Augusta National seeks a stay in the Video Privacy Protection Act claims brought by Adam Labernik and Shane Doyle, pending the 2nd Circuit's decision in Salazar v. National Basketball Association (docket 23-1147), Augusta National’s counsel, David Venderbush of Alston & Bird, said in a letter motion Thursday (docket l:24-cv-03058) to U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rearden for Southern New York in Manhattan. Attorneys for Labernik and Doyle don’t oppose the stay, said the letter motion. The plaintiffs allege that Augusta National, owner of the Masters golf tournament, doesn’t disclose on its website or in its online newsletter that subscribers’ personally identifying information will be captured by the Meta Pixel tracking tool that the defendant installed and then shared the captured information with Meta (see 2404240053). In the Salazar appeal, the plaintiff-appellants argue that the district court erred in dismissing their claims against the NBA on grounds that the goods and services as defined in the VPPA don’t apply to online newsletters. The Southern District of New York has previously stayed a similar VPPA case pending the outcome of Salazar, said Venderbush’s letter motion: “It would be in the interest of the parties, the Court, and the public to do the same here.” Plaintiffs Labernik and Doyle and defendant Augusta National will benefit from a decision in Salazar “clarifying the scope of the VPPA and any new legal standards before beginning to brief a dispositive motion in this matter based on uncertain law,” said the letter motion. The key issues in this case include Article III standing and the VPPA’s statutory definition of "consumer," both of which the parties in Salazar presented to the 2nd Circuit for decision, it said. Oral argument in Salazar was held April 2.

Plaintiff Linda Surrency and defendants Equifax and the National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange (NCTUE) filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02323) n U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa, terminating all claims against Equifax and NCTUE in Surrency’s Fair Credit Reporting Act suit. Surrency’s October complaint (see 2310160035) asserted defendants NCTUE, Equifax, AT&T Mobility, AT&T Services and DirecTV were “plainly deficient” in their investigations of Surrency’s credit report dispute over identity theft. The plaintiff and the AT&T defendants, including DirecTV, filed a notice of settlement last month (see 2405200015).

T-Mobile lacks sufficient knowledge or information on which to “form a belief as to the truth of certain allegations” in plaintiff Jane Doe’s first amended negligence complaint, said T-Mobile’s answer Monday (docket 4:23-cv-05166) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. Doe alleges that a T-Mobile employee downloaded, without her consent, private images and videos from a cellphone she traded in at a T-Mobile store in a Washington mall (see 2403130056). T-Mobile also lacks “specific knowledge of actions” taken by Doe or other persons or entities who may have contributed to or caused Doe’s alleged damages, said its answer. Until T-Mobile “avails itself of its right to discovery,” it can’t be determined whether any of its 17 affirmative defenses “will be asserted at trial,” it said. “T-Mobile pleads these defenses to preserve its right to assert these defenses and to avoid waiver of any defenses,” it said. T-Mobile reserves the right to add defenses “that it deems necessary to its defense during or upon the conclusion of investigation and discovery,” and to amend its answer accordingly, it said.

A ChatGPT user who brought an Electronic Communications Privacy Act class action Feb. 27 against OpenAI and Microsoft, has voluntarily dismissed her claims without prejudice and without fees or costs to any party, said her notice Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-1190) in U.S. District Court for Northern California. Identified only as A.S., the plaintiff alleged that OpenAI and Microsoft use stolen private information, including personally identifiable information, from hundreds of millions of internet users, including children of all ages, without their informed consent or knowledge to develop and train their AI products.

With Reuters having filed a motion May 24 to dismiss Zhizhi Xu’s putative California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) class action (see 2405280015), Rule 15(a)(l)(B) gives Xu 21 days to amend the complaint once “as a matter of course,” said an order signed Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02466) by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer for Southern New York in Manhattan. Xu accordingly has until June 14 to file any amended complaint, and no further opportunities to amend “will ordinarily be granted,” said the order. If Xu does amend, Reuters will have until July 8 to file an answer or a new motion to dismiss, it said. Reuters alternatively can submit a letter to the court stating that it will rely on the previously filed motion to dismiss, it said. If no amended complaint is filed, Xu will have until June 14 to serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss, with Reuters’ reply, if any, due by June 21, said the order. Xu’s April 1 class action alleges that three tracking pixels on the Reuters website unlawfully collect visitors' IP addresses in violation of the CIPA (see 2404020024). Reuters’ motion to dismiss called the plaintiff’s complaint “the epitome of a nuisance suit.”

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts in Boston granted plaintiff Stephen Gilmore and the Bank of Canton’s joint motion to stay proceedings in Gilmore v. The Bank of Canton, said her text-only order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-12711). The parties agreed in principle Tuesday to resolve all of Gilmore's claims vs. the bank involving the May 2023 Progress Software MOVEit data breach, said their notice of settlement (docket 3083) and joint motion to stay proceedings Tuesday in the case, part of in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The parties are working to finalize the agreement, without prejudice, and reserving their rights to respective claims, defenses and rights, said the notice.

Plaintiff Zhizhi Xu’s putative class action alleging that Reuters violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is a “copycat” of at least six other complaints Xu’s counsel filed in the Southern District of New York. This, according to Reuters' memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:24-cv-02466) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its motion to dismiss. Xu alleges that three tracking pixels on the Reuters website collect visitors' IP addresses in violation of the CIPA (see 2404020024|). But Xu’s complaint is “the epitome of a nuisance suit,” the memorandum said, adding that Xu's counsel has filed similar suits outside New York during the last several months. “Flagrantly misinterpreting” a narrow California federal district court decision “far beyond its factual confines,” Xu seeks to upend internet commerce “by criminalizing the way the internet functions,” it said. Xu urges the court to hold Reuters liable under California’s penal code for thousands of dollars in statutory damages “to each and any California resident who voluntarily decides to click on Reuters.com," it said. That’s solely because Reuters allegedly collects visitors’ IP addresses, it said. But that data is “voluntarily and necessarily provided to Reuters” so that visitors’ browsers can properly display the website, it said. Not only did the California legislature not intend for the CIPA to be such a “blank check,” but a fair reading of the text can’t “bear such an interpretation either,” it said. Reuters asks for a dismissal of the class action with prejudice because it fails to include allegations demonstrating that Xu “has the necessary standing to bring his complaint” and his single-count class action “otherwise fails to state a claim as a matter of law.”

Linda Surrency and defendants AT&T and DirecTV resolved claims in a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit, said a Friday notice of settlement (docket 8:23-cv-02323) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. The parties are in the process of finalizing terms and expect to submit dismissal papers to the court within 45 days, said the notice. The parties ask that the court vacate all deadlines in the matter. Surrency reached a settlement with defendants Experian and the National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange (NCTUE) in April (see 2404100026). Her October complaint (see 2310160035) alleged that AT&T, Equifax and the NCTUE were “plainly deficient” in their investigations of Surrency’s credit reporting dispute over identity theft.

U.S. District Judge for Massachusetts Allison Burroughs granted Johns Hopkins defendants’ motion to stay proceedings in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, said her text-only order (docket 3083) Monday in Boston. Johns Hopkins University and Johns Hopkins Health System requested in a joint motion Friday that seven cases in the multidistrict litigation be stayed pending resolution of settlement proceedings in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. In a Jan. 3 court-ordered mediation, the parties to the circuit court actions negotiated a classwide settlement that, if approved, would resolve the claims pending against Johns Hopkins in the seven federal court cases, said the motion. That settlement was consummated March 27, and plaintiffs’ counsel in the Baltimore City cases filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval April 4. The parties agree that the most efficient path forward is to stay the Johns Hopkins cases in the MDL pending resolution of the request for class settlement approval pending in the Baltimore City Circuit Court, it said. The stay would preserve Johns Hopkins’ ability to litigate threshold issues such as the Class Action Fairness Act and standing in the event that the circuit court doesn’t approve the settlement, the motion said. Following the resolution of the class settlement request, the parties will confer and provide the court with a proposal for the Johns Hopkins cases in the MDL. To date, 10 class actions have been filed against Johns Hopkins, seven in federal court and three in the Baltimore City court; an 11th case was recently dismissed, said the motion. The cases involve Progress Software's May 2023 data breach in MOVEit file-transfer software.

Instead of heeding the court’s “admonitions” in two previous attempts to plead their claims over the use of AirTags as a stalking device, the dozens of plaintiffs filed a 142-page second amended complaint reasserting many of the “same defective claims” against Apple, said Apple’s motion to dismiss Friday (docket 3:22-cv-07668) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. As a result, all claims the court dismissed “in the last go round” fail again because the plaintiffs’ injuries weren’t “proximately caused by Apple,” it said. The plaintiffs also fail to state an unjust enrichment claim, it said. The plaintiffs don’t allege that they conferred a benefit onto Apple or that Apple obtained such a benefit through fraud, mistake, or coercion, it said. Apple understands from the court’s prior ruling that some plaintiffs and some claims will proceed, it said. But the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint does’t help the court narrow this case, it said. So once again, Apple asks the court to dismiss the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims, it said.