Plaintiff Kahleia Dillon and defendant TransUnion filed a joint motion Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01662) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego to dismiss without prejudice Dillon’s privacy class action against the consumer credit reporting agency. Dillon sued TransUnion Oct. 26 to put an end to its allegedly unlawful use, examination and recording of consumers’ biometric voice prints without their express written consent. She alleged that TransUnion uses a system that enables it to examine the voice of anyone who calls it to determine the truth or falsity of the callers’ statements, and that the conduct violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act.

A class action filed in U.S. District Court for Central Illinois in Peoria Tuesday seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against Henkel from collecting users’ facial geometry in its virtual try-on feature for hair care products, said the privacy complaint (docket 1:23-cv-1015). Plaintiff Sarah Watkins of Peoria alleged Henkel’s Schwarzkopf brand collects users’ facial geometry data with its virtual try-on feature, without their prior consent, a violation of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which makes them at “heightened risk for identity theft.” Visitors to the Schwarzkopf website who use the feature enable their computer webcam or phone camera to take a photo to be used by Schwarzkopf, which collects, “unbeknownst to the website user,” detailed and sensitive biometric identifiers and information, including “complete facial scans,” alleged the complaint. “It does this without first obtaining their consent, or informing them that this data is being collected.” In violation of BIPA, Schwarzkopf “does not provide users with a schedule setting out the length of time during which their biometric information or biometric identifiers will be collected, stored, used or will be destroyed,” said the complaint. Though the defendant provides a link to its North American privacy policy, the policy doesn’t inform users how their facial geometry is collected, used or retained in order for the try-on feature to operate, said the plaintiff, saying biometric identifiers are protected by BIPA. Schwarzkopf lacks a publicly available written policy establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers obtained from consumers, as required by BIPA, the complaint said. In addition to an injunction preventing further collection of biometric identifiers without written release, plus a written policy governing retention and deletion of biometric data, the class seeks $1,000 per negligent violation, $5,000 per willful violation, or actual damages to be determined by the court or jury at trial.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated healthcare litigation against the Meta Pixel tracking tool agree with Meta’s request to relate the two new Pixel tax filing website class actions to the healthcare cases, they told the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in a new filing Thursday (docket 3:22-cv-3580). Two days earlier, the tax-filing plaintiffs said they oppose Meta’s request to relate because the two bodies of litigation “are very different” (see 2301110038). The healthcare plaintiffs’ only objection is that they think it's “procedurally improper to address consolidation in a motion to relate and that consolidation should be addressed separately” after the court issues a related case order, they said. They worry “about the specifics of any consolidation and how it might impact the discovery and schedule” for the consolidated healthcare case, they said. As Meta’s motion to relate concedes, the consolidated healthcare case is “well ahead” of the tax-filing cases, and “there is no reason that discovery should be delayed here,” said the healthcare plaintiffs. “Those and other concerns with consolidation are more appropriate to address in a consolidation-specific motion.” The cases have differences, but the healthcare plaintiffs agree with Meta they should be related, they said. Both involve the same defendant, technology and agreements with Meta, including its cookies and data policies, they said. “They also allege many of the same claims,” including violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act, they said. Though the litigation doesn't “overlap completely,” it’s likely there will be “an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges, given that they center around the same technology,” said the healthcare plaintiffs. Relating the tax cases to the healthcare action “will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results,” they said. They reserve their right to address whether the tax cases should be consolidated after the court issues a related case order, they said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set a Jan. 31 dial-in mediation assessment conference to “explore settlement potential” in the appeal of six Chrome users who seek to reverse a Dec. 12 order granting Google summary judgment in a Chrome privacy case, said a clerk’s order Tuesday (docket 22-16993). The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect, said the order. The plaintiff-appellants’ opening brief is due April 6, and Google’s answering brief is due May 8. The appellants allege Google improperly collects the personal information of users who opt not to “sync” their browsers to their Google accounts (see 2212290037).

ESPN and a streaming customer suing it for alleged Video Privacy Protection Act violations (see 2210260008) clashed over ESPN efforts to have the suit handled in arbitration. Plaintiff Nate Swartz said Tuesday in opposition to ESPN's motion to compel arbitration (docket 1:22-cv-01523) that by having no recollection of ever agreeing to arbitration when signing up for the service and by not manifesting any intention to be bound by an arbitration agreement, no valid arbitration agreement exists. Swartz, a Pennsylvania resident, told the U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Harisburg that he didn't know the subscriber agreement for his 2021 subscription to a bundle of Disney streaming services constituted an agreement for ESPN+ as well, especially since he had been an ESPN video streaming subscriber since 2017. In its Dec. 12 brief in support of its motion to compel,ESPN said Swartz agreed to the Disney+ and ESPN+ subscription agreements, which include a "prominent" binding arbitration and class action waiver protection. ESPN said the plaintiff got "a clear and conspicuous notice" about disclosures when clicking on the subscription agreement.

Meta wants U.S. District Judge William Orrick for Northern California in San Francisco to consider adding two more cases to the seven Pixel healthcare privacy class actions already consolidated under him, said its administrative motion to relate Monday (docket 3:22-cv-03580). The cases are John Doe & Jane Doe v. Meta (docket 3:22-cv-07557) filed Dec. 1 and Katrina Calderon v. Meta (docket 5:22-cv-09149), filed Dec. 29, both in the Northern California district, said Meta. Plaintiffs in the two cases object to the motion to relate, but plaintiffs in the consolidated action don't oppose it, said the company. The consolidated action plaintiffs allege their healthcare providers installed the Pixel tool on their patient portal websites, and Meta received sensitive health information about them. The two nonconsolidated cases allege major online tax filing services, including H&R Block, TaxAct and TaxSlayer, installed the Pixel tool on their websites, giving Meta access to sensitive financial information about them. They claim this information includes tax filers’ names, email addresses, tax-filing status, refund amounts, dependents’ names and dependents’ college scholarship amounts. Though there are “meaningful differences” between the consolidated action and the two nonconsolidated cases, all “relate to the same technology,” plus they include “overlapping factual allegations and bring similar legal claims,” said Meta. “These similarities justify relation for the purposes of discovery.”

A Video Privacy Protection Act suit alleging AMC Networks shared streaming customers' personal information with Facebook (see 2210260008) is being dropped, per a motion to dismiss (docket 1:22-cv-04857) plaintiff Daineira Mangum filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs Lauren Hughes and “Jane Doe” agreed with Apple in a stipulation Friday (docket 5:22-cv-07668) to a 60-day extension for Apple to respond to their class action alleging AirTags violate privacy laws. The new deadline is March 13. The product liability complaint, filed Dec. 5 in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose, alleges AirTags violate California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and New York General Business Law (see 2212120023). The suit also accuses Apple of negligence, “intrusion-upon-seclusion” and unjust enrichment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals docketed the appeal Dec. 27 (docket 22-16993) of six Chrome users who seek to reverse a Dec. 12 order granting Google summary judgment in a class action that alleges Google improperly collects the personal information of users who opt not to “sync” their browsers to their Google accounts. The appellants’ mediation questionnaire is due Tuesday, and April 6 is the deadline for their opening brief, said a time schedule order. Google’s answering brief is due May 8, said the order. When it was undisputed at trial that all the plaintiffs consented to the data collection when they opened their Google accounts, they turned to their alternative argument that the consent “was not effective or legally sufficient,” said U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California in her order (docket 4:20-cv-05146) granting Google summary judgment. The court disagreed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Joi Peake for Middle North Carolina in Winston-Salem signed an order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-00727) severing the Pixel privacy claims of plaintiffs Kim Naugle and Afrika Williams against Mega and transferring them for consolidation with seven similar cases (docket 3:22-cv-03580) under U.S. District Judge William Orrick for Northern California in San Francisco. All the cases allege Meta uses the Pixel tracking tool to receive the health information of millions of Facebook users in the U.S. The remaining Pixel claims that Naugle and Williams assert against Duke University Health System and WakeMed are not transferred, said Peake’s order.