:17-md-2800, N.D. Ga.).
PHILADELPHIA — A Pennsylvania federal judge on April 29 allowed most expert testimony for a man who filed a class action against a county and its prison for publishing his mugshot and disorderly conduct arrest information in an online prisoner lookup tool more than a decade after the charges had been expunged (Daryoush Taha v. Bucks County, et al., No. 12-6867, E.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71553).
TACOMA, Wash. — A Washington federal judge on April 29 scheduled a hearing for May 2 on a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) filed in a lawsuit by two Washington residents, referred to only as John Does, seeking to prevent the release of the names and addresses of individuals who participated in the state’s bump stock buy-back program (John Doe 1, et al. v. John R. Batiste, et al., No. 19-5334, W.D. Wash.).
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A California federal judge on April 25 allowed most expert testimony being challenged and then mostly denied summary judgment to a customer and a bank in their dispute over alleged fraudulent accounts opened under the customer’s name by a bank employee (Samuel Liera Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. 8:17-cv-00603, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70068).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 22 vacated its October 2018 opinion in an appeal filed by two objectors to a $6.3 million settlement by Godiva Chocolatier Inc. to end class claims over receipts and issued a new one in its place, once more affirming the settlement but rewriting the portion of the opinion addressing the lead plaintiff’s standing (Dr. David S. Muransky, et al. v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., Nos. 16-16486 and 16-16783, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11630).
SAN FRANCISCO — Three months after hearing oral arguments in an appeal of the approval of a privacy class action over Facebook Inc.’s now-discontinued practice of scanning users’ private messages (PMs), a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 23 directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the named plaintiffs had standing in light of two U.S. Supreme Court rulings (Matthew Campbell, et al. v. Facebook Inc., et al., No. 17-16873, 9th Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Five months after preliminarily approving an $8.3 million settlement of privacy claims against Lenovo (United States) Inc. over its use of intrusive, hidden adware on computers, a California federal judge on April 24 granted final approval to the settlement (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69797).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A divided U.S. Supreme Court on April 24 reversed and remanded a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision that upheld class arbitration for allegations of negligence and breach of implied contract levied against an employer (Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Frank Varela, No. 17-988, U.S. Sup.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Following a hearing for final approval of an $8.3 million settlement of privacy claims over intrusive computer adware installed by Lenovo (United States) Inc., a class of consumers submitted a supplemental brief on April 22 at the direction of a California federal judge, citing parallel cases that they contend support their proposed attorney fees rate of 30 percent of the settlement fund (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif.).