A federal court dismissed litigation on South Carolina courts’ data scraping ban. The U.S. District Court for South Carolina dismisses the case without costs or prejudice because the parties say the action was settled, said Judge Mary Geiger Lewis in a Wednesday order in case 3:22-cv-01007. Lewis ruled in January to proceed with the constitutional challenge by NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union. The court didn’t detail the settlement. The parties didn’t comment on Thursday.

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.

T-Mobile got a stay from the U.S. District Court for Northern California in the carrier’s lawsuit against the California Public Utilities Commission. T-Mobile asked the court to pause its review of the CPUC’s USF contribution overhaul until the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolves the carrier’s appeal of the district court’s March 31 preliminary injunction denial (see 2305160003). The CPUC didn’t oppose. “In light of the statement of non-opposition, the court grants the motion to stay,” wrote Judge Laurel Beeler in a text entry in case 3:23-cv-00483-LB. The court sets a status hearing for May 16 at 11 a.m. “and will continue the stay if the Ninth Circuit has not ruled,” Beeler said.

The California Public Utilities Commission won’t oppose T-Mobile’s May 15 motion to stay or hold in abeyance the district court’s review of the carrier’s challenge of the agency’s change to a per-line USF surcharge, pending the 9th Circuit’s resolution of T-Mobile’s appeal of that change (see 2305160003), said the CPUC. It filed its statement of non-opposition Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-00483) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. CPUC Assistant General Counsel Jonathan Koltz based the non-opposition on T-Mobile counsel’s assurances the carrier would comply with the surcharge until its appeals are exhausted, as it has done since the surcharge took effect April 1, said his declaration.

The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission "lacks express or implied statutory authority to ban" Q Link Wireless from filing a petition for eligible telecom carrier designation with the state, concluded the New Mexico Supreme Court in an opinion reversing the ban Monday in case S-1-SC-38812. The state commission adopted the ban after Q Link sought ETC designation in 2012 and filed a motion in 2019 to withdraw it after "lengthy and protracted proceedings before the commission's hearing examiner," the opinion said. Q Link initially sought the designation to provide Lifeline services to tribal and non-tribal households in the state. The commission didn't comment.

A Kansas municipality chose not to continue litigation seeking franchise fees from Hulu and Netflix in light of a new state law. Kansas enacted a law last month exempting streaming TV services from paying franchise fees to local governments (see 2304140045). Fort Scott, Kansas, was appealing a lower court dismissing its lawsuit that seeks franchise fees from streaming services for the past three years and prospectively. The city decided to dismiss its appeal at the Kansas Appeals Court (case 22-125784-A) due to the new law, Fort Scott counsel Michael Fleming of Kapke Willerth told us Friday. The city could have maintained a claim to recoup past fees because the state law is prospective, but Fleming didn’t think the court would agree, he emailed: “Even if they had, there was nothing preventing the legislature from correcting their mistake next legislative session. No sense putting more and more time into a losing cause.”

Google will pay $8 million to settle a Texas lawsuit alleging deceptive advertising about the Pixel 4 smartphone, said Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) Friday. In a January complaint at Texas District Court in Montgomery County, Paxton claimed Google violated a Texas consumer protection law when it allegedly forced iHeartMedia DJs to record and broadcast firsthand testimonials for the then-unreleased Pixel 4, despite the DJs never having used the smartphone (see 2201190079). “If Google is going to advertise in Texas, their statements better be true,” Paxton said Friday. “Our settlement holds Google accountable for lying to Texans for financial gain.” The FTC and six other states previously settled for $9.4 million in a similar case (see 2211280062). Google didn’t comment.

In light of Monday’s joint status report in which it was disclosed that Pennsylvania reached “a settlement in principle” with five telemarketing robocalling defendants (see 2305090003), the parties have until May 23 to file a “subsequent” joint status report, updating the court on the progress of the settlement agreement, said a text-only order (docket 2:22-cv-1551) from U.S. District Judge Nicholas Ranjan for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The parties “are coordinating on finalizing documentation” of the settlement for submission to the court, said Monday’s joint filing. The settlement will resolve all claims the five New York City telemarketing entities inundated Pennsylvania consumers with hundreds of thousands of unwanted robocalls, it said.

The Maryland Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that the state’s digital ad tax is unconstitutional. In a four-page order Tuesday, the court agreed with the state that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County lacked jurisdiction because plaintiffs Comcast and Verizon failed to exhaust all their administrative remedies. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s March 14, 2022, order denying the state’s motion to dismiss, an Oct. 21 order partly granting the ISPs’ motion for summary judgment and denying the state’s motion, and the Nov. 18 final declaratory judgment. The state high court remanded the action to the circuit court with directions to dismiss. Writing the order, Chief Justice Matthew Fader said a majority of the court concurred and a forthcoming opinion will explain reasons for the decision. The Maryland Supreme Court decided the case just days after questioning parties on the administrative remedy issue at oral argument (see 2305050044). In a statement, Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown (D) applauded the court “for acting quickly because the revenues generated by this tax will help us provide our children the best education possible for success.”

Pennsylvania reached “a settlement in principle” with five New York City telemarketing entities to resolve all claims that they inundated Pennsylvania consumers with hundreds of thousands of unwanted robocalls (see 2211030056), said their joint status report Monday (docket 2:22-cv-01551) in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. The parties “are coordinating on finalizing documentation” of the settlement for submission to the court, said the joint filing. Then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D) brought the action Nov. 2, and the case thereafter had multiple deadline extensions as the parties worked toward a settlement. Shapiro was sworn in Jan. 17 as Pennsylvania governor. Michelle Henry (D) is Shapiro’s AG successor. The complaint alleged violations of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, plus state and federal unfair competition laws, but not the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because the five Manhattan entities weren’t alleged to have placed the calls themselves.