The Eleventh Circuit is poised to reconsider recent standing decisions favorable for defendants seeking to invoke Article III’s standing requirements to defeat class certification.
At issue is the Eleventh Circuit’s July 2022 decision in Drazen v. Pinto, holding that (i) all class members must have Article III standing in order to receive individual damages (whether
The Ninth Circuit recently held that a class could be certified with class members who lost less than a penny of interest. But it also held that where some class members may have lost nothing at all, the district court must take a hard look at whether the predominance requirement has been met.
On February 22, 2023, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York issued a first-of-its-kind order allowing a securities class action lawsuit to proceed against the issuer of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the grounds that the NFTs are securities for purposes of federal securities laws. Friel v. Dapper Labs, Inc. et. al., Case
In two putative class actions pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Department of Justice has filed statements of interest urging the Court to deny defendants’ motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.
In Padao v. American Express National Bank, No. 5:22-cv-00145-BO-RN (E.D.N.C.), and
A group of small businesses recently sued Bank of America in the Central District of California, alleging that it misled them about the terms of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. This marks yet another putative class action accusing lenders of misconduct in connection with the PPP.
A procedural violation of a state’s privacy statute is not alone enough to establish Article III standing—a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury, such as an increased risk of identity theft. The Fourth Circuit’s decision in O’Leary v. TrustedID, Inc., 2023 WL 2125996 (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) confirms this—but also illustrates how Article III
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that separate claims under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) accrue “with every scan or transmission” of a person’s biometric information—rejecting the idea that only a single claim accrues at the start of a series of similar scans or disclosures.
The decision, Cothron v. White Castle, substantially increases
The Ninth Circuit recently held in Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that criminalizes employer conduct that requires employees to consent to arbitrate claims arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. This ruling came after the same panel previously held that the law, Assembly Bill
Judge Karas in the Southern District of New York recently dismissed two lawsuits alleging that defendants’ beverage products contained synthetic malic acid that functioned as a flavoring agent, rendering the “100% natural flavors” and “natural flavor with other natural flavor” claims on the product labels false and/or misleading.
Dior recently defeated an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) putative class action on the pleadings by arguing that BIPA’s exemption for patient data captured in a health care setting covered the plaintiff’s use of Dior’s virtual try-on tool while shopping for non-prescription sunglasses. See Warmack-Stillwell v. Christian Dior, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-04633 (N.D. Ill. Feb.