In a recent decision from the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl granted summary judgment and dismissed a putative class action alleging that an online retailer, I Am Beyond d/b/a Beyond Yoga, had aided and abetted violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). The Court concluded that
In 2025, courts continued to issue significant decisions concerning the application of wiretap and privacy laws to pixels, session replay, and other website technologies. Over the past year, we have featured posts discussing claims regarding website analytics and advertising tools brought under the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), the Video Privacy Protection Act
In a recently published award, an arbitrator rejected claims that Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (“Dick’s”) violated the Federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) by purportedly installing website analytics and marketing technologies on its website after an evidentiary hearing. Asad v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., JAMS Ref. No. 5220005532 (Dec. 8,
In many privacy and other technology-related class actions, the question of whether consumers consent to the practice at issue is central. In these cases, class action defendants have defeated motions for class certification by successfully arguing that consent is an individualized issue that is not susceptible to common proof. And though class action plaintiffs may
The Eighth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of a putative class action asserting that defendant Cinema Entertainment Corporation, a regional movie theater chain, violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) by disclosing website visitors’ information through a third-party pixel. See Christopherson v. Cinema Ent. Corp., No. 24-3042, 2025 WL 3512393 (8th Cir. Dec. 8, 2025).
A defendant can waive a right to compel arbitration if it intentionally relinquishes or abandons its known right. One way to waive a right to compel arbitration is by implied waiver: acting inconsistently with an intent to assert the right to arbitrate. But what should a defendant do to preserve future arbitration rights it cannot
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”) into law. We previously wrote a blog post about the Act, which was introduced to update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
The first Federal Rule focused specifically on multidistrict litigation—which has long been a staple of complex, high-stakes litigation—took effect on December 1, 2025, as part of the 2025 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
An oft-litigated issue in false-advertising class actions is whether a plaintiff can show that each class member relied on the challenged statement when they made their purchasing decision. The Eighth Circuit recently offered an example of how this issue can pose a significant roadblock to class certification in In re Folgers Coffee Marketing, — F.4th
Last month in In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, the Southern District of New York denied certification to a proposed class of direct purchasers who alleged that Keurig, a manufacturer of branded coffee pods and brewers, violated antitrust laws by allegedly suppressing competition from generic coffee pod manufacturers. Although the plaintiffs offered