Comcast’s Xfinity Mobile and the three defendants it alleges are trafficking in unlawfully obtained handsets (see 2211170061) stipulated to a deadline extension to Dec. 20 for the defendants to answer the complaint, said a proposed order Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. XM alleges defendants SellLocked.com, its affiliate Guru Holdings and their owner Jakob Zahara, working with co-conspirators throughout the world, exploit XM’s financial incentives to acquire phones by using various unlawful methods to circumvent the policies and procedures put in place to protect XM and its legitimate customers. They then resell the unlawfully obtained phones for a substantial profit, alleges XM.

The U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles entered a text-only order Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) striking the second amended false-advertising complaint of plaintiff Alison White against Ring and Home Depot for not having been timely filed (see 2212070014). White’s second amended complaint outlined a three-step process supporting her assertion that Ring and Home Depot misrepresented that Ring’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit, when properly configured, will contact the authorities automatically if a home's security system is breached (see 2212060047).

Plaintiff Alison White’s second amended complaint alleging Ring and Home Depot duped consumers with false advertising claims about the security functionality of Ring’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit (see 2212060047) is deficient because the time to file the amended complaint expired and no leave from the court was granted, said a notice Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The court in response may order an amended or corrected document to be filed, or it may order the document stricken, or it may take other action as the court “deems appropriate,” said the notice.

Plaintiff Alison White outlined a three-step process, with images from the Ring website, supporting her assertion in her second amended complaint Monday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles that Ring and retailer Home Depot duped consumers with false advertising claims about the functionality of the Amazon company’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit (see 2211220037). The "misrepresentation" that the properly configured starter kit will contact authorities automatically if a home's security is breached occurs in the third step describing the process for opting in for “24/7 peace of mind,” White contends, quoting the Ring website: “Be it break-ins, smoke, or medical emergencies, professional monitoring gives you around-the-clock protection.” If a customer confirms or can’t answer after an alarm is triggered by the Ring system, “We can request emergency response to your home,” the screen shot from Nov. 22 shows. White expected that when she wouldn’t be able to confirm that an emergency response should be sent, that Ring would automatically contact authorities to dispatch them without her involvement, she said. In each instance, her alarm was set to the “away” setting when triggered, and White was unable to confirm whether to send authorities, she said. “Defendant Ring failed to contact authorities,” she said, and Ring representatives later told her Ring Alarm Pro doesn’t possess that capability. “Reasonable consumers would interpret the statement that, ‘If you confirm or can’t answer, we can request emergency response to your home’ to mean exactly what it says -- Defendant Ring can call authorities when the user is not able to confirm whether authorities should be dispatched or not,” White said. Calling the Ring notice “deceptive,” White said Ring is leading purchasers to believe they can “set it and forget it,” by being enrolled in 24/7 professional monitoring and relying on Ring to dispatch authorities when they can’t respond to a Ring prompt asking whether authorities should be sent, she said. “Defendant Ring made these misrepresentations without any intention of performing the auto-handle service, because it did not possess that functionality in the first place,” she said. Ring and Home Depot maintain that the kit was never advertised promising the functionality White describes, and that she agreed to arbitrate any disputes when she bought the product (see 2211300049).

Plaintiff Kenneth Hasson’s class action alleging Samsung defrauded the public when it let the personally identifiable information of millions of consumers get exposed to hackers was designated for placement in the alternative dispute resolution program of the U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania, said a notice Friday (docket 2:22-cv-01669). Hasson’s Nov. 23 complaint was the most recent in the roughly 14 actions now awaiting consolidation and transfer at the U.S. Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (see 2211250025).

Attorneys for plaintiff Alison White and Amazon agreed that White “voluntarily dismisses” Amazon as a defendant in her false-advertising claims against Amazon’s Ring subsidiary, said a stipulation Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909). That leaves Ring and Home Depot to defend against White’s allegations that Ring falsely tells consumers its $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit will automatically call authorities if their motion sensors have been activated when the kit is used with an internet connection and Ring’s Protect Pro security subscription (see 2210090005). Ring and Home Depot responded that the kit was never advertised promising the functionality White describes, and that she agreed to arbitrate any disputes when she bought the product. All parties that appeared in the case “have consented and agreed to the dismissal” of Amazon, and so the dismissal is effective without a court order, said the stipulation.

The class-action complaint filed Nov. 23 in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh alleging Samsung failed to implement and follow “basic security procedures," resulting in the summertime data breach (see 2211250025), is a “potential tag-along action” in the massive fraud litigation against Samsung, attorneys for the company told the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in a notice (case 3055) Tuesday. The Pittsburgh case “involves common questions of law and fact with the actions currently under consideration for transfer,” said the attorneys, so it “should be considered as a related action for purposes of this pending multidistrict litigation.” Plaintiffs in the roughly 14 class actions are split between wanting the cases transferred to and consolidated in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco and those who want the District of New Jersey in Newark as the venue.

Due to Samsung’s failure to implement and follow “basic security procedures," the personally identifiable information of plaintiff Kenneth Hasson and millions of other consumers “is now in the hands of cyber-criminals,” alleged his class action Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-1669) in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. It's the 14th class action emanating from Samsung’s summertime data breach. Plaintiffs before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are divided into two camps, one favoring consolidating the cases and moving them all to U.S. District Court for Northern California and the other preferring the district for New Jersey. Hasson seeks statutory and punitive damages, plus orders requiring Samsung “to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised” and to adopt “reasonably adequate security practices and safeguards” to prevent future incidents. He also wants the court to order Samsung to give consumers lifetime "identity theft protective services” because they will forever be at “an increased risk of identity theft” due to Samsung’s negligent conduct. Samsung didn’t comment Friday on Hasson’s complaint. It suggested strongly in a recent court filing that its defense would be based on motions to compel arbitration.

U.S. District Judge John Walter for Central California in Los Angeles set a Jan. 9 scheduling conference in plaintiff Allison White’s class action alleging Ring, its Amazon parent and retailer Home Depot duped consumers with false advertising claims about the functionality of Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit (see 2211220037), said Walter’s order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909). A joint status report in the case is due Dec. 29, the order said. White’s claims “must be resolved in arbitration” because she accepted “broad arbitration agreements” when she bought the product, said the defendants’ motion to compel Monday.

Plaintiff Allison White’s false-advertising claims against Ring, its parent Amazon and Home Depot “must be resolved in arbitration,” said the defendants Monday in a motion to compel (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in Los Angeles. White’s Sept. 23 class action alleges the packaging, ads and marketing materials for Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit falsely represent to consumers that the kit, when used with an internet connection and Ring’s Protect Pro security subscription, will automatically call authorities when their motion sensors have been activated (see 2210090005). When purchasing the kit from Home Depot and the Protect Pro subscription from Ring, “White accepted broad arbitration agreements with each defendant,” said the motion. “White seeks to assert a litany of class claims” based on her belief that Ring “would provide a feature Ring never promised,” it said. “White’s claims rest solely on her misinterpretation of a Ring webpage and have no merit.” White “has no basis to avoid her arbitration agreements with Ring and Home Depot,” said the motion. “White, a licensed attorney and real estate broker, cannot show grounds to invalidate her repeated agreements to arbitrate this dispute.”