Every iPhone sale “guarantees revenue streams well beyond the initial purchase price,” said a class action Thursday (docket 24-cv-434085) in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging violations of California’s Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff Kyle Whiteside of San Diego bought a new iPhone 13 in July 2021 from an Apple Store in Escondido, California.
The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and India-based Times Internet Ltd. share subscribers’ personally identifiable information (PII) to unrelated third parties alongside video content subscribers requested or obtained from their websites, allege two Video Privacy Protection Act class actions filed Thursday.
Weiharik Garcia received at least two automated text messages March 19 from South Shore Hyundai, a dealership in Valley Stream, New York, soliciting her to buy, sell or trade in a car, in “plain violation” of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged her class action Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-01305) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The “hexadecimal codes” associated with the text messages indicate that they were sent using an automatic telephone dialing system, which randomly generates phone numbers by itself, “and also uses a prerecorded, artificial voice to generate message content,” it said. South Shore “had no earthly clue who it was sending automated messages to” because the Pennsylvania resident doesn’t drive and isn’t named May, the person to whom the messages were addressed, said the complaint. Further supporting the fact that a random or sequential telephone number generator was used to produce the phone number to text, South Shore sent its text messages to 484-area code numbers in southeast Pennsylvania, despite the dealership being located in New York, “which is quite the hike for anyone to go there from Philly,” it said. The unwanted text messages were “non-consensual encounters,” it said. Garcia and members of the class have been harmed by South Shore’s acts “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said.
LoanDepot denies “each and every allegation” in Lee Abrahamian’s July 24 amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, said its answer Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00728) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Abrahamian alleges he listed his cellphone number with the national do not call registry in October 2007, yet loanDepot phoned him repeatedly without his consent, encouraging him to purchase a home equity loan. But the plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring his action and to represent any purported class because he didn’t suffer an injury-in-fact as a result of loanDepot’s alleged conduct, said its answer. The imposition of statutory damages under the TCPA against the company would violate the Constitution's due process provisions, it said. Abrahamian’s lawsuit isn’t maintainable as a class action because the proposed classes don’t satisfy the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it said. The damages the plaintiff seeks on behalf of the purported class can’t be recovered “without specific proof by each purported class member that he or she has been injured,” it said. LoanDepot didn’t willfully or knowingly contact Abrahamian on the phone number at issue without prior express consent, said its answer. To the extent that there was any violation of the TCPA, which loanDepot denies, the company shall be liable for no more than a $500 penalty, as it “denies that it willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA,” it said.
General Motors, OnStar and LexisNexis Risk Solutions secretly collect consumers’ driver behavior data through vehicle computer systems and sell that data without consumers' full notice, knowledge or consent, alleged a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00524) in U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania in Scranton.
Apple’s anticompetitive conduct forced Louis Levine and class members to suffer “overcharge damages,” alleged his class action Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-04284) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. The class period covers iPhone individuals or entities that bought iPhones directly from Apple, other than for resale, from March 2020 to the present.
Erica Cardenas seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages to stop debt relief company Creditors Relief from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages to phone numbers that are listed on the national do not call registry, said her class action Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-04214) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. A resident of Chula Vista, California, Cardenas listed her number on the national DNC registry Nov. 9, yet she received at least six text messages from Creditors Relief beginning Jan. 15 promoting its debt relief services, the class action said. Creditors Relief “specifically lists cold calling as a job requirement in its job listings,” it added. Former Creditors Relief employees “have posted complaints about the poor quality of leads they were given to call,” it said. Consumers also have posted complaints on the Better Business Bureau website about the unsolicited calls and text messages they received from Creditors Relief, it said. Moreover, the plaintiff has never done business with the company or consented to be called, said her class action. The unauthorized solicitation text messages that Cardenas received from Creditors Relief or on its behalf have harmed her “in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy,” it said. The text messages have “occupied her phone line, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone,” it said.
Plaintiff Jane Doe and defendants Microsoft and Qualtrics don't agree on a discovery plan and timing for discovery in Doe’s privacy case, said their joint status report and discovery plan Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00718) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Doe’s May complaint (see 2305160051), asserting claims of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and Unfair Competition Law violations, alleges the defendants repeatedly and systematically violated Doe's and class members’ privacy by surreptitiously extracting private healthcare and other information from Kaiser members’ communications with the Kaiser website through tracking code and services provided by Microsoft and Qualtrics. Doe anticipates 15-20 trial days for completion of the case; defendants expect to try Doe’s individual claim in 7-10 days; if the case proceeds to trial as a class action, the trial “will be substantially longer,” said the defendants’ statement. Doe proposes that a trial date be set after class certification or for June 15, 2026, said the report. Since the defendants will contend a motion for class certification, they request deferral of a trial date until after a decision on class certification, it said. If the court requires an anticipated trial date now, defendants anticipate the case may be “trial ready” by Feb. 27, 2026. The parties don’t believe settlement discussions would be fruitful at this time, it said.
The March 21 decision in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego granting Ford’s motion to dismiss a California Invasion of Privacy Act complaint is “relevant” to defendant Tonal Systems’ own motion to dismiss plaintiff Julie Jones’ CIPA class action in the same court for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (see 2308300028), said Tonal’s notice Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-01267). Jones alleges Tonal, a maker of home gym equipment, violated the CIPA and the state’s Unfair Competition Law when it used software from a third-party vendor, Drift, to secretly eavesdrop on the private conversations of users of the chat features on Tonal’s website (see 2307110047). Tonal’s motion to dismiss was fully briefed, and the motion hearing was held Oct. 18, said the notice. Jones lacks a “viable statutory claim for wiretapping” under the CIPA, said Tonal’s motion to dismiss. In the Ford case, plaintiff Rebeka Rodriguez alleged that the automaker secretly enables and allows a third-party spyware company to eavesdrop on the private conversations of everyone who visits Ford’s website and communicates through its chat feature. She alleged that the spyware company then monetized that data by sharing it with other third parties, which used it to bombard the unsuspecting visitors with targeted marketing, all without their informed consent. The court construed Rodriguez's argument in her opposition to the motion to dismiss as declining to pursue a claim against Ford for direct liability under the first three clauses of the CIPA’s Section 631(a). It dismissed any such claim against Ford with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
Three more antitrust lawsuits were filed Tuesday against Apple, bringing to seven the number of similar suits, including the complaint brought March 21 by DOJ and 16 attorneys general over Apple's allegedly anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct in the smartphone market (see 2403210042).