Class Action & Mass Torts

Recently, a California federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the use of third-party email marketing pixels by clothing retailer Gap, Inc., concluding plaintiff’s “scattershot and vague assertions” were insufficient to state a plausible claim under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). Ramos v. Gap, Inc., 2025 WL 2144837 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2025).

The Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Glover v. EQT Corporation, 2025 WL 2405514 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2025), provides clarity on what plaintiffs must do to certify a class in a breach-of-contract case while reaffirming that individualized fact-intensive inquiries make it difficult to certify fraudulent concealment claims as a class action.

In Nicole Pileggi v. Washington Newspaper Publishing Company LLC, the D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging that news magazine and website Washington Examiner disclosed consumers’ personal information through a third-party pixel in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”). 

In 2023, Pileggi alleged that the Examiner’s use of

The Sixth Circuit in In Re FirstEnergy Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 23-3940, 2025 WL 2331754 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025) recently reversed and remanded the district court’s class certification ruling in a securities class action on two independent bases: (1) that the district court applied the wrong standard when granting the plaintiffs a presumption of

After last year’s landmark ruling holding that the Massachusetts Wiretap Act does not prohibit businesses’ use of pixels to capture website browsing data, Massachusetts plaintiffs have shifted their focus to the federal Wiretap Act.  The problem: unlike the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, its federal counterpart is a “one-party consent” law, meaning that a business’s consent to

The Ninth Circuit in Maree v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., No. 23-55795, 2025 WL 2268254 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) recently vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a class action settlement because it found class counsel’s fees likely represented a disproportionate amount of the settlement fund. The settlement at issue sought to resolve two

In Lutz v. HomeServices of America, Inc. et al., No. 4:24-cv-10040-KMM, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed antitrust claims brought by a proposed class of homebuyers seeking to enjoin implementation of rules promulgated by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) relating to commissions paid to real estate brokers representing homebuyers.