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.
Inside Class Actions
Latest from Inside Class Actions - Page 6
D.C. Circuit Deepens Circuit Split on Interpretation of “Consumer” Under VPPA
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…
Sixth Circuit Remands Class Certification Ruling Back to District Court to Conduct Rigorous Analysis Under Comcast
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…
Court Clarifies Federal Wiretap Act’s Crime-Tort Exception: “Commercial Purposes” Are “Not the Stuff of Which a Crime-Tort Is Made”
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…
Fee-versal of Fortune
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…
Court Finds Homebuyers Lack Antitrust Standing to Challenge Real Estate Brokerage Commission Rules
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.…
CA Supreme Court Smooths Edges of Arbitration Invoice Payment Statute to Save it from Federal Preemption
The California Supreme Court held in Hohenshelt v. Golden State Foods Corp., __ P.3d __, 2025 WL 2302229 (Cal. Aug. 11, 2025) that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt Section 1281.98 of the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”), a provision providing that, under certain circumstances, a party that fails to pay arbitration fees promptly…
No Splash Without Specifics: Eleventh Circuit Rejects Claims Challenging Influencer Swimwear Endorsements
In Pop v. LuliFama.com LLC, _ F.4th _, 2025 WL 2177719 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss a putative consumer class action alleging that a swimwear company had failed to disclose payments to social media influencers — reasoning that the alleged fraudulent conduct was not pleaded…
District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules
Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations. On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance. …
Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Certification Based on Unexecuted Damages Model
Extending its recent decision in Lytle v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 114 F.4th 1011, 1032 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed class certification in a false advertising case based in part on an unexecuted and “not yet fully developed” damages model. The panel reasoned that the expert’s explanation of the damages model he proposed…