Plaintiffs in consumer class action lawsuits often assert a theory of harm based on an alleged overpayment. The typical claim is that a plaintiff bought a good or service that had some alleged defect or was subject to some misrepresentation, and that they therefore paid more than they would have absent the defect or misrepresentation.
Inside Class Actions
The latest developments and trends affecting class actions
Prominent Arbitration Clause Signage Precludes Parking Lot Class Action
A federal court in Colorado recently confirmed that a conspicuous arbitration clause may preclude a consumer from prosecuting class claims in court even if the consumer did not affirmatively and expressly consent to the clause.…
Another Court Dismisses Website Privacy Suit for Lack of Article III Standing
Adding to a growing body of case law following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Popa v. Microsoft Corporation, a California federal court has dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a privacy suit against a news website, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege a concrete injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. In Re:…
Sensitive Search Terms Not Enough To Establish Article III Standing Under Popa
By Divya Bhat & Matthew Verdin
A recent decision from the Southern District of California underscores a point courts have made increasingly clear after the Ninth Circuit’s precedential decision in Popa v. Microsoft: alleging the disclosure of online activity—even activity touching on sensitive health topics—is not enough, by itself to establish Article III standing. As the Court put it, the mere…
Seventh Circuit Holds that BIPA Amendment Applies Retroactively
In a new post on the Inside Privacy blog, our colleagues discuss the Seventh Circuit’s recent Clay v. Union Pacific Railroad Company holding that a 2024 amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) limiting damages to a per-person basis applies retroactively to cases pending when the amendment was enacted. This decision limits…
Stand Aside: Third Circuit Throws Out Harriet Carter Gifts Federal Wiretapping Case On Standing Grounds
By Marc Capuano
We have routinely highlighted the proliferation of wiretapping class actions, and the variety of approaches courts have taken to address them. One common pitfall for plaintiffs in these types of cases is standing, an issue highlighted in a recent Third Circuit case throwing out a proposed federal class action against Harriet Carter Gifts and NaviStone…
Federal Circuit Agrees with Majority View on Class Representative Incentive Awards
We previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to deny rehearing in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 2022 WL 3083717 (11th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022), which had held that district courts may not approve incentive awards for class representatives in class action settlements. Since that time, we have also covered decisions from other courts (including the…
Federal Court Rejects Claim that Cookies Are Illegal Trap and Trace Devices
By Erin Moore & Megan Rodgers
Many California-based privacy claims have turned on the application of longstanding statutes to modern technologies, with courts frequently holding that certain online tracking technologies can qualify as impermissible trap-and-trace devices in violation of California Penal Code section 638.51, part of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). A recent decision from the Central District of…
Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative Class
An Illinois federal court recently highlighted the critical role played by pre‑class‑certification discovery in testing the adequacy of a proposed class representative. In Clark v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2026 WL 483275 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026), the defendant’s arguably “unique defense” to the named plaintiff’s false advertising claims proved fatal to class certification.…
District Courts Appear Skeptical of CAN‑SPAM Preemption and Constitutional Challenges to CEMA
By Jehan Patterson & Irene Kim
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, 4 Wash.3d 580 (2025) has sparked a wave of putative class actions under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”), targeting allegedly misleading email subject lines used by national retailers. In the months since, defendants have increasingly turned to constitutional and federal preemption defenses in…