Meta filed a motion in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to consider whether the Alistair Stewart v. Advocate Aurora Health class action (docket 3:23-cv-00900) should be related to Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation (3:22-cv-3580). The plaintiffs in the Stewart case have no objection to the motion to relate, the motion said. The court has granted motions to consolidate and/or relate 10 cases since October. The Stewart medical privacy action against Advocate and Facebook alleges the companies violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act through the use of the Meta Pixel tracking code. Advocate reported a data breach on Oct. 20.

NetChoice opposes California’s request for a one-month delay to July 20 in the evidentiary hearing on the company’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block the state’s age-appropriate social media design law, AB-2273, from taking effect in July 2024, NetChoice responded Friday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The state said the delay is needed to accommodate the preexisting vacation plans of its two top lawyers, noting postponement is acceptable because the law won’t take effect for more than a year. “But NetChoice’s members are already experiencing irreparable harm because of the actions they must take in anticipation of the enforcement date,” said its opposition. “A prompt decision is needed to redress these harms.” Even though the state can’t enforce AB-2273 until 2024, “the law requires providers to assess the risk that features or services introduced before 2024" will expose minors to harmful content, said NetChoice. “This requirement violates the First Amendment and is already deterring providers from introducing features or services” the state might deem harmful, it said. NetChoice members also “have already spent and continue to spend significant resources on compliance, another form of irreparable harm,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila for Northern California in San Jose used a status conference Thursday to order the parties in the multiple privacy class actions against Apple to confer on the consolidation and leadership motions in the various cases, said his minute entry (docket 5:23-cv-00426). Apple “is relieved from its obligations to respond to individual complaints,” said his entry. Davila scheduled the next in-person status conference for April 27 at 11 a.m. PDT, and set an April 30 deadline for the next joint status report. All the complaints allege Apple hypocritically tries to differentiate itself from competitors with privacy assurances for its iPhone customers but flagrantly engages in tracking their usage even when they disable the tracking functions (see 2302010017).

Educational Credit Management Corp.’s Feb. 1 motion to dismiss plaintiff Cynthia Lepur’s privacy complaint or alternatively to strike her class allegations (see 2302020029) “is suitable for determination on the papers and without need for oral argument,” said U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia for U.S. District Court for Southern California in a text-only order Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00014). “Accordingly, no appearances are required and this motion is deemed submitted,” he said. Lepur alleges ECMC, a student loan servicer, recorded its phone conversations with her without her consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (see 2301050046). ECMC argues Lepur’s “contingency lawsuit” is her attempt to “nullify” the adverse outcome in a related class action, Reyes (Mahboob) v. ECMC, in which she’s a co-plaintiff.

Attorneys for plaintiffs Lauren Hughes and “Jane Doe” and for defendant Apple seek the approval of the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to stay the AirTags privacy class action “to seek an alternative means of resolving the dispute without the need to consume scarce judicial resources,” said their stipulation Monday (docket 3:22-cv-07668). The parties ask that all proceedings be stayed and all deadlines deferred pending the outcome of their efforts “to resolve the dispute through alternative means,” it said. They alternatively ask that all proceedings be stayed and all deadlines deferred until Sept. 5, it said, which would be nine months to the day after the class action was filed. Absent the stay, March 15 is Apple’s deadline to answer the complaint. The AirTag location transmitter is “the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers,” alleges the class action brought against Apple by Hughes of Travis County, Texas, and Doe of Brooklyn, New York, who claim to be victims of AirTag stalking (see 2212120023).

U.S. District Judge William Orrick for Northern California in San Francisco signed an order Tuesday reassigning himself another case (docket 3:22-cv-03580), Murphy v. Meta Platforms, and relating it to the consolidated healthcare class action against Meta (see 2302220038). The plaintiffs in the consolidated complaint are Facebook users who allege Meta acquires their confidential information via the Meta Pixel code in violation of federal and state laws.

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Feb. 17 opinion in Cothron v. White Castle System (docket 128004) said a separate claim accrues under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act each time a private entity scans or transmits an individual’s biometric identifier or information in violation the statute, said plaintiff Marcus Baker in a notice of supplemental authority Monday (docket 1:22-cv-06924) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of his BIPA claims against Match Group (see 2212120046). The Illinois high court’s opinion means BIPA “allows for a new and separate accrual of a claim each time a plaintiff uploads a picture entitling the plaintiff to recover $1,000 or $5,000 for each separate BIPA violation,” said Baker’s notice. He submits the decision in support of his argument in his claims against Match Group “that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction limit of small claims court,” he said. Baker alleges Match Group and its affiliated dating websites collect, analyze and use unique biometric identifiers associated with people’s faces in photos uploaded to their apps and websites without disclosing or acknowledging the collection or requesting consent.

Meta supports Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero’s referral to determine relationship of Nancy Murphy et al. v. Meta Platforms (docket 23-cv-00899) to another Meta Pixel Healthcare class action (3:22-cv-3580), said a Sunday filing in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Plaintiffs in Murphy allege healthcare provider Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals installed Meta’s pixel tracking tool on its online patient portal, leading Meta to receive patients’ protected healthcare information in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The plaintiffs agree the case is related to the consolidated action. The court granted a motion to consolidate four related cases in October. Plaintiffs in the consolidated action and in Murphy bring parallel claims against Meta, seeking to represent a class of hospital website and online patient portal users who allege their data was collected through Meta’s pixel tool. Each set of plaintiffs also assert privacy-related claims against Meta.

Plaintiff Cynthia Redd seeks to hold Amazon Web Services liable under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act “merely because she interacted with Wonolo, a non-party who happens to use AWS’s cloud-based services to provide its own services,” said AWS’s reply Friday (docket 1:22-cv-06779) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois to Redd’s opposition to AWS’s motion to dismiss her claims. Redd also seeks an order remanding her BIPA class action to Cook County Circuit Court, where it originated before AWS removed it Dec. 2 (see 2302130041). “No court has ever endorsed such a sweeping interpretation of BIPA, and it has no basis in BIPA’s text or purpose,” said the AWS reply. “Redd’s novel attempt to hold AWS liable for providing back-end cloud services to a third party suffers from three fatal legal flaws, none of which her opposition brief can explain away,” it said. AWS says Redd didn’t allege facts or cite evidence showing AWS is subject to this court’s “personal jurisdiction,” it said. She also doesn’t “adequately allege the basic elements of her claims,” it said. Even if AWS is subject to BIPA in the context of Redd’s claims -- it’s not -- AWS “fulfilled any duties it may have under the law by contractually requiring its customers, including Wonolo, to comply with BIPA’s requirements,” it said.

Microsoft “expressly preserves” any and all defenses available against pro se plaintiff Michele Hondros’ allegations that Microsoft and Alphabet are conducting unlawful surveillance and eavesdropping through her computer and Android phone, said Microsoft’s notice Friday (docket 4:23-cv-00799) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston of the complaint's removal from 11th Judicial District Court of Harris County. The Houston resident discovered a “cyber intrusion” on her PC May 29, and her phone showed it was infected with a virus about two months later, said her Nov. 15 complaint. She alleges she was sent “alarming, harassing, annoying and unwanted emails” because of the breaches to her PC and phone. The incidents put Hondros under “extreme, and undue duress,” causing her to live “in a constant state of fear,” it said. She seeks $2 million in “actual damages,” plus $500 million in punitive damages.