U.S. District Judge Regina Rodriguez for Colorado ordered 10 privacy cases against Dish Network to be consolidated under Dish Network Security Incident Litigation. The cases involve “substantially similar factual and legal questions surrounding Dish’s alleged failure" to adequately safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the plaintiffs, and each of these actions will involve substantially similar discovery and motion practice, said the Wednesday order (docket 1:23-cv-01168) in Denver. Consolidation will promote “judicial economy and orderly case management." The consent of the parties isn’t required for consolidation, Rodriguez said. Dish doesn’t oppose consolidation and takes no position on the appointment of interim counsel. Motions for consolidation should be granted but denied without prejudice regarding appointment of interim class counsel, Rodriguez said. Group movants seek appointment of Mason Barney of Siri & Glimstad, Bryan Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne and Scott Cole of Cole & Van Note as interim co-lead class counsel. The court declined to make an interim counsel appointment now to allow all interested parties to fully submit and brief their positions on the issue of interim class counsel and facilitate resolution of the matter on a consolidated and comprehensive record, the order said. The consolidated cases are Owen-Brooks v. Dish Network (docket 1:23-cv-01168), Clark v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01315), Cruse v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01319, Turley v. Dish, (docket 1:23-cv-01346), Ellerbrock v. Dish (docket 1:23cv-01372); Jenkins v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01387); Cardenas v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01405), Garcia v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01458), Vest v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01462) and Fulmore v. Dish (docket 1:23-cv-01556).

DLA Piper, counsel for Progress Software Corp. and Ipswitch, filed a notice of related actions Wednesday in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (docket 3083). The Landi v. Progress Software Corp. class action (docket 3:23-cv-03839), in U.S. District Court for Northern California claims negligence and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, Unfair Competition Law and Customer Records Act. In Harris v. Progress, plaintiff Patricia Harris asserts claims (docket (docket 1:23-cv-05028)) of negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy. Lockridge Grindal, counsel for plaintiff Glen Williams, notified the JPML of his July 27 related action (docket 0:23-cv-02238) pending in U.S. District Court for Minnesota. Williams charges PSC with negligence, violation of California’s Consumer Privacy and Customer Records acts, its Unfair Competition Law, state privacy statute, breach of implied contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Mullen Coughlin, counsel for defendant Pension Benefit Information, notified the JPML of a class action (docket 0:23-cv-02240) filed by plaintiff Scott Glabb against it in U.S. District Court for Minnesota July 27, alleging negligence, violation of California’s Consumer Privacy and Customer Records acts, its Unfair Competition Law and right to privacy under the state’s constitution, plus breach of implied contract.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman for Northern Illinois in Chicago scheduled an in-person status hearing Oct. 2 at 9:45 a.m. CDT in the class action in which three CapCut users allege the ByteDance videoediting app “facilitates” the unlawful collection “of a wide range of private information from users, including their biometric information” (see 2307300001), said a docket entry notification Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04953]). Coleman ordered the parties to meet and discuss the status of the case, and to file a joint status report at least three days before the Oct. 2 hearing, said the notification.

Progress Software seeks to stay the proceedings in a negligence lawsuit pending a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on transfer proceedings in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (docket 3083), said its unopposed motion Tuesday (docket 0:23-cv-02028) in U.S. District Court for Minnesota. Plaintiff Bruce Bailey and defendant Pension Benefit Information (PBI) don’t oppose the motion. Bailey, the named plaintiff in Bailey v. Progress Software Corp. and PBI, moved the JPML last month (see 2307120053) to transfer and centralize nine related actions to the Minnesota court. The related actions allege Progress Software bears responsibility for a May 28 data breach in which data of over 15 million people was stolen as part of a security breach by Russian ransomware group CL0P. As of Tuesday, 34 similar actions have begun in nine U.S. district courts and one state court, said the motion. The parties have conferred about the transfer motion and anticipate they independently will support centralization of the proceedings under Section 1407, although Progress and PBI believe the actions should be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, said the motion. Progress asked the Minnesota court to stay the action until at least 30 days after entry of the JPML’s final determination of the transfer motion.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros for Northern California in San Francisco scheduled a telephonic pre-settlement conference Aug. 31 at 10:30 a.m. PDT in Meta’s data-scraping court fight against Voyager Labs, said a text-only docket entry Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00154). Cisneros was assigned the case Monday for settlement purposes. Meta alleges Voyager “built a business” on developing surveillance software that improperly relies on fake accounts to scrape data from Facebook and Instagram through “unauthorized, automated means” (see 2307050001). Voyager moved in April to dismiss Meta’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted (see 2304140003).

DLA Piper, counsel for Progress Software and Ipswitch, filed a notice of related action (docket 3083) Monday in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The Diana White v. Pension Benefit Information class action (docket 0:23-cv-2254), filed in U.S. District Court for Minnesota Friday, asserts claims of negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy and breach of fiduciary duty due to the late May data breach involving MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud software.

Plaintiff Jane Doe dismissed voluntarily all claims against Hey Favor, with prejudice, in a privacy lawsuit against the women's healthcare platform, said her Monday notice of dismissal (docket 3:23-cv-00059) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. In a June motion to lift the stay of proceedings in the privacy case, Doe said dismissing Hey Favor, which filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, means "the action will exist against the advertising and analytics defendants“ alone as if Plaintiff never named Favor (see 2306270030). Doe's suit alleged Hey Favor knowingly and intentionally sent personally identifiable information about her medical history to Meta, TikTok and analytics company FullStory. Doe also dismissed with prejudice her seventh claim for relief alleging FullStory, Meta Platforms, TikTok and ByteDance (collectively advertising and analytics defendants) aided and abetted Favor’s violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. To the extent that Doe brought a claim against both Favor and the advertising and analytics defendants, that claim is dismissed only as to the allegations against Favor, said the notice. Also Monday, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint removing the allegations 1) that Hey Favor “knowingly and intentionally disclosed and allowed” the advertising and analytics defendants to “intercept users’ health data and other highly sensitive information; and 2) that Favor disclosed and allowed third parties to intercept at least users’ prescription information. The amended complaint reads: “Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, FullStory’s, Meta’s, and TikTok’s (collectively “Defendants”) technology was intentionally incorporated on Favor’s Platform, through which Defendants intercepted users’ health data and other highly sensitive information."

Dynatrace is "aware" of the privacy class action filed against the company Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston (see 2307270025), "and believes it is without merit,” emailed a spokesperson Friday. Dynatrace “at this time" intends to "vigorously defend itself against these allegations,” said the spokesperson. Plaintiffs Alyssa Gary and Marla Defoort allege in their class action that Dynatrace's session replay spyware “wiretaps” the electronic communications of “thousands” of website visitors, secretly observing and recording their “keystrokes, mouse clicks, data entry, and other electronic communications, in real time.” The plaintiffs allege Dynatrace software intercepted their interactions with the Ulta Beauty website in December without their consent.

The World Wildlife Fund removed to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles from California Superior Court a June 21 complaint in which plaintiff Sonya Valenzuela alleges WWF invaded her privacy with its use of FullContact software “to record and deanonymize” internet protocol addresses when she used WWF’s website chat function, said its notice of removal Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-06112). Valenzuela’s lawsuit is “a near duplicate of other complaints” filed by her lawyer, Scott Ferrell of Pacific Trial Attorneys, said the notice. It alleges “nothing more than generalized conclusory assertions of an invasion of privacy,” it said. Valenzuela alleges WWF’s use of the FullContact software violates the California Unauthorized Access to Computer Data Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, it said. She also brings common law and constitutional claims for invasion of privacy, it said: “WWF believes these claims are meritless.” Valenzuela’s complaint alleges she visited WWF’s website this spring, and that without her knowledge or consent, WWF used the FullContact code to access her device to “extract personal data” and expose her identity. WWF’s “actions are offensive and unlawful and must be stopped,” said the complaint.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hoge’s opposition brief to Southern Theatres’ motion to dismiss a Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) lawsuit offered no convincing answers to the chain’s three reasons for dismissal for failure to state a claim, the defendant said Wednesday in a reply brief (docket 1:23-cv-00346) in U.S. District Court for North Carolina Middle District. Hoge alleges Southern Theatres shared his private video viewing information without consent, and “partnered with Facebook” to collect personally identifiable information (PII) each time Hoge viewed a video or bought a ticket on Southern’s websites. In its June motion to dismiss (see 2306230052), the theater chain said the VPPA applies to “video tape service providers,” not movie theaters, while Hoge argued Congress’ definition of video tape service providers should be expanded based on the development of new technologies such as streaming. “This is beside the point -- movies are shown in theaters today in much the same way as they were in 1988, when Congress omitted them from the statute,” said the defendant’s reply brief. Southern argued the information it allegedly disclosed doesn’t constitute PII as defined in the VPPA. “A Facebook ID is a digital code that, on its own, does not identify a specific individual to an ordinary recipient,” said the brief, saying Hoge relies “only on non-binding district court opinions that are contradicted by more persuasive authority from multiple appellate courts.” Also, Hoge “fails to plausibly allege” that if the theater chain did disclose any PII, it knowingly did so. The complaint offers “only a threadbare recital of this element, and this superficial allegation does not withstand scrutiny,” said the reply. Hoge conceded that information allegedly disclosed to Facebook “was not within Southern Theatres’ control, contradicting his assertion that it was knowingly disclosed,” it said. The VPPA suit should be dismissed with prejudice, it said.