The petition before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the 16 class actions arising from T-Mobile’s most recent data breach (see 2303270010) “has been fully briefed,” said a joint status report Wednesday in one of those cases, Lopez v. T-Mobile (docket 1:23-cv-01263), in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The parties anticipate the matter will be scheduled for “consideration and/or oral argument” at the JPML’s next hearing session, “which will likely take place at the end of May, said the report. The parties propose continuing the stay in Lopez pending a JPML ruling on the petition and providing a further status update to the court by June 15, it said.

The parties in the Samsung data breach multidistrict litigation consolidated under U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden will submit to her within 14 days a proposed scheduling order with dates through summary judgment, said a proposed case management order Wednesday (docket 1:23-md-03055). The scheduling order will include the timing within which the plaintiffs plan to make a “settlement demand,” it said. The parties are further directed to meet and confer on the form and timing of fact sheets and the timing and scope of discovery and be prepared to discuss both at the next case management conference May 4 at 9:30 am, it said. Before the May 4 conference, the parties will identify and propose two potential special masters for O’Hearn’s consideration, said the proposed scheduling order. If the parties can’t agree, the plaintiffs and defendant Samsung will each submit two special masters for O’Hearn’s consideration, it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson for Northern California in Oakland will convene a discovery videoconference Monday at 8:30 a.m. PDT in the multidistrict litigation that seeks to hold social media companies accountable for the mental health crisis afflicting adolescents and teenagers, said a clerk’s text-only notice Wednesday (docket 4:22-md-3047). More than 130 cases now comprise the personal injury social media MDL consolidated under U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (see 2303290040).

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon for Southern New York signed a memo endorsement Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-07389) giving the parties in the fraud litigation against Roomster until May 16 to resolve their discovery disputes, or she will refer the case to a magistrate judge to help with the resolution. The FTC and attorneys general of California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts and New York sued the room-finding app and co-founders John Shriber and Roman Zaks in August for false advertising, deceptive trade practices, including fake reviews, and fraudulent businesses, among other claims (see 2302030034). The plaintiffs accused Roomster in a joint status update Tuesday of delaying or slow-walking discovery, which Roomster denied (see 2304050011). It blamed its slow pace of discovery responses on its “already-limited resources,” but said it’s working with a third-party vendor to allay the plaintiffs’ concerns, said the update.

The FTC and five plaintiff states are engaged in settlement talks with defendant Roomster, but “no resolution has been reached,” said a joint status update Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-07389) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. The FTC and attorneys general of California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts and New York sued the room-finding app and co-founders John Shriber and Roman Zaks in August for false advertising, deceptive trade practices, including fake reviews, and fraudulent businesses, among other claims (see 2302030034). With settlement talks ongoing, the plaintiffs “have continued to pursue discovery,” but Roomster hasn’t served any document requests “in an effort to prioritize settlement negotiations,” said the status update. The plaintiffs worry Roomster “may have spoliated evidence,” it’s giving them “incomplete and inaccurate information,” and it’s delaying discovery, which Roomster denies, it said. The next status update will be May 16, it said.

A T-Mobile employee unlawfully transferred a customer’s cellphone number to another device in April 2022, resulting in unauthorized access to his bank account, alleged pro se plaintiff Samuel Whatley of Charleston, South Carolina, in a complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-1339) against the carrier in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Charleston. Whatley said the unlawful transfer, at a T-Mobile store in Traveler’s Rest, South Carolina, led to the compromise of his entire bank account, with funds transferred via Zelle. Authorities, contacted the following day, were “unsuccessful in apprehending the suspect” after police were given the international mobile equipment identity of the swapped SIM card and evidence of the unlawful transfers, said the complaint. Whatley alleges the T-Mobile employee violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act and 18 USC 2511. He seeks compensation for the unlawful transfer of electronic communications leading to the unauthorized access of his bank account.

The Feb. 13 class action alleging publisher Macmillan negligently let cybercriminals infiltrate the personally identifiable information of more than 19,000 current and former employees (see 2302140045) added two named plaintiffs who are asserting harms from the June 16 data breach, said the amended complaint Monday (docket 1:23-cv-01217) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. The original plaintiff, Victoria Batchelor, lives in Tulsa, and wasn’t notified of the breach until Dec. 1, it said. She worked for Macmillan for five years, but left the company six years ago, it said. A new second plaintiff, New York resident Diana Griffin, worked for Macmillan for two years but also left there about six years ago, and she didn’t learn about the breach until January, it said. The third plaintiff is another New Yorker, Jaime Ariza, who left Macmillan two years ago after working there 12 years, it said. Ariza also didn’t know about the breach until Macmillan notified him Dec. 1, the complaint said. Since the breach, he has suffered from “an increasing flood” of spam texts, phone calls and emails, and a fraudster tried to open a Chase bank account in his name, it said. All the plaintiffs allege they suffer from the risk of “imminent and impending injury arising from the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity theft.”

T-Mobile has failed in its “duties and obligations” to safeguard the personally identifiable information of its 111.8 million subscribers by enabling the proliferation of SIM swaps by third-party bad actors, said the Michigan First Credit Union in its opposition Friday (docket 2:22-cv-13159) to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss its complaint (see 2303030022). “T-Mobile’s conduct not only harms its subscribers, but it also harms the financial institutions of those subscribers,” said Michigan First. “As a result of T-Mobile’s failures, third parties are enabled to perform unauthorized transactions on the financial accounts of its subscribers,” it said. Those subscribers then challenge these unauthorized transactions with their financial institutions and the financial institutions, when required to do so by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, replace the funds of the subscriber that were wrongfully transferred by the third party, it said. “The financial institutions are completely without fault in these circumstances but are nonetheless required to replace the funds,” it said. Michigan First has been required to replace its members’ funds “on multiple occasions” after they were victimized in a T-Mobile SIM swap, said the credit union. Michigan First incurred 2022 damages of at least $7.6 million as a result of unauthorized SIM swaps under T-Mobile's watch, it said.

The court should grant defendant AT&T’s unopposed motion to stay discovery and the joint proposal deadline pending its motion to dismiss EDN Global’s fraud claim against it, said the carrier’s Friday motion (docket 3:23-cv-00355) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. EDN sued AT&T in July in Superior Court of Fulton County in Georgia, with allegations including tortious interference with contract and business relations, fraud, trade secrets theft, theft by deception and taking, conversion, Georgia racketeering, and breach of fiduciary duty and confidential relationship, said the complaint. AT&T moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and to transfer the venue, which plaintiffs opposed. On Feb. 14, U.S. District Court Judge J.P. Boulee of Northern Georgia granted AT&T a motion to transfer. Boulee didn’t rule on AT&T’s motion to dismiss; the motion remains pending. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants met March 24 to discuss whether the case could be settled, said the motion, saying the parties agreed to stay discovery and a joint proposal deadline until resolution of the motion to dismiss.

The U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis should dismiss plaintiff Elizabeth Steines’ fraud class action for failure to allege “any deception or broken promise by Apple,” said Apple’s memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-03099) in support of its motion to dismiss. Steines alleges Apple’s decision not to package a power adapter with series 12 through 14 iPhones is a breach of contract and a breach of implied warranty, plus a violation of Illinois consumer fraud laws (see 2212300037). But Apple responded that her complaint is based on her “unreasonable expectation that the iPhone she bought from a third-party seller would include a power adapter to plug into the wall,” despite the “clear statement on the box” the power adapter is sold separately, said the memorandum. “Federal court is not the place” for Steines “to express a personal belief that Apple should have included a power adapter in the box with every iPhone, rather than letting customers choose to use an old power adapter, buy one separately, or not use one at all,” said Apple. Steines may disagree with Apple’s decision to stop including a power adapter with each new iPhone, “and prefer earlier times when Apple did include a power adapter,” it said. But her disagreement or disappointment doesn't amount “to a viable claim against Apple,” it said. Apple didn’t falsely represent that a power adapter would be included with her iPhone, it said. “In fact, Apple conspicuously disclosed on the box” that a charging cable was included, but a power adapter was sold separately, it said. It also would have been “instantaneously obvious” to Steines upon opening the box that the iPhone was accompanied by a USB-C compatible charging cable but not a power adapter to plug into the wall, “yet she still accepted the device and does not allege she unsuccessfully tried to return it for a refund.”