Five of seven fraud class actions in conditional transfer order 27 (CTO-27) were transferred to In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, said a clerk’s order (docket 3083) lifting a stay on the CTO Monday before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Duffy v. Progress Software Corp. (docket 3:24-cv-00185), Roberts v. Progress Software Corp., which also named Delta Dental (docket 1:24-cv-00346), Pierce et al v. Premier Health Partners (docket 3:23-cv-00364), Wilkinson v. Umpqua Bank (docket 3:23-cv-06175) and McClendon v. Virginia Mason Franciscan Health (docket 3:24-cv-05048) were transferred to U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston under U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. Two plaintiffs, Theodora Morris, who brought claims against Data Media Associates, and Brandon Roane, suing Garrett Regional Medical Center, opposed transfer (see 2401290023). The cases involve Progress Software’s May MOVEit file transfer software data breach. Since the JPML transferred five actions to the Massachusetts court on Oct. 4, 189 additional actions have been transferred, said the order.
Google’s “global arguments” for dismissal of Mary Smith’s fraud complaint involving Google Analytics' tracking pixel on tax-filing websites “lack merit,” said her response Monday to Google’s motion to dismiss her class action, part of an Oct. 9 consolidated complaint, in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose (docket 5:23-cv-03527). Google argues that because privacy policies on H&R Block, TaxAct and TaxSlayer disclosed the use of Google Analytics, plaintiffs consented to the disclosure of their tax-filing information to the defendant, said the response. “In Google’s view, these privacy policies are ‘judicially noticeable’ and therefore establish consent as a matter of law,” the response said, but the court “should reject Google’s position and its request for judicial notice” of the policies, which aren’t referenced in the complaint. Google submitted no evidence that any of the plaintiffs saw and agreed to the documents relied on by Google to support any consent, said the response: “Google must show that Plaintiffs took ‘affirmative action to demonstrate assent,’ but it has not done so,” it said. The privacy policies referenced are dated either January 2023 or October 2023, but plaintiffs allege their financial information was disclosed “years before those dates,” said the response. Google asks the court to “draw inferences in its favor” from “random versions” of the privacy policies, and it also “recycles an argument already rejected in similar cases involving the Meta tracking pixel,” it said, citing Gershzon v. Meta Platforms and In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation. U.S. District Judge for Northern California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also rejected that argument a few months ago in Brown v. Google, it said. In Smith’s case, Google’s argument similarly lacks merit because “it contradicts the pleadings and requires drawing inferences in Google’s favor,” and the privacy policies Google cites didn’t disclose the sharing of “tax-filing or other confidential financial information,” it said. Smith alleges Google Analytics’ tracking pixel, embedded in the JavaScript of online tax preparation websites, sent “massive amounts” of private tax return information such as income, refund amounts, filing status and scholarship information to Google, without taxpayers’ consent, “to improve its ad business and other business tools,” in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act.
The counsel for a former Amazon third-party seller urged the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan to deny Amazon’s Jan. 11 motion for Rule 11 monetary sanctions against her for submitting legal arguments she knew to be frivolous (see 2401120032), said her opposition Friday (docket 1:23-cv-03334).
LoanDepot has made little information available regarding the data breach it announced in a Jan. 8 SEC filing, said a complaint Monday (docket 8:24-cv-00194) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana.
Kristy Beckwith received multiple telemarketing robocalls on her cellphone from a company called EverythingBreaks.com to promote its automobile warranty products and services, though her number was listed on the national do not call registry for more than a year before the calls began, alleged her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00202) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Beckwith wasn’t interested in the company’s offers and informed the callers of that on the first two calls she received, “yet the calls continued,” said the complaint. Beckwith never consented to receive the calls, and never did business with EverythingBreaks.com, it said. Beckwith and members of the class have been harmed by the acts of the defendant, including the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time “and the intrusion on their telephone that occupied it from receiving legitimate communications,” said the class action.
Comcast would oppose centralization with claims against unrelated companies “who simply happened to use the same Citrix software,” said its filing Friday. It was in response to plaintiff Kenneth Hasson's motion to transfer a dozen negligence class actions over Citrix's October data breach now pending before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (docket 3099).
Two plaintiffs filed notices of opposition to conditional transfer order 27 (CTO-27) in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (docket 3083) Friday, and three defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motions to vacate CTO-23 Wednesday, said filings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) involving the Progress Software Corp. (PSC) MOVEit file transfer software data breach in May.
T-Mobile removed to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles a Dec. 20 class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which five pro se plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of T-Mobile’s terms of use and their prohibitions against expressing negative comments online about the company or its goods and services. T-Mobile denies all liability on the plaintiffs’ claims, denies that the plaintiffs could ever recover damages and denies that a court could ever certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, said the notice of removal Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00700). But assuming that the plaintiffs’ allegations are true for removal purposes only, their putative class claims put more than $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, in controversy based on the damages they seek in the complaint, said the notice. “Because of the current power of the internet and social media platforms to publicize a company’s offerings of goods or services,” T-Mobile has “a significant incentive to minimize” the negative publicity it receives, including in the form of negative online reviews and comments, said the complaint. While conducting substantial business with California consumers, the terms that T-Mobile imposes on its customers “clearly violate” Section 1670.8 of the California Civil Code, it said.
Four plaintiffs pounced last week on news of a data breach that mortgage lender loanDepot announced this month, filing negligence class actions in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana over the breach that exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) of 16.6 million customers.
Instacart’s document offerings for its initial public offering in September were “negligently prepared” and contained “untrue” or “omitted” statements, plaintiff Andy Stephens claimed in a class action (docket 5:24-cv-00465) against Instacart and 11 executives and directors Thursday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.