Lifespan Euro Med Spa, a medical spa and salon in Sugar Land, Texas, engages in unsolicited text messaging promoting its products and services, and sends text messages to U.S. consumers after they have opted out of those solicitations, alleged Florida resident Heather Villanueva's Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 5:24-cv-00150) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Ocala. In addition, Lifespan engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures or proper training of its telemarketing personnel, said the complaint. Lifespan texted and subsequently called Villanueva's cellphone for the first time Jan. 21, and she “explicitly" asked that the company stop contacting her, the class action said. She submitted a second opt-out request in February, but the company “ignored” both, it said. In sum, Lifespan sent the plaintiff more than 10 marketing text messages after her initial opt-out request Jan. 21, said the complaint. More than five of those marketing text messages were sent after Villanueva's second opt-out request, said the complaint. The defendant’s refusal to honor Villanueva's opt-out requests demonstrates that Lifespan hasn’t instituted procedures “for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text messages,” it said. “The precise details regarding its lack of requisite policies and procedures” are solely within Lifespan’s “knowledge and control,” it said.
Cindy Luchinske reached a settlement with the Apptness Media Group over her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims, said her notice Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00267) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Spokane. The parties hope to file a stipulation of dismissal within 45 days, it said. Americans receive billions of spam text messages every year, and Luchinske’s Sept. 13 class action alleged that Apptness, a compendium of digital marketers, “is a major participant in this spam” (see 2309140004).
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman for Northern Illinois in Chicago granted Humana’s motion to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff Antionette Woodward’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act putative class action for lack of personal jurisdiction (see 2304280006), said Coleman’s signed order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-00979). The judge gave Woodward 30 days to cure the deficiencies in her complaint, or the dismissal will be with prejudice, said the order. Woodward alleges that Humana is vicariously liable for the incessant insurance solicitation calls its third-party telemarketing vendor, Healthhubb, made on Humana’s behalf to a cellphone number she had listed on the national do not call registry since September 2022 (see 2302170038). But the judge found that Woodward has failed to make “a prima facie showing” that the court has personal jurisdiction over Humana, said the order. “The record is not ambiguous or unclear on the issue,” it said. Humana has submitted a declaration “unequivocally denying” any involvement with Healthubb’s actions, it said. Woodward had the opportunity to respond and submit affidavits of her own to provide the court with some evidence that Humana “is vicariously liable for the calls made to her by Healthubb,” it said. Yet Woodward has provided the court “with nothing more than her unsupported suspicion of Humana’s purported relationship with Healthubb,” based on an alleged call where Woodward was transferred to a Humana insurance agent, it said. Because Woodward “has provided nothing but her unsupported assertion of personal jurisdiction over Humana, her request for jurisdictional discovery is denied,” it said.
American Express aided and “conspired with” Facebook to intercept communications sent and received by customers in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, alleged a class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-02408) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
The personally identifiable information (PII) of some 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former AT&T customers was compromised in a data breach last month due to the carrier's failure to implement "adequate and reasonable" cybersecurity "procedures and protocols,” a negligence class action alleged Saturday (docket 3:24-cv-00757) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. It was one of at least eight filed over the breach in the Texas court since Saturday.
Kohl’s started placing “incessant” debt collections calls to Melissa Gray’s cellphone in January 2023 after she fell behind in her monthly credit card payments and her account “fell into a delinquent status,” alleged Gray’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00327) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. In February this year, “fed up with the invasive robocalls,” Gray answered one of the calls and requested that the calls cease, but the calls nevertheless continued, said the complaint. The plaintiff estimates that Kohl’s placed no fewer than 30 robocalls to her cellphone after she asked that the calls stop, it said. The calls invaded her privacy and caused her damages, including the “aggravation that accompanies unwanted phone calls,” it said.
U.S. District Judge Tana Lin for Western Washington in Seattle denied Amazon’s motion to consolidate a class action brought by plaintiff Dena Griffith over Amazon’s removal of free Whole Foods grocery delivery with In Re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation (see 2403130005), said her Thursday order (docket 2:22-cv-00743). The consolidated action involves Amazon’s imposition of a $2.99 monthly add-on fee for Prime members to get commercial-free streaming on its Prime Video service, a perk previously included for free with Prime. Amazon argued for consolidation on the grounds that both cases arise from the company’s changes under Prime and bring claims under consumer protection statutes about its allegedly false or misleading promises about Prime membership. Griffith opposed consolidation, saying the two matters don’t involve common questions of law or fact, and Napoleon argued that the matters are factually and legally different; both plaintiffs said consolidation wouldn't promote judicial economy. Amazon argues that Griffith's case and Napoleon should be consolidated because they involve common questions of law and fact and that judicial economy, consistency of results, and lack of prejudice support consolidation. Though there is some overlap, Lin said, "there are significant differences, both factually and legally, that caution against consolidation." The change in service at Whole Foods took place in 2021 vs. 2024 for Prime Video, Lin noted: “Different changes, three years apart, with different representations to consumers by Defendant.” In addition, Prime Video has its own contractual terms and conditions "that may be at issue in Napoleon but are not applicable to this matter," she said. The putative classes are also different, said the judge. In Griffith, the classes comprise all Prime members who used the Whole Foods delivery service from 2021; the classes in Napoleon comprise annual Prime subscribers as recently as December, the order said. “All these differences would appear to complicate the Court’s management of a consolidated case,” she said.
Two dozen negligence class actions vs. Comcast and/or Citrix Systems pending in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge John Younge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) for purposes of addressing common issues of law and fact prior to trial, said a signed order (docket 5:24-cv-01201) by U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg Wednesday in consideration of the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to consolidate. The cases involve Citrix’s October data breach in which the personally identifiable information of some 36 million Comcast customers was allegedly compromised. The case will be maintained under master docket 2:23-cv-05039, the order said. Any action subsequently filed, transferred or removed to the Pennsylvania court that arises out of the same or similar alleged facts as the consolidated action will be consolidated with the case for pretrial purposes, the order said.
A “mere risk of future harm” isn’t a concrete injury, and claims for diminished value of personally identifiable information (PII), mitigation expenses, lost time and actual misuse and theft of PII “are insufficient to establish an injury in fact,” said ESO Solutions' motion to dismiss (docket 1:23-cv-01557) a negligence class action Thursday in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Essie Jones, one of about 2.7 million individuals whose PII was affected by a September data breach, sued ESO in December for failing to maintain proper safeguards in its computer systems (see 2312220025). Jones’ case was consolidated with five others arising from the same breach in January (see 2401100021). Plaintiffs fail to properly trace their alleged injuries to the data breach, so the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, said the motion. ESO owed no duty to plaintiffs, whose allegations don’t demonstrate proximate cause, and they haven’t alleged sufficient damages, the motion said. A plaintiff's obligation to provide grounds of his entitlement to relief requires "more than labels and conclusions," it said, citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal. “A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Though OnStar “ostensibly provides” Wi-Fi and location information for emergency services in case of an accident, customers were not aware the subscription in-vehicle security and communications service was “tracking data points about their driving” and sending it to their auto insurance companies to justify a rate increase, said a privacy class action (docket 2:24-cv-10804) Friday in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit.