Rebecca Day

Old Dominion Freight Line moved a federal court to stay proceedings in a Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) suit, pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on the petition for rehearing filed in Cothron v. White Castle System, said a Friday motion (docket 1:23-cv-02187) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on the petition has the potential to “significantly impact” the Old Dominion case, including the viability of certain named plaintiffs’ claims, the size of a putative class, the scope of potential discovery and the extent of any damages awarded, said the motion. Old Dominion requested a 21-day stay denying the motion to answer or otherwise plead to the second amended class action complaint. Plaintiff John Kararo alleged Old Dominion Freight Line’s Kronos time clock system required him and other employees to scan, upload and use their fingerprints to use its time clock and track hours worked (see 2304070049), said the April privacy complaint. The time clock system used, collected, stored and “otherwise obtained” Kararo’s unique biometric identifiers without prior consent, in violation of Illinois’ BIPA law, which codified that individuals have a right to privacy concerning their biometric identifiers and biometric information, said the complaint. On March 10, the defendant in Cothron v. White Castle System filed a petition for rehearing of that decision in Illinois Supreme Court, said the motion. That court’s Feb. 17 order “is not final, binding precedent,” it said. The Illinois top court’s mandate in Cothron is stayed pending disposition of the petition, but even if the court denies the petition, its mandate will not issue earlier than 35 days after the order, the motion said. The Illinois Supreme Court’s opinion in Cothron addresses the issue of when claims under Section 15(b) accrue and whether an alleged BIPA violation occurred every time plaintiffs and members of the putative class used the time clock system, or just the first time they did so, said the motion. If the Illinois Supreme Court “changes course” in Cothron, “per-scan” damages “would be off the table,” said the Old Dominion motion. “Depending on the outcome of the petition for rehearing in Cothron, Plaintiffs may not even be able to argue that Old Dominion could be held liable for statutory liquidated damages for each alleged use of the time clock at issue, whether to raise a demand in any potential settlement negotiations or at trial,” it said.

Four plaintiffs, including current and former Dish Network employees, joined a class action against Dish after a Feb. 23 data breach, said the first amended complaint (docket 1:23-cv-01168) to a May 9 lawsuit in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver (see 2305110027). The privacy suit alleges Dish failed to properly secure customers’ and employees’ personally identifiable information (PII) from hackers after a February network outage. The amended complaint also added violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

SkyBell Technologies terminated a video doorbell contract with Resideo "without valid cause," alleged a May 23 complaint (docket 1:23-cv-04295) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Resideo sold SkyBell video doorbells to distributors and professional installers for use in residences under a 2015 strategic supplier agreement that was “amended from time to time”; the contract expires in December 2024. In April 2020, Resideo announced its plan to begin manufacturing and selling a new video doorbell product of its own, the First Alert VX1 HD video doorbell. The agreement is nonexclusive, “so Plaintiffs have every right under the Agreement to manufacture, sell, and service video doorbells not supplied by SkyBell,” Resideo said. In its April termination notice to Resideo, SkyBell asserted Resideo or its Ademco subsidiary breached the agreement by selling the “unlicensed” First Alert VX1 video doorbell “that infringes SkyBell patents,” said the complaint. It then terminated the agreement for cause “based on an asserted breach of contract” by Resideo, claiming the company took “bad faith, knowing and intentional action” to violate SkyBell’s intellectual property rights. As of the date of the termination notice, the VX1 hadn't gone on sale, “and SkyBell therefore had no opportunity to obtain or analyze the VX1,” Resideo said. Beyond reviewing Resideo’s basic marketing publications, SkyBell had no chance "to obtain, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise analyze the VX1,” it said. “SkyBell has articulated no factual or legal basis” for its assertation that Resideo breached the agreement, and “therefore has no valid cause to terminate the Agreement,” the complaint said. If SkyBell’s termination is allowed to take effect, Resideo will suffer damages of over $75,000, it said. Early termination would also mean Resideo “will be prematurely deprived of SkyBell’s services,” which are necessary for uninterrupted operation of Resideo’s installed base of SkyBell video doorbells. “This will cause harm to Plaintiffs’ relationships with distributors, installers, and end users, as well as harm to Plaintiffs’ reputation for standing behind and supporting the products they sell,” Resideo said. It seeks an order enjoining SkyBell from taking any act or omission based on the “invalid purported termination” of the agreement and forcing SkyBell to continue performing under the agreement until it expires Dec. 31, 2024.

Cisco’s interpretation that Dexon “drafted a roadmap for evasion of unfavorable rulings” is an “incorrect reading” of the district court’s orders, said Dexon’s response (docket 23-40257) Friday to Cisco and CDW’s April petition for mandamus relief in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Counsel for educational technology company Edmodo and DOJ agreed last week to have a magistrate judge conduct further proceedings in a privacy case brought by the DOJ. The parties filed a joint motion (docket 3:23-cv-02495) May 22, saying they resolved all issues in the matter by a proposed stipulated order for permanent injunction, civil penalty judgment and other relief in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

The district court “erroneously concluded that Yout’s software platform was a circumvention tool under 17 U.S.C. §1201, a conclusion that it could not possibly have reached at this early stage of the litigation,” said the ripping software company’s Thursday reply brief (docket 22-2760) in a copyright infringement case in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala for Connecticut in Hartford granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand a social media lawsuit to Connecticut Superior Court in Fairfield, in a Wednesday ruling and order on motion to remand (docket 3:23-cv-00284). The court had oral argument on the motion May 17.

Dish Network failed to secure and safeguard customers’ personal health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information (PII) stored on its data network, said a privacy class action (1:23-cv-01319) Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver, following the company's February network outage and data breach.

T-Mobile’s correspondence to a SIM card breach victim was “so nonchalant” it didn’t offer him theft protection services, plaintiff Vahid Chitsazzadeh said in a privacy complaint (docket 23st-cv-11402) Sunday in Superior Court for California in Los Angeles.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) and Department of Public Health (DPH) Commissioner Robert Goldstein, substituting for Margret Cooke, whom he succeeded in April, filed Monday a motion to dismiss (docket 3:22-cv-11936) as “moot” and for failure to state a claim the first amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a November privacy lawsuit (see 2211250008). Defendants' motion in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Springfield also requested oral argument.