Rebecca Day

X implemented software to police pornographic and other “not-safe-for-work” images uploaded to Twitter without adequately informing individuals who interacted with the social media platform “that it collects and/or stores their biometric identifiers in every photograph containing a face that is uploaded to Twitter,” alleges a Monday complaint (docket 1:23-cv-05449) in Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery division, Chicago. X, formerly known as Twitter, did so in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleged the complaint.

The “vast breadth” of centralization plaintiff Bruce Bailey sought in his Friday reply (see 2308140020) means parties in cases associated with MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation that don't name multidistrict litigation (MDL) defendants Progress Software Corp. (PSC), Ipswitch or Pension Benefit Information (PBI), and who aren't monitoring the MDL docket, “had no way of knowing that their cases are at risk of being swept up in a sprawling MDL,” said plaintiff Carlos Harding in a Monday interested party response (docket 3083) before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). Harding urged the JPML to deny Bailey’s motion for transfer and centralization of related actions filed July 6.

Tile’s partnership with Amazon’s Sidewalk network “expanded the reach and efficacy of the Tile tracker" and “exponentially magnified the danger posed to victims,” said a class action Monday (docket 3:23-cv-04119) against Tile, its parent company Life360 and Amazon in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

FunPlus falsely advertises price discounts for in-game purchases and carries out other “deceptive and unfair business practices” in its Guns of Glory: Lost Island (GOG) mobile game, said a Monday class action (docket 3:23-cv-04122) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Plaintiff Loren Kelly, a California resident, alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Experian will pay $650,000 to settle charges it sent consumers unsolicited email without offering them a way to opt out, the agency said Monday. “Signing up for a membership doesn’t mean you’re signing up for unwanted email, especially when all you’re trying to do is freeze your credit to protect your identity,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The plaintiffs' allegations of actual identity theft in the Samsung data breach multidistrict litigation are “implausible, insufficiently pled, and not a cognizable injury absent economic loss,” said Samsung’s notice Friday (docket 1:23-md-03055) of its motion to dismiss in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.

Verizon’s sign-up policies and practices deceive customers by prominently advertising flat monthly rates for its postpaid wireless service plans, alleged an amended class action (docket 3:23-cv-01138) brought by 50 consumers Friday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. After consumers sign up, Verizon charges them higher monthly rates than it advertised and pads their bills with an “administrative charge” that’s currently $3.30 per line on top of the advertised price, said the complaint. The ‘fictitious’ administrative charge allows Verizon to “unlawfully charge its customers more per month for Verizon wireless services without having to advertise the higher monthly rates,” it said. The carrier first began “sneaking” the charge into postpaid customers’ bills in 2005, initially at 40 cents per month for each line and has repeatedly bumped the amount on a regular basis, said the complaint. The most recent increase was on June 23, 2022, when Verizon raised the administrative charge 70% from $1.95, it said. Verizon has used the charge as a “revenue lever to covertly jack up its monthly service prices and to squeeze its existing subscribers for more cash" whenever it desires, it said. To date, the carrier has “improperly collected billions of dollars in additional, unlawful charges” from the proposed class members through the scheme, it said. Only after customers sign up for wireless service -- and are “financially committed to their purchase and cannot cancel without penalty" -- do customers learn of the charge, the complaint said. Verizon then “deliberately and affirmatively omits or misrepresents” the charge on billing statements. Its paper bills fail to mention the charge at all, telling customers to “check your online bill for all surcharges, taxes and gov fees,” it said. On online bills, Verizon omits the charge from the monthly charge section, “where it actually belongs,” and puts it under surcharges, “where it is lumped together with various government charges, taxes, and fees,” the complaint said. For years, the company “explicitly and falsely stated” on the bill that the charge is imposed on subscribers to “cover the costs that are billed to us by federal, state or local governments.” By its own design, Verizon’s monthly billing statements served to further its “deceptive scheme and keep customers from realizing they are being overcharged,” it said. On a support page, Verizon gives a different definition of the charge, claiming it’s tied to operating costs, including telephone company interconnect charges and network facility and service fees -- "all of which are basic costs of providing wireless service, and which a reasonable consumer would expect to be included in the advertised price for any wireless service plan,” the complaint said. Verizon doesn’t adjust the amount of the charge based on changes to its costs, but it “unilaterally sets and increases” the amount of the charge “based on its internal revenue targets,” it said. Verizon’s “misrepresentations on bills that the charge is imposed on subscribers to recover the costs" billed to Verizon by the government "were false statements of material fact intended to discourage customers who discovered the Administrative Charge from questioning or objecting to the Charge,” it said.

Plaintiff Dan Marlow’s claims “belong in arbitration,” said T-Mobile’s Friday motion to compel arbitration (docket 1:23-cv-04301) and stay a negligence case in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn.

The U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco took possession Thursday of a Nov. 23 pro se lawsuit (docket 3:23-cv-04045) transferred from the Eastern District of Texas that alleges Meta and TikTok violated the Texas code by censoring social media content. TikTok removed the case to the federal court from County Court at Law No. 4 of Collin County, Texas, in November. Attorney plaintiff Paul Davis’ emergency motion to remand was denied.

Plaintiff Michael Harris became a victim of identity theft when unauthorized individuals attempted to open bank accounts in his name, said a Tuesday negligence class action (1:23-cv-11816) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. The suit names Progress Software Corp. (PSC) for a May data breach involving its MOVEit file transfer software.