Google removed a pro se fraud case over a disabled Gmail account from District of Columbia Superior Court to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said a Thursday notice of removal (docket 1:23-cv-02013), saying attempting to hold Google liable for disabling an email account is barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Consumer Patricia Baker sued Google June 16, alleging it denied her access to her email account over fraudulent claims her account was involved in content involving a child “being sexually abused or exploited." Baker appealed the action per Google instructions and received a response in March about her YouTube channel instead, saying the channel wouldn’t be put back on YouTube because it violated community guidelines. Baker asserts she wasn’t given details surrounding the alleged email violation or the IP address of the device from which the activity originated. Baker claims breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, plus violations of the First, Fifth and 14th amendments. She seeks $2.5 million in damages. Google didn’t comment.

Though Meta submitted a lengthy opposition to Voyager Labs’ motion to dismiss Meta’s data-scraping complaint (see 2307050001), “very little of that brief addresses the actual grounds for dismissal,” said Voyager’s reply Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00154) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Meta alleges that Voyager, in the six months ended in January, created more than 38,000 fake Facebook accounts, which it used to scrape information from more than 600,000 Facebook users’ viewable profiles, including from more than 30,000 in California, in violation of the platform’s terms of service. Meta’s opposition to the motion to dismiss “assiduously avoids” Voyager’s “primary arguments and on-point caselaw,” said Voyager’s reply. But under the most “analogous precedent” from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and the Northern District of California, Meta’s complaint fails to place Voyager “on notice of the online adhesion contracts it has allegedly breached,” it said. The complaint also fails to allege “any facts from which it could be reasonably inferred” that Voyager “manifested assent to any such contract,” it said. Meta's theory of contract formation “remains entirely unclear, with fundamental, threshold questions left entirely unanswered,” it said.

A second complaint in as many days in the Southern District of New York seeks to enjoin RF and microwave components supplier Wireless Telecom Group (WTG) from holding its planned Aug. 2 shareholder vote to ratify the company’s sale to Maury Microwave on grounds that WTG’s proxy statement for the special meeting is flawed in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (see 2307120067). The June 28 proxy statement, which recommends shareholders vote to approve the transaction, is “materially incomplete and misleading,” alleged shareholder Patrick Plumley’s complaint Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-06029). It’s “imperative that the material information omitted” from the proxy statement is disclosed to WTG shareholders “prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights,” it said. If the transaction is consummated without the proper proxy statement, Plumley will seek damages resulting from the Exchange Act violations. it said. The company didn’t comment.

A fraud class action against Amazon in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York was transferred to U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle, said a Monday clerk’s letter (docket 2:23-cv-01019). In the April 2022 class action, plaintiff Tracy McCarthy of Holbrook, New York, alleged Amazon used a “deceptive practice” for its Audible audiobook service to target its Prime members for enrollment in a subscription to Audible “through a process that is not clear to members.” Many Prime members “have no idea that Audible isn’t free" with their Prime membership and “inadvertently enroll in a paid subscription to Audible,” said the first amended complaint. Other Prime members “have no idea how they were signed up for Audible until they later see Audible’s monthly charges” on their account, it said. Audible membership “is not adequately disclosed to the Prime members,” it said, saying if a Prime member inadvertently enrolls in Audible, she “does not receive any conspicuous materials from Audible by email confirming enrollment and then notifying of monthly charges,” the complaint said. In other instances where Prime members unsubscribe, they “continue to be charged across the various payment methods in the Prime members’ ‘Wallet,’” it said. McCarthy claims violation of New York General Business Law section 349 for deceptive practices in business and section 350 for false advertising, plus unjust enrichment. She seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief directing Amazon and Audible to correct practices; statutory, actual and punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement of unjustly gained monies; and attorneys’ fees and expenses.

T-Mobile removed a SIM card data breach lawsuit from California Superior Court in Los Angeles to U.S. District Court for Western California in Los Angeles, said a Monday notice (docket 2:23-cv-05517) in the federal court. Plaintiff Vahid Chitsazzadeh claimed violations of California’s Business and Professional Code in the May fraud case, alleging T-Mobile didn’t notify him his personal data was compromised in a 2020 data breach. Chitsazzadeh learned “months later” T-Mobile had suffered multiple data breaches before the notice of the SIM incident and that his personal data had been compromised, said the complaint. The carrier notified him in May 2020 that an “unknown number” had used his SIM card but didn’t say explicitly that his personal data had been compromised, “despite their obligation to do so,” said the complaint.

The parties in the multidistrict litigation arising from last summer’s Samsung data breach “engaged in discussion regarding the issues to be raised in Samsung’s anticipated motion to dismiss,” the plaintiffs’ interim lead counsel, James Cecchi of Carella Byrne, wrote U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden in a letter Monday (docket 1:23-md-03055). As part of their July 5 meet and confer, and in writing July 6, “Samsung shared certain purported deficiencies it perceives” with the plaintiffs’ May 22 consolidated amended class action (see 2305240054) with the complaint. The plaintiffs “are currently researching those issues with an eye towards paring down the complaint as efficiently as possible,” it said. The 362-page amended complaint includes previously undisclosed detail on Samsung’s allegedly lax security procedures and the questionable manner in which it disclosed the hack to its customers. The parties scheduled another meet and confer for Wednesday to discuss the plaintiffs’ proposal “for narrowing the issues in the motion to dismiss,” Cecchi told the judge. The parties believe “this will necessitate a short extension of time for the filing of the motion to dismiss,” said his letter. The length of the extension will be better understood once Samsung hears the plaintiffs’ proposal on Wednesday, it said. The judge signed an order Monday appointing retired U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson special master in the MDL (see 2306290014).

A magistrate judge’s June report and recommendation (R&R) doesn't demonstrate a substantial relationship between plaintiff’s claims and an AT&T Wireless customer service agreement containing the arbitration agreement, said plaintiff Al Weiss in a Friday objection (docket 6:23-cv-00120) to the R&R in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Weiss filed his complaint in January, asserting arbitrability of dispute, unenforceability of the AT&T consumer agreement as "unconscionable and contrary to public policy,” a violation of the Communications Act for unauthorized disclosure of customer proprietary network information, negligence, negligent training and supervision and breach of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Weiss claims he suffered damages due to AT&T’s “systemic failure to implement and maintain adequate security measures in violation of AT&T’s statutory obligations and duties under federal law,” allowing a third party to “steal hundreds of thousands of dollars” from him. AT&T filed a motion in March seeking to compel arbitration of Weiss’ claims (see 2303220048). Weiss filed an opposition in April, and in June the magistrate judge entered the R&R, recommending the motion be granted. In his objection, Weiss said the R&R considers only the “related to” language in the arbitration provision, not that a substantial relationship exists between the claims and the arbitration agreement. Weiss objects to the R&R because it recommends compelling arbitration without finding a substantial relationship between plaintiff’s claims and the arbitration agreement, contrary to Florida law. “The R&R failed to address, much less find, the existence of a substantial relationship between Plaintiff’s claims and the Customer Service Agreement,” he said.

The June 26 decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jose Almonte for New Jersey in Newark granting Samsung’s motion to compel plaintiff Cheryl Westerkamp’s claims to arbitration support Samsung’s arguments for also compelling plaintiff Tiffany McDougall's dispute to arbitration, Samsung’s attorneys wrote U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield for Southern New York in Manhattan in a supplemental authority letter Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-00168). Westerkamp sued Samsung, alleging the earbuds she bought caused her a severe allergic reaction. Having found that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that it’s for the arbitrator to determine whether Westerkamp’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the court “finds it appropriate” to grant Samsung’s motion to compel arbitration, said Almonte’s order. McDougall alleges Samsung misrepresented the storage capacity of her Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G smartphone, but Samsung asserts “no reasonable consumer” would interpret Samsung’s “truthful” 128-GB representations “as a promise that the device’s hard drive would not contain any OS or pre-installed software” (see 2307070034).

David Schwartz, the lawyer for Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, who face a Dec. 11 jury damages trial for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the 2020 election, opposes the plaintiffs’ two June 22 motions in limine to restrict the evidence the defendants can introduce at trial (see 2306260042), said his separate declarations Friday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Former co-defendants Message Communications and its owner Robert Mahanian settled all claims against them last year before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor, and Wohl and Burkman “signaled that they may try to shift blame from themselves to Message and Mahanian in an attempt to limit their damages,” said one of the plaintiffs’ motions. They seek an order prohibiting Wohl and Burkman from introducing any evidence involving Message and Mahanian at trial. But Marrero should deny that motion and grant the defendants’ request for Mahanian to give witness testimony “because of the relevance of the specter of bias,” said one of Schwartz’s declarations. Schwartz also opposes a second motion to restrict the defendants from cross-examining plaintiff Gene Steinberg about the details of a prior conviction for a nonviolent offense, said the other declaration. Steinberg alleges the trauma he experienced after receiving the robocall from Wohl and Burkman can be attributed to that prior conviction because of the robocall’s warning that law enforcement would come after anyone who has a prior arrest and casts a mail-in ballot, said Schwartz. Steinberg’s experiences are “highly relevant towards damages,” and the “probative value far outweighs the prejudicial value,” he said. “Hearing vaguely about an act from the past” won’t allow the court “to achieve the full story,” he said.

Walmart seeks leave to exceed ordinary page limits when it moves for dismissal by Aug. 11 of the FTC’s June 30 amended complaint (see 2307030001), said its motion Friday (docket 1:22-cv-03372) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The agency alleges Walmart continued to process fraud-induced money transfers at its stores while failing to do enough to warn consumers of the risks and help them make informed choices. Though the FTC’s “basic theory of liability” in the amended complaint remains the same as that “propounded in its original,” the commission added 63 paragraphs of new allegations, “rendering the amended complaint 26 pages longer than the original,” said Walmart’s motion. Rather than asserting two counts against Walmart as it did in its original, the FTC’s amended complaint now asserts four counts -- one claiming a violation of Section 5 of the FTC, and three claiming violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, it said. Walmart contends the FTC’s amended complaint “continues to suffer from several fatal defects that warrant dismissal,” it said. Walmart seeks permission to file briefs of the same length that the court permitted in connection with its initial motion to dismiss, it said. The FTC’s legal theories “continue to be unprecedented,” and it has now added allegations regarding a “litany” of examples of money transfers processed at various Walmart stores across the country “at various points in time,” it said. “The key factual allegations underlying each of these transactions -- including the nature of the alleged scam and Walmart’s alleged involvement -- are different and will therefore implicate distinct lines of argument,” said Walmart. Extending the ordinary page limit “will allow Walmart to address the FTC’s 26 pages of new allegations,” and explain how they don’t overcome “the multiple independent pleading deficiencies identified” in the court’s March 27 order partially dismissing the agency’s allegations, it said. Consistent with the page limits permitted by the court in connection with Walmart’s initial motion to dismiss, Walmart asks the court to increase the page limit to 40 for Walmart’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss, and increase the page limit for Walmart’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss to 20, it said. The FTC doesn’t oppose the motion, it said.