A day after DOJ and the attorneys general of 15 states and the District of Columbia sued to challenge Apple’s alleged monopoly power in the smartphone market (see 2403210042), two class actions were filed Friday in New Jersey and California to address Apple’s allegedly anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct. A fourth action was filed Saturday in California.
Plaintiff Arthur Cochran and defendant Boost Health Insurance Agency have agreed on a May 6 date for a private mediation in their Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute, said their joint status report Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00473) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. In light of the parties’ agreement to explore “early resolution” of the dispute through mediation, the parties propose a brief stay of the case pending that mediation, said their report. They propose to provide another joint status report to the court on May 7, to notify the court whether a settlement has been reached between the plaintiff and defendant, it said. Cochran’s Oct. 31 class action alleges Boost runs a campaign to market its services through prerecorded telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry, in “plain violation” of the TCPA (see 2311010004).
U.S. District Judge John Kness for Northern Illinois in Chicago scheduled a telephonic initial status hearing for May 20 at 9:30 a.m. CDT in a Feb. 17 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against the Embroidery Shoppe, a Westland, Michigan, company specializing in custom-embroidered uniforms and apparel. Consistent with Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties are to meet and conduct a planning conference in advance of the hearing, and will file a joint status report no later than May 10, said a docket entry notification Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-01641). The plaintiff, William Gress, alleges the Embroidery Shoppe violates the TCPA by sending unsolicited fax advertisements to promote its goods and services to would-be customers without their consent (see 2402280001). His complaint contends recipients have “no reasonable means” to avoid receiving illegal fax advertisements because fax machines must be left on all the time to receive legitimate faxes.
Carvana plans April 11 to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff Michael Cribier's Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action, said an order Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-00094) signed by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for Southern California in San Diego, following a status conference he convened that day. Cribier’s Jan. 12 complaint alleges that Carvana violates the TCPA by “bombarding” consumers’ mobile phones whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry “with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without prior express written consent” (see 2401160003).
With plaintiff Aaron Bolton having filed a notice of settlement in his Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Arizona firearms company Unlimited Ammo, U.S. District Judge John Badalamenti for Middle Florida in Tampa dismissed the case without prejudice, said his text order Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00226). The dismissal is subject to the right of any party within 60 days to move to reopen the case, said the order. If no such motion is filed, the dismissal of this case will be with prejudice, it said. Bolton alleged that the company sent multiple telemarketing text messages to his cellphone number, though that number has been listed on the national do not call registry since July 2013 (see 2401250001).
Aflac intends to file a motion to dismiss plaintiff Stewart Smith’s Feb. 15 Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, said the insurer’s Rule 26(f) report Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Smith’s complaint alleges that in Aflac’s “overzealous attempt” to market its motor vehicle warranties, it willfully or knowingly made, and continues to make, unsolicited telemarketing phone calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry (see 2402160002). In discovery, Aflac intends to seek any records from Smith to support his TCPA claim, such as call records, recordings or notes of calls, said the Rule 26(f) report. But Aflac doesn’t think that discovery should proceed until the court issues a decision on Aflac’s motion to dismiss, which will resolve this case, it said. Smith hasn’t sufficiently alleged a claim for relief, “and proceeding to discovery while Aflac’s dispositive motion is pending would be a waste of judicial and party resources,” it said. Should the court deny the motion to dismiss, Aflac thinks that discovery should move quickly, and could be concluded within 60 days of Aflac’s answer to the complaint, it said. Should the case proceed to class certification, expert witnesses may be needed, said the report: “Aflac’s position is that staggered reports would be appropriate in this case because it is most likely that the experts will testify in support of or against class certification, and therefore Aflac’s expert will likely be a rebuttal expert only.” Aflac attempted three times between March 11 and 19 to confer with Smith’s counsel but got no response, so it submitted the report “without input” from the plaintiff, it said.
Kelly Pinn filed suit to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging that IJ Wireless makes telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the national do not call registry as a representative of the FCC’s “affordable connectivity program,” said her class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02315) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The Texas resident further alleges that IJ Wireless violated the TCPA by phoning consumers without their written consent and by contacting people who had previously asked to no longer receive the calls, it said. Pinn’s personal residential phone number has been listed for years on the national DNC registry, yet she received at least four automated calls from various spoofed caller IDs between Dec. 15 and Feb. 5, said her complaint. The plaintiff and members of her proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of IJ Wireless “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said.
The parties in three consolidated class actions against Zuffa, 49.9% owner of Ultimate Fighting Championship (see 2311120004), have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims between the plaintiffs and defendants, said their joint settlement notice Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00802) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. The parties are in the process of drafting and executing “the formal settlement agreement and related papers,” and will keep the court apprised of their progress, said the notice. Each of the class actions alleged that Zuffa violated the California Automatic Renewal Law for the manner in which it runs the UFC Fight Pass streaming service.
Fast food chain Wingstop and voice AI technology platform ConverseNow capture biometric identifiers, including unique voiceprints of customers, without informing them in writing or obtaining their written consent, as required by Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-02302) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Illinois in Chicago.
Two negligence class actions were filed in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania Wednesday involving the Citrix Systems October data breach that compromised the personally identifiable information (PII) of over 35 million Comcast Xfinity customers. One names Citrix only; the second names Citrix and Comcast.