Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Through Class Dismissed, attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Products Liability practices offer a real-time assessment of the developments in matters that are shaping the industry. This blog examines the full spectrum of consumer-related class action and product liability lawsuits ranging from false advertising, privacy, consumer product safety, ADA, food misbranding, TCPA, environment, retail, and government actions as well as nationwide and multidistrict litigation class actions.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

park_julie_blog_150x150.png

park_julie_common_640x280.jpg

park_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

park_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

park_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Julie Park protects her clients’ products no matter what kind of product issue they face—whether it is planning for new product development, recalling an existing product, or defending clients against product liability or consumer class actions. Drawing on her deep technical and legal expertise, Julie counsels clients on consumer product safety regulation and pharmaceutical and medical device preemption while also managing complex and multijurisdictional litigation both in state and federal court.

Julie Y. Park

<div class="videoWrapper"><iframe frameborder="0" class="sticky-video" allowfullscreen="1" title="Meet Penny Preovolos, Litigation Partner" src="https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/hv7hYn-Bl7c?rel=0&showinfo=0;vq=hd1080" title="iframe"></iframe></div>Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products. According to Chambers USA, Penelope has a “great reputation for antitrust and product liability work” and is a “superb all-around antitrust lawyer.”Penelope was named the 2019 Antitrust Lawyer of the Year by the Antitrust, UCL, and Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association. She was co-chair of MoFo’s antitrust practice for 14 years. She has served as chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Section of the State Bar of California and as a member of the Ninth Circuit Advisory Committee on Local Rules and Operations. She is an editor of and frequent contributor to Morrison & Foerster’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed blog</a>, as well as a frequent speaker about class action and antitrust issues.More About PenelopePenelope clerked for the Honorable Charles M. Merrill, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was executive editor of the Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review. Penelope was a member of Phi Beta Kappa at the University of California, Berkeley. She was awarded the University Medal, the highest undergraduate honor at the university, as well as the English Departmental Citation (awarded to the outstanding graduate in that department).

preovolos_penelope_blog_150x150.png

preovolos_penelope_common_640x280.jpg

preovolos_penelope_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preovolos_penelope_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preovolos_penelope_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Counsel

Penelope has served as lead counsel in major consumer class actions and antitrust cases for more than 35 years, successfully representing high-profile defendants in antitrust, consumer fraud, and product defect matters. Her clients span a range of industries, including consumer electronics, technology, retail, publishing, food and beverage, cosmetics, and household products.

Penelope A. Preovolos

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class action lawsuits. Claudia also regularly counsels clients in the food, cosmetics, retail, and technology industries. She represents companies in false advertising disputes before the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.<h5>More about Claudia</h5>Claudia is active in MoFo’s pro bono efforts, and recently traveled to El Paso, Texas, to work with families separated and detained at the border. She is also supervising a pro bono collaboration with Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit fighting for gender justice in work places and schools across the country. The initiative will help students who have been victims of sexual assault, attempted assault, or harassment find support and seek justice. Claudia is also a board member of Bay Area Legal Aid and a former board member of Equal Rights Advocates. Claudia is an editor and frequent contributor to MoFo’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/">Class Dismissed</a> blog, which provides reports about the latest defense news, developments, and trends in class action lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies. Her perspectives are also respected in the larger legal community: Claudia has published articles about class action and false advertising issues, and is a co-author of Chapter 7 — “Unfair Competition in California Business Litigation 2016” — of The Recorder. She also regularly speaks at conferences on class action and advertising trends. Claudia is currently serving as a Lawyer Representative for the Northern District of California. She received her J.D. degree in 2004 from Berkeley Law (Boalt Hall School of Law), where she was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal.

vetesi_claudia_blog_150x150.png

vetesi_claudia_common_640x280.jpg

vetesi_claudia_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

vetesi_claudia_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

vetesi_claudia_social_600x600.jpg

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy matters. She is currently representing numerous consumer goods manufacturers and retailers in false advertising and mislabeling class actions.

Claudia M. Vetesi

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office.Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.Alexandra has significant trial experience. She has first-chaired a one-week jury trial and second-chaired a five‑week jury trial, both involving multiple claims and witnesses. She also has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution, representing clients at mediations, mandatory settlement conferences, and early neutral evaluations.Alexandra enjoys tracking developments and keeping her clients updated on product liability and personal injury claims, frequently writing or presenting on emerging areas such as autonomous vehicles and smart devices. Alexandra’s experience also extends to professional liability, warranty claims, eminent domain, and construction law.Alexandra earned her J.D. from the University of San Diego School of Law. While in law school, the San Diego Law Review published her comment on the recovery of damages by plaintiffs in a persistent vegetative state, and she also served as a comment editor. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she majored in Political Science and minored in Spanish. A San Diego native, she attended a Spanish immersion school through the eighth grade. Alexandra is active in the San Diego community, advising students at a local college. She is also a member of several legal organizations in San Diego, including Lawyer’s Club, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and Wallace Inn of Court.

preece_alex_blog_150x150.png

preece_alex_common_640x280.jpg

preece_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

preece_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

preece_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, consumer products, automobiles, and AI. Alexandra’s litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s San Diego office. Alexandra litigates product liability matters involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automobiles, AI, and robotics. Alexandra's litigation expertise spans the entire case life cycle in both state and federal courts. She handles all phases of discovery, including fact investigation and expert discovery. Alexandra has taken over twenty-five depositions, including experts, plaintiffs, treating physicians, and third-party witnesses. She drafts and argues motions of all types, including motions for summary judgment, motions to quash, and motions for preliminary injunction.

Alexandra Barlow

Adam J. Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.Mr. Hunt has extensive experience representing consumer products companies, financial institutions, and technology firms in class action cases and complex commercial disputes before state and federal trial courts, as well as in arbitrations. Clients seek Mr. Hunt’s counsel for his creative, strategic thinking in high-stakes, high-profile matters. He has represented clients facing claims under false advertising, antitrust, and privacy laws throughout the country, securing wins at the pleading stage, summary judgment, and trial, in addition to negotiating favorable settlements, often early in the case. Representative experience includes successfully securing rulings dismissing two putative false advertising class action cases against one of the best-known consumer electronics companies in the world; obtaining a complete win on summary judgment for a major shipping and logistics company in a multimillion-dollar commercial dispute; appearing as counsel at trial for a leading financial institution in a $100 million commercial dispute, winning a bench trial verdict; and prevailing on motions to dismiss false advertising class actions against a leading Greek yogurt company.Mr. Hunt is also an editor of the firm’s <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/" target="_self">Class Dismissed blog</a>, which provides insights, recommendations, and timely reports on the latest defense news, developments, and trends in the most current class action lawsuits that affect consumer-facing companies.Mr. Hunt maintains an active pro bono practice and is the recipient of the New York State Bar Association’s 2017 President’s Pro Bono Service Award for the First Judicial Department, the 2018 Public Service Award from New York University School of Law, and Morrison Foerster’s Kathi Pugh Award for Pro Bono Services.Mr. Hunt received his B.A. with honors from Swarthmore College and his J.D. cum laude from New York University.

hunt_adam_blog_150x150.png

hunt_adam_common_640x280.jpg

hunt_adam_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hunt_adam_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hunt_adam_social_600x600.jpg

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

Adam Hunt

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. Subscribe to receive the latest updates by attorneys from our nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices.

Welcome to Class Dismissed

class-dismissed-welcome-image.jpeg

class-dismissed-welcome-image

Morrison Foerster’s Class Dismissed blog provides insights and reports on the latest news, developments, and trends that affect consumer-facing companies. 

Class Action

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

The latest news and insights from the nationally recognized Consumer Class Action and Product Liability practices of Morrison & Foerster.

Class Dismissed

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Class Dismissed Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from Class Dismissed. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Class Action and Product Insights for Your Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

TCPA

Announcements & Press

Antitrust

Appellate & Supreme Court

Arbitration

Autonomous Vehicles & Robotics

Aviation & Drones

Class Certification

Consumer Products

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

CPSC

Drug & Medical Device

Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)

Environmental Law

False Advertising

FCRA

Food Misbranding

Government Actions

Internet of Things

Mass Torts

Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices

Privacy

Product Liability

Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)

Retail

Trials

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Alexandra Preece Barlow

Adam J. Hunt

The Future of Section 230: Protection Against Product Liability Claims?

New Wave of PFAS Legislation Aimed at Consumer Products

CPSC Releases Annual Report on Deaths and Injuries Involving Nursery Products

CPSC Proposes New Safety Rules for Infant Rockers

CPSC Commissioners Abstain from Retracting Infant Sleep Product Statements

The California Office of the Attorney General (OAG) recently concluded that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) generally requires a covered business to disclose, upon request, its inferences about a consumer—whether generated internally or obtained from another source—unless the business can demonstrate that a statutory exception applies. In its first formal opinion (No. 20-303) under the CCPA, OGC has thus taken an expansive view of a consumer’s CCPA “right to know” the specific pieces of personal information that a business collects.To learn more, read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220322-california-ag-issues-first-ccpa-opinion.html">client alert</a>.

12_30_privacylitigation_ccpa_tile_300x2001.jpg

California AG Issues First CCPA Opinion: Consumers’ “Right to Know” Includes Businesses’ Internally Generated Inferences

California AG Issues First CCPA Opinion: Consumers’ “Right to Know” Includes Businesses’ Internally Generated Inferences

12_30_privacylitigation_ccpa_tile_300x2001

The California Office of the Attorney General (OAG) recently concluded that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) generally requires a covered business to 

In an action that may eventually lead to clarification around what constitutes a “financial incentive” for purposes of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Attorney General Rob Bonta announced on January 28, 2022 that his office (the AG) was beginning an “investigative sweep” pursuant to the CCPA.  The AG identified its focus on businesses operating customer loyalty programs in California and those businesses’ compliance with the CCPA’s notice requirements relating to financial incentives.  In its press release, the AG indicated that it had sent letters to “major corporations” across industry sectors, including retail, home improvement, travel, and food services.  These letters alleged the recipients’ non-compliance with the CCPA and provided a 30-day period for companies to cure existing issues and come into compliance with the law.To learn more, <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220131-california-ag-issues-notices-of-violations-guidance-loyalty-programs-ccpa.html">read our client alert</a>.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

California AG Issues Notices of Violations: Will We Soon Have Guidance on Loyalty Programs Under the CCPA

In an action that may eventually lead to clarification around what constitutes a “financial incentive” for purposes of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA

California AG Issues Notices of Violations: Will We Soon Have Guidance on Loyalty Programs Under the CCPA

Last week the FDA announced that it would lift regulations controlling what can be called “French dressing.” The regulations—which had been in place since 1950—previously required that a product contain 35% vegetable oil and vinegar, lemon, or lime juice to be marketed as “French dressing.” Not anymore.The change comes in response to a 1998 petition that was filed by the Association of Dressings and Sauces (ADS), which has spent several decades petitioning the FDA to deregulate the product. ADS argued, in part, that the regulations stifled innovation and competition, limiting a company’s ability to offer customers a low-fat or fat-free version of the dressing.The FDA seems to have agreed, concluding that “the standard of identity for French dressing no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and revoking the standard could provide greater flexibility in the product’s manufacture, consistent with comparable, non-standardized foods available in the marketplace.”[1] The FDA further found the need for the regulations on French dressing obsolete, as no other dressing is controlled by such stringent regulations.This appears to be the FDA’s most specific food deregulation since its consideration of its rules over frozen cherry pies in December 2020.[2] Since 1977, frozen cherry pies have been required to be at least 25% cherries by weight, with no more than 15% of the cherries being blemished. Following a petition from the American Bakers Association (ABA), the FDA determined “[t]he standards do not appear necessary to ensure that these products meet consumer expectations,” and tentatively concluded that they are no longer necessary.[3]As the FDA continues to take a fresh look at other existing standards of identity in light of marketing trends and the latest nutritional science, more changes can be expected. These deregulations seek to make manufacturing easier and more cost-effective, allowing for innovation and increasing customer options. Stay tuned to see what regulations the FDA decides to tackle next, and how this will play out for businesses and consumers. [1] <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-00494.pdf">https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-00494.pdf</a>.[2] <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-proposes-revoke-standard-identity-frozen-cherry-pie">https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-proposes-revoke-standard-identity-frozen-cherry-pie</a>.[3] Id.

FDA Ends Regulation of “French Dressing”

Nature's Path Foods

Suja Juices

Unilever USA Inc.

Nature’s Path Foods and Sprouts Farmers Market

Iovate Health Sciences, International

Claudia focuses her practice on the defense of consumer class actions and on complex commercial litigation, including unfair business competition, false advertising, product liability, and privacy mat

Claudia Vetesi

frenchdressing.jpg

FDA Ends Regulation of "French Dressing"

frenchdressing

Last week the FDA announced that it would lift regulations controlling what can be called “French dressing.” The regulations—which had been in place since 1950—

FDA Ends Regulation of "French Dressing"

The California Consumer Privacy Act has been operative for two full years now, and plaintiffs continue to file CCPA claims at a brisk clip. 2021 saw nearly 100 new complaints with CCPA claims with many of the same types of claims we saw in 2020.In our prior <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/210106-privacy-litigation-2020-year-review.html">report</a>, we highlighted several ways plaintiffs were challenging the limits of the CCPA’s private right of action.  These included attempts to (i) apply CCPA retroactively, (ii) assert claims for violations of sections other than § 1798.150 (the data breach provision) or in the absence of a data breach, and (iii) use the CCPA as a predicate for other claims (such as California’s Unfair Competition Law). All of these issues remained open when 2021 began. Now, with the first wave of CCPA cases moving through pleading stage, courts are starting to delineate the scope of the Act’s private right of action. These decisions shed helpful light on some of the issues we previously flagged and raise several more.To learn more, <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220118-ccpa-litigation-year-in-review.html">read out client alert</a>.

patel_purvi_blog_150x150.png

patel_purvi_common_640x280.jpg

patel_purvi_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

patel_purvi_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

patel_purvi_social_600x600.jpg

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles Office. She represents retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy 

Purvi G. Patel

Purvi G. Patel defends retail, e-commerce, and other businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice defending household names in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.

Purvi Patel

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: CCPA Litigation

The California Consumer Privacy Act has been operative for two full years now, and plaintiffs continue to file CCPA claims at a brisk clip. 2021 saw nearly 100 

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: CCPA Litigation

As subscription models have gained exponential traction, legislatures are clamoring to ensure that their auto-renewal laws keep up with novel consumer protection issues. Several states have introduced or revised their auto-renewal laws, and the Federal Trade Commission has affirmed its commitment to enforce against unlawful offers. Perhaps most notably, California—already a leader in state auto-renewal laws—has significantly amended its law, with the amendments taking effect on July 1, 2022. Other new state requirements took effect on January 1, 2022.To learn more, <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220113-recent-auto-renewal-law-changes.html">read our client alert</a>.

ftc1.jpg

Forgot to Cancel? Pay Attention to Recent Auto-Renewal Law Changes

AMG Capital v. FTC – SCOTUS Strips the FTC of a Critical Enforcement Tool

ftc.jpg

530746609

As subscription models have gained exponential traction, legislatures are clamoring to ensure that their auto-renewal laws keep up with novel consumer protectio

Forgot to Cancel? Pay Attention to Recent Auto-Renewal Law Changes

The Supreme Court on Monday signaled to the lower courts that they need to seriously consider the impact of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) when addressing claims for statutory violations that do not result in any injury to the plaintiffs.In 2017, a trial court certified a class of thousands of individuals who received a mortgage with Quicken Loans (now called Rocket Mortgage) from 2004 to 2009, and granted summary judgment in favor of those class members.  The result was a multimillion-dollar judgment against Quicken Loans. And the trial court reached that result despite the Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, holding that a bare procedural violation is insufficient to demonstrate a “concrete and particularized” injury. On Monday, however, the United State Supreme Court undid the judgment and called into question the viability of plaintiffs’ entire case in a mere two sentences:The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021).Rocket Mortg., LLC v. Alig, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 156, *1 (Jan. 10, 2022).As we <a href="https://classdismissed.mofo.com/topics/relief-for-the-unharmed-supreme-court-considers-whether-article-III--rule-23-permit-certification-where-most-class-members-are-uninjured-ramirez-v-transunion.html">previously reported</a>, in TransUnion v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court applied Spokeo in the class action context and clarified that (1) a concrete injury is a “physical, monetary, or cognizable intangible harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts”; and (2) that the “material risk of harm” alone is typically insufficient to constitute a concrete injury.  Leveraging that decision, Quicken Loans petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholding, in large part, the trial court’s almost $10 million judgment and class certification decision.  Quicken Loans argued that, because a significant portion of the class lacked concrete harm, pursuant to TransUnion, the judgment and certification order should be vacated.Indeed, in its order, the Fourth Circuit had acknowledged that there was no evidence that Quicken Loans’ practices caused any harm to the unnamed class members.  Instead, the circuit court concluded that Quicken Loans’ conduct created the risk of harm to class members, and found the risk sufficient for Article III standing for the entire class.But that wasn’t enough for the Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration. The High Court’s terse order in Quicken Loans solidifies that the existence of a significant number of unharmed class members can be a hurdle to class certification.  What constitutes a “significant number,” however, remains to be clarified.  Stay tuned for an update when the Fourth Circuit issues a new ruling on remand.

Adam Hunt is a partner in the Litigation Department of Morrison Foerster’s New York office. His practice focuses on complex litigation, with an emphasis on class action and commercial litigation.

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc.jpg

High Court Orders Rethink Of $9.7M Award After TransUnion

High Court Orders Rethink Of $9.7M Award After TransUnion

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc

The Supreme Court on Monday signaled to the lower courts that they need to seriously consider the impact of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) when 

2021 marked another year of important developments in the TCPA landscape as lower courts issued conflicting interpretations of SCOTUS’s ruling Barr v. AAPC and began to apply the definition of “autodialer” that SCOTUS articulated in Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid. Although defendants swung for the fences in an attempt to argue that AAPC rendered the entirety of the TCPA unenforceable for a five year period and had some initial success, the tide seems to be turning. Similarly, although Duguid provided a narrow definition of an “autodialer”, factual disputes about what satisfies that new definition may still need to be resolved on summary judgment.The Dust Has Not Settled on Whether Defendants Can Be Held Liable for Robocalls Made Between 2015 and July 2020 Following SCOTUS’s Landmark Decision in AAPC.In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc. (“AAPC”), 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020), lower courts have continued to grapple with the question of whether plaintiffs can assert Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claims for conduct occurring between 2015 and July 2020—the time period between when the government-backed debt exception amendment to the TCPA was passed and the date that the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. A split among district courts quickly emerged. One line of cases followed an early Eastern District of Louisiana decision, Creasy v. Charter Communications, Inc.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-tcpa-litigation-year-in-review.html#_ftn1">[1]</a>, in holding that there could be no liability imposed for calls occurring during the contested five-year time period.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-tcpa-litigation-year-in-review.html#_ftn2">[2]</a> But the majority of district courts declined to adopt Creasy’s reasoning, instead finding that AAPC did not negate the liability of parties that made robocalls during that time period.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-tcpa-litigation-year-in-review.html#_ftn3">[3]</a>To learn more, read out <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-tcpa-litigation-year-in-review.html">client alert</a>.

12_30_privacylitigation_tcpa_tile_400x266_crosspost1.jpg

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: TCPA Litigation

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: TCPA Litigation

12_30_privacylitigation_tcpa_tile_400x266_crosspost.jpg

12_30_privacylitigation_tcpa_tile_400x266_crosspost

2021 marked another year of important developments in the TCPA landscape as lower courts issued conflicting interpretations of SCOTUS’s ruling Barr v. AAPC and 

Cyber incidents top the list of issues keeping in-house counsel up at night. And as we continue to see the number of incidents climb, we continue to see class actions filed in their wake. So what are the highlights from 2021 and what can we expect in the coming year?<h4>Class Action Filing Trends</h4>We count 36 major data breach class actions filed this past year, treating multiple cases filed against a single defendant as one major class action.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-privacy-litigation-2021-year-review.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email#_ftn1" class="anchor">[1]</a> This is a significant increase over the 25 major class actions filed last year. Here’s what we are seeing in these cases:Plaintiff’s counsel continue to jockey for position. Plaintiff’s attorneys continue to try to beat others to the courthouse.  In five of the major data breach cases filed, plaintiffs filed the first-filed case within a week of announcement of the breach.  On average, cases were filed within four weeks of the announcement. Three of the cases were the subject of MDL proceedings; 21 of them were consolidated.What was stolen. In 26 cases, plaintiffs alleged exfiltration of social security numbers, significantly more than the number of cases we saw last year. Last year, the majority of cases concerned allegedly compromised payment card information. This kind of information allegedly was compromised in about one-third of the cases this year, and about half of the cases concerned alleged exfiltration of sensitive medical data.Who was impacted. As compared to 15% of the cases last year, plaintiffs in about one-third of the cases this year were employees. The rest of the plaintiffs were customers, patients, or account holders.Novel liability theories. We saw further evolution of plaintiff’s counsel’s theories in the last year. In a suit filed in response to the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, for example, plaintiff alleges that consumers and gas station owners were harmed by increased gas prices as a result of the company’s negligence.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-privacy-litigation-2021-year-review.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email#_ftn2" class="anchor">[2]</a> And a federal court in Los Angeles followed other courts in rejecting plaintiff’s theory that the value of his personal information decreased due to the breach.<a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-privacy-litigation-2021-year-review.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email#_ftn3" class="anchor">[3]</a>To learn more, read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/220104-privacy-litigation-2021-year-review.html">client alert</a>.

12_30_privacylitigation_databreachtile_400x2661.jpg

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: Data Breach Litigation

Privacy Litigation 2021 Year in Review: Data Breach Litigation

12_30_privacylitigation_databreachtile_400x266.jpg

12_30_privacylitigation_databreachtile_400x266

Cyber incidents top the list of issues keeping in-house counsel up at night. And as we continue to see the number of incidents climb, we continue to see class a

A split panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated in part a <a href="https://elc.mofo.com/topics/Federal_Court_Preliminarily_Enjoins_the_Attorney_General_from_Enforcing_AB_51.html">preliminary injunction</a> barring enforcement of AB 51, the California law banning mandatory employment arbitration agreements.[1]  But the Ninth Circuit found that the penalties for violation of this provision are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), so the enforcement path remains unclear.Read the original blog post <a href="https://elc.mofo.com/topics/Not-so-fast-ninth-circuit-resurrects-ban-on-mandatory-employment-arbitration-agreements.html">here</a>.