A seller of laser hair removal services engages in unsolicited text message marketing, including to individuals who have listed their phone numbers on the national do not call registry, and to those who haven’t provided Semper Laser with their prior express written consent, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Tuesday (docket 0:24-cv-60440) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Semper’s “unsolicited text message spam” caused plaintiff Robert Livingstone and the class members harm, including violations of their statutory rights, trespass, annoyance, nuisance, invasion of their privacy and intrusion upon seclusion, said the complaint. Beginning in November and through to the present day, Semper caused 19 automated text messages to be transmitted to Livingstone’s cellphone number to solicit the sale of consumer goods and services, it said. To send the text messages, Semper used a messaging platform that permitted it to transmit “blasts of text messages automatically and without any human involvement,” it said. The platform had the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator “to either store or produce phone numbers to be called,” it said. Semper would be able to send automated text messages to consumers, and in compliance with the TCPA, by securing the proper consent from consumers before sending those messages, it said. The burden and cost to Semper of securing consent from consumers that comply with the TCPA is “nominal,” and wouldn’t result in Semper having to cease its business operations, it said.
Two class actions were transferred to In Re: FTX Cryptocurrency Exchange Collapse Litigation in conditional transfer order 5 (CTO-5) (3076), said a clerk’s order Tuesday at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Edwin Garrison et al v. Riot Games (docket 2:24-cv-01841) and Garrison et al v. Lincoln Holdings (docket 1:24-cv-00655) involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the MDL and assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael Moore for Southern Florida in Miami, it said. The fraud actions allege sports and entertainment defendants used the now-bankrupt FTX global cryptocurrency exchange to participate in FTX Group’s “massive, multi-billion-dollar global fraud” (see 2403080048). The transmittal of the order is stayed seven days for any party to file a notice of opposition, it said. On June 5, the JPML transferred five actions to the Florida court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; since then, 17 additional actions have been transferred to the MDL, the order said.
Two negligence class actions involving Progress Software’s May MOVEit file transfer software data breach were transferred to In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation in conditional transfer order 35 (CTO-35), said a clerk’s order (docket 3083) Tuesday at the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Eric E. Eufusia v. Medical Eye Services (docket 8:24-cv-00432) was transferred from U.S. District Court for Central California and Werkmeister v. Wayne Bank (docket 3:24-cv-00254 ) was transferred from U.S. District Court for Middle Pennsylvania. The order is stayed for seven days pending any notices of opposition, the order said. Since five actions were transferred to the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings Oct. 4, 216 additional actions have been transferred to the court and assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts in Boston, it said.
Greensboro College waited about six months to notify some 52,000 victims of an August data breach, alleged a negligence class action Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-00243) in U.S. District Court for Middle North Carolina in Greensboro.
Ten Amazon Prime members filed a breach of contract class action (docket 2:24-cv-00364) against Amazon Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle over the $2.99 Prime Video add-on fee it implemented in January.
Plaintiff Melanie Kotlarsz, a resident of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, seeks to stop Integrity Vehicle Services, a Costa Mesa, California, seller of vehicle warranty services, from calling people whose numbers are listed on the national do not call registry, said her Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Monday (docket 8:24-cv-00569) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Kotlarsz listed her residential cellphone number on the national DNC registry in August 2004, yet Integrity or its agents called her “many times over the past year,” including twice on Jan. 10 and 11, said her complaint. Kotlarsz repeatedly asked Integrity during those calls to stop calling her, “but the calls persisted, often two or three times per day,” it said. Kotlarsz pleads “direct liability” against Integrity for initiating the calls because Integrity identified itself as the entity making the calls, and its sales reps stated that they worked for Integrity, it said. In the alternative, if Integrity didn't directly make the calls, she pleads the company is “vicariously liable for the conduct of its agents,” said the complaint. The agents making calls “held themselves out as persons authorized” to market Integrity’s services, and identified themselves as Integrity’s employees, it said. “At a minimum,” Integrity’s employees “accepted transfers from a third party that was marketing and soliciting car warranty services” on Integrity’s behalf, it said. “A reasonable person would understand the third party initiating the calls would be doing so at the direction and with the authority” of Integrity, it said. By accepting call transfers from the third party and continuing to solicit car warranties on the calls, Integrity “was ratifying the conduct made on its behalf,” it said. Before the calls at issue in the class action began, Kotlarsz hadn’t had contact with Integrity or used its services, it said. She also has never consented, “in writing, or otherwise,” to receive telemarketing calls from Integrity, it said. She also “has no interest in purchasing a new auto warranty,” it said. Indeed, she has had the same car insurance for years and has no interest in switching, the suit said.
Defendants Apple, Visa and Mastercard seek to stay all proceedings in an antitrust class action brought Dec. 14 by Mirage Wine & Spirits, a liquor store in O’Fallon, Illinois, while they attempt to “drag it” into a nearly 20-year-old multidistrict litigation, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation (MDL docket 1720), in which almost all discovery is complete (see 2403060037), said Mirage’s response in opposition Monday (docket 3:23-cv-03942) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Mirage alleges that Apple had enough leverage to “disrupt” Visa's and Mastercard's dominant position in the U.S. market for point-of-sale payment card network services when it was preparing to introduce its iPhone Apple Pay feature in 2014, but instead it colluded with them to maintain their market domination (see 2312150005). While the defendants “speak of efficiencies” in seeking to stay Mirage’s case, their actions “only sow delay,” it said. There’s “no need to stay this action,” it said. The case involves a new theory, a new defendant, and little “factual overlap,” and so it’s unlikely to be consolidated into a “near terminal” MDL, said Mirage’s opposition. Allowing Mirage’s action to proceed “in the normal course” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, such as setting a schedule, conducting initial Rule 12 motion practice, and beginning discovery, won’t “unduly burden or prejudice” the defendants, it said. Mirage has already agreed to an extension of time for the defendants to answer or respond to its complaint, which addresses the defendants’ “stated concern about multiple litigation obligations,” without jeopardizing the trial date set by this court, it said. The defendants’ proposed stay won’t simplify issues, streamline the trial or reduce burdens on the parties. It said: “It will do the opposite.”
23andMe disregarded users’ rights by negligently failing to implement “adequate and reasonable measures” to ensure their personally identifiable information (PII) was safeguarded during an October data breach, alleged a class action (docket 3:24-cv-01662) Monday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. The Oct. 6 data breach affected 6.9 million individuals.
Seven minors, through their guardians, sued Epic Games over its alleged collection of their personal information for financial gain, said a privacy class action Monday (docket 3:24-cv-00517) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego.
The 38 plaintiffs’ privacy complaint vs. Apple over the stalking capabilities of the AirTag tracking device has alleged enough to survive Apple’s motion to dismiss, though most of the claims are “inadequately pled,” said U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria for Northern California in a signed order Friday (docket 3:22-cv-07668) in which he partially denied and partially granted Apple’s motion. The ruling addresses negligence and product liability claims of five plaintiffs who were injured in California.