Law firm Sidney Austin, counsel for Genworth Financial, filed a notice of related action Tuesday (docket 3083) in MOVEit Customer Security Breach Litigation in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Richmond. The Delilah King v. Genworth Financial class action (docket 3:23-cv-00426), filed in Richmond in June, asserts claims of negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and violation of the Virginia Personal Information Breach Notification and Consumer Protection acts as a result of Genworth’s May 29 data breach.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick for Northern California in San Francisco signed an order Friday (docket 3:22-cv-03580) relating Santoro v. Meta Platforms to Doe v. Meta Platforms and putting both cases under his watch. The case involves healthcare providers’ use of the Meta Pixel tracking tool on their websites for targeted advertising. In Santoro v. Tower Health and Meta Platforms, plaintiffs Patrick Santoro and Jessica Landis, both of Pennsylvania, allege Tower Health, without their consent, deployed tracking code on its website that caused their personally identifiable information to be transmitted and used “for multiple commercial purposes.”

U.S. District Judge Karen Spencer Marston for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia granted a motion to consolidate related class actions against Onix Group for a March data breach that affected some 320,000 individuals’ personally identifiable information (see 2307130062), said her order Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-02301). Marston directed plaintiffs in the consolidated class action to file an amended complaint in their data breach litigation no later than Sept. 15, with defendants’ response due by Nov. 17. All cases that have been designated to Meyers v. Onix Group will be consolidated with the lead case, Marston said. The court appointed as co-lead counsel Benjamin Johns of Shub & Johns and Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman. Among plaintiffs’ claims are unfair trade practices and consumer protection law violations, negligence and unjust enrichment.

Four more cases were filed relating to the MOVEit customer data breach litigation, said a notice Thursday (docket No. 3083) from the defendants’ counsel Paulyne Gardner of Mullen Coughlin before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The additional actions involve a pending motion for transfer in the MDL. The four filed cases are Cheng v. Pension Benefit Information (docket 2:23-cv-05481), Collins v. Pension Benefit Information, (docket 0:23-cv-02045), Smith v. Pension Benefit Information (docket 0:23-cv-020550) and Harris v. Pension Benefit Information (docket 0:23-cv-02071). The negligence class actions relate to a May data breach that affected over 700,000 California Public Employees’ Retirement System members (see 2307120053). Over 25 member cases are listed on the docket as related or pending.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Gray Jennings for Western Kentucky, Louisville, directed, sua sponte, plaintiff Frank Raney to show cause why his breach of contract suit against PharMerica shouldn't be consolidated with Lurry v. PharMerica Corp. (docket 3:23-cv-00297), in a Wednesday order (docket 3:23-cv-00353). The deadline for a response is Wednesday. Raney sued PharMerica this month alleging the company's March data breach led to “concrete injuries” sustained by dissemination of his personally identifiable information (see 2307120008).

Six new negligence cases were filed as related cases in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, said a Tuesday notice (docket MDL No. 3083) of related cases at the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Cases are Acevedo v. Illinois Dept. of Innovation and Technology (docket 3:23-cv-03225), Smith v. Progress Software (docket 1:23-cv-11580), Truesdale v. Progress Software (docket 1:23- cv-01913), Reese v. Ipswich (docket 1:23-cv-11610), Pulignani v. Progress Software (docket 1:23-cv-1912) and Ellis v. Pension Benefit Information, (docket 0:23-cv-02139). This month, Bruce Bailey, the named plaintiff in Bailey v. Progress Software and Pension Benefit Information, moved the JPML to transfer and centralize all related actions to U.S. District Court for Minnesota. 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.

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s opposition is due Aug. 14 to the separate motions of defendants Microsoft and Qualtrics to dismiss her healthcare privacy class action, said an order signed Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00718) by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour for Western Washington in Seattle. The defendants’ reply is due Sept. 11, said the order. Doe’s May 15 complaint alleges Microsoft and Qualtrics “repeatedly and systematically” violated patients’ healthcare privacy rights on the Kaiser Permanente website by intercepting and collecting their personal data (see 2305160051). Qualtrics “is just a vendor” that sells “tools” to customers like Kaiser, allowing those customers to collect and analyze “their own website data from their own website," but Qualtrics “does nothing with this data for itself,” said its July 10 motion to dismiss (see 2307120024). Microsoft’s July 13 motion to dismiss said Doe was on notice that Kaiser used third-party software to collect certain website information, and that there was nothing “nefarious” about the tracking technology the website used (see 2307140013).

Two HBO subscribers in California and North Carolina seeking to bring a class-action complaint against HBO for alleged Video Privacy Protection Act violations have dismissed without prejudice their claims, per a notice of voluntary dismissal filed Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (docket 1:22-cv-01942). The court in January granted a defense motion to dismiss class claims and compel arbitration (see 2301300061).

Plaintiff Angela Haynie agreed to consolidate her fraud class action against Onix Group in a response (docket 2:23-cv-02689) to court orders in support of plaintiff Eric Meyers, Donald Owens and Aida Wimbush’s Wednesday motion (see 2307130062) to consolidate the related actions, appoint interim co-lead counsel and set a schedule for filing a consolidated amended complaint in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The fraud complaints against Onix allege the company failed to secure and safeguard about 320,000 individuals’ personally identifiable information and personal health information during a March data breach in its healthcare business. Haynie claims unfair trade practices and consumer protection law violations, negligence and unjust enrichment. She supports the appointment of Benjamin Johns of Shub & Johns and Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman as interim co-lead class counsel.

Plaintiffs whittled down their 362-page amended consolidated complaint (docket 23-md-3055) to 283 pages and chopped the claim count from 97 to 61 in Samsung Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the multidistrict litigation arising from the company’s 2022 data breach. The new complaint identified subclasses as those emanating from 36 states and the District of Columbia. It eliminated claims from the previous complaint emanating from Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. The plaintiffs allege that Samsung failed to properly secure and safeguard their personally identifiable information in its July 2022 data breach, which it didn't disclose until September.