Concertgoers must pay “supracompetitive prices” for event tickets because Ticketmaster “levies excessively high fees in the primary market on tickets that it sells, which are then passed down to consumers in the secondary market,” an antitrust class action alleged Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-04106) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York.
Because plaintiff Stewart Smith has pleaded “concise" short claims of Telephone Consumer Protection Act wrongdoing against Aflac, and the company has been given notice as to the basis of his claims, the insurer's “misguided” May 14 motion to dismiss should be denied (see 2405150017), said Smith’s opposition Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Smith’s class action alleges Aflac placed five telemarketing calls to his cellphone without his consent and in violation of the TCPA’s do not call rule. In its motion to dismiss, Aflac argues that Smith failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but Aflac’s argument fails, said the plaintiff’s opposition. Aflac “errantly argues” that Smith doesn’t plausibly allege the calls were made by the plaintiff or on its behalf, it said. But Smith “specifically alleges the calls placed to him were made by or on behalf of Aflac,” it said. The second amended complaint “clearly alleges” that Smith was either told by representatives that the calls were from Aflac or a message would play indicating the calls were from Aflac, it said. “Such information is sufficient at the pleading stage to identify Aflac as the caller,” said Smith’s opposition. Other TCPA defendants have made “similar strained arguments” as those presented by the defendant, “and those arguments have been rejected by the courts,” it said. The plaintiff doesn’t know the first and last names of every person who works for Aflac and was involved in calling him, “nor would he need to plead as much in a complaint if he did,” it said. Rule 8 requires “a short and plain statement upon which relief can be granted,” it said. The rules of pleading don’t require that the plaintiff show “intricate knowledge of the workings of a defendant’s business, nor do they require tedious, needless details that are inapposite to the basis for which relief can be granted,” it said. The court should reject Aflac’s efforts “to impose new heights on the requirements of Rule 8,” it said.
The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority has engaged in “illegally calling” the cellphone numbers of hundreds of consumers using an artificial or prerecorded voice without first obtaining the prior express consent of the called party, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00270) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida. Tracie Coffey, a Wildwood, Florida, resident, seeks injunctive relief to halt the loan servicer’s illegal conduct, “which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of scores of individuals,” said her complaint. She also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, “and any other available legal or equitable remedies,” it said. Any TCPA violations were “knowing, willful, and intentional,” and the authority didn’t maintain procedures “reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation,” it said. For months, the defendant repeatedly called Coffey on her cellphone using an artificial or prerecorded voice, though she didn’t give the defendant her prior express written consent to make these calls, said the complaint. After being harassed for months, she was forced to send the defendant a “demand letter,” informing it that it was in violation of the TCPA, it said. The defendant sent Coffey an email confirming it had received the demand letter, but “incredibly,” the authority “continued to make artificial or prerecorded calls in violation of the TCPA,” said the complaint.
Spotify customers who bought the company’s Car Thing device are now left with “nothing more than a paperweight,” alleged three customers' class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-04077) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York.
Cornerstone Auto Protection promotes sales of its vehicle warranty plans by relying on third-party telemarketing vendors like Call Handles to generate leads, alleged Mark Ortega’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 5:24-cv-00573) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in San Antonio. Cornerstone and Call Handles routinely violate the TCPA by making telemarketing calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to phone numbers listed on the national do not call registry, alleged the Texas resident’s complaint. Texas law, under Section 302.101 of the Texas Business & Commerce Code, also prohibits sellers from engaging in phone solicitations from a location in Texas or to a purchaser located in Texas unless the seller obtains a registration certificate from the Texas secretary of state, which the defendants didn’t do, it said. Cornerstone hired Call Handles to originate new business using telemarketing calls, said the complaint. The defendant accepted the benefits of Call Handles’ illegal telemarketing “by taking live transfers of leads directly from Call Handles,” it said. Cornerstone “failed to take effective steps within its power” to force Call Handles to cease calling consumers whose numbers were listed on the DNC registry, it said.
Ryan Binkley, who suspended his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination Feb. 27, placed prerecorded calls and sent text-message solicitations to consumers’ cellphones to promote his telephonic town hall events without first obtaining their prior express consent, alleged Thomas Grant’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 3:24-cv-01286) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Grant alleges that Binkley “expressly authorized” the making of these prerecorded calls “or knew that they were going to be made for his personal benefit, to promote his presidential candidacy, and did nothing to stop them,” said the complaint. “Binkley controlled the timing of calls, right before his telephonic town hall events,” it said. Binkley also actively promoted his town hall events through his personal social media channels, including on Facebook and Instagram, it said. Binkley also controlled the recipients of the calls “by dictating that the messages be sent to voters registered as independents,” including Grant, it said. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Binkley from violating the TCPA, plus an award of statutory damages to the members of the class and court costs and attorneys’ fees, said the complaint. The Hudson, New Hampshire, resident alleges that Binkley or his campaign sent five calls or text messages to his cellphone in late January without his consent. The unauthorized solicitation phone calls and text messages that Grant received from or on behalf of the defendant have harmed the plaintiff “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,” plus they have occupied his phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his phone, said the complaint. Grant sued another former Republican presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy, Jan. 23 on similar allegations (see 2401240002). Ramaswamy has blasted that complaint as a “shakedown,” contending that Grant should have targeted Ramaswamy’s campaign, Vivek 2024, as the proper TCPA defendant (see 2403250026).
Lisa Bodenburg is appealing the May 8 dismissal of her iCloud+ fraud class action against Apple to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said her notice of appeal Friday (docket 3:23-cv-04409) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The plaintiff alleges that the iCloud+ service delivers consumers 5 GB less cloud storage than it contracted for when it accepted their monthly subscription payments (see 2308270001). In addition to breach of contract, the lawsuit alleges violations of several statutes, including California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Bodenburg received 200 GB of paid cloud storage that was stated in the plans and pricing information accessible through the link in her written iCloud+ agreement, said U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson’s signed dismissal order. Bodenburg thought she was receiving a different type of 200 GB, composed of 5 GB of free cloud storage and 195 GB of paid cloud storage, but in fact, she received 200 GB of paid cloud storage, said the order: “Clearly, she did receive the GB amount that was in the plans and pricing information, and therefore there are insufficient facts to support a breach of contract claim.” The judge also found that because the GB listed in the plans and pricing is more storage than the free 5 GB, Bodenburg can’t point to any false statements that Apple made. “Consequently, the heightened pleading standard is not met,” and the complaint “fails to state sufficient facts for any of the consumer protection claims,” said Thompson’s order.
Plaintiff Zhizhi Xu’s putative class action alleging that Reuters violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is a “copycat” of at least six other complaints Xu’s counsel filed in the Southern District of New York. This, according to Reuters' memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:24-cv-02466) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its motion to dismiss. Xu alleges that three tracking pixels on the Reuters website collect visitors' IP addresses in violation of the CIPA (see 2404020024|). But Xu’s complaint is “the epitome of a nuisance suit,” the memorandum said, adding that Xu's counsel has filed similar suits outside New York during the last several months. “Flagrantly misinterpreting” a narrow California federal district court decision “far beyond its factual confines,” Xu seeks to upend internet commerce “by criminalizing the way the internet functions,” it said. Xu urges the court to hold Reuters liable under California’s penal code for thousands of dollars in statutory damages “to each and any California resident who voluntarily decides to click on Reuters.com," it said. That’s solely because Reuters allegedly collects visitors’ IP addresses, it said. But that data is “voluntarily and necessarily provided to Reuters” so that visitors’ browsers can properly display the website, it said. Not only did the California legislature not intend for the CIPA to be such a “blank check,” but a fair reading of the text can’t “bear such an interpretation either,” it said. Reuters asks for a dismissal of the class action with prejudice because it fails to include allegations demonstrating that Xu “has the necessary standing to bring his complaint” and his single-count class action “otherwise fails to state a claim as a matter of law.”
Despite representing in a Feb. 14 news release that it was positioned well financially for fiscal 2024, defendants Fastly and its CEO Todd Nightingale misled investors even as the company was “experiencing a significant deceleration in growth,” a securities fraud class action alleged Friday (docket 3:24-cv-03170) in U.S. District Court for Northern California.
Google unlawfully obtained information about individuals who applied for or checked the status of a disability parking placard on the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) website, a privacy class action Friday (docket 5:24-cv-03176) alleged in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.