Plaintiff Chun Wu and National Tax Advisory Services agree to the dismissal without prejudice of all of Wu’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against the tax debt relief company (see 2303160054), said their stipulation Monday (docket 1:23-cv-00679) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. The parties will bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, said the stipulation. Wu’s March 2023 class action alleged that the company inundates thousands of consumers with artificial or prerecorded voice messages promoting its services, and that it does so without obtaining their prior express written consent. The case gained some brief notoriety last spring when the defendant’s motion to dismiss called the TCPA “the poster child for lawsuit abuse” (see 2305010009).
Xfinity customer Curtis Brown dismissed without prejudice his Dec. 21 negligence lawsuit vs. Comcast and Citrix Systems arising from Citrix’s October data breach, said the parties' stipulation Monday (docket 0:23-cv-62392) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. Brown’s class action was one of a dozen named in a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the cases in In Re: Citrix Data Security Breach Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings (see 2401120011). Also in the Southern Florida district court Monday, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks granted the parties’ Thursday motion to transfer the venue of plaintiff Jessica Carey’s Jan. 3 class action vs. Comcast to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (see 2403080006), said his signed order (docket 0:24-cv-60008). Middlebrooks found that 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a) change of venue factors, plus the “first-filed” rule, weighed in favor of transfer, said the order. Middlebrooks signed an order Thursday dismissing Citrix from Carey’s class action following her March 1 notice of voluntary dismissal.
Plaintiff Kevin Kohn voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his privacy class action vs. eHarmony, said his notice Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00613) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. In his January lawsuit, Kohn, who uploaded a selfie to gain access to eHarmony's dating platform, alleged eHarmony collected and retained his biometric information to verify his identity without giving him a retention schedule, in violation of the Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (see 2401250016).
Apple submitted a March 5 memorandum decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court in Hammerling v. Google affirming dismissal of contract, privacy, consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims based on Google’s disclosure of the challenged data collection. The statement of recent decision (docket 5:22-cv-07069) was submitted Monday in support of Apple's pending motion to dismiss a consolidated data privacy class action in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. In the Google case, plaintiffs Marie Hammerling and Kay Jackson sued the tech company, alleging it surreptitiously collected personal information from Android users by tracking their download and use of third-party mobile apps and used the data for purposes other than those covered by the privacy policy. The district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and the plaintiffs appealed. In Hammerling, the 9th Circuit agreed with Google that by explaining in its privacy policy that it collects data on third-party apps that use its services, it has “sufficiently explained" that it collects activity data in third-party apps downloaded to Android devices because those third-party apps "use" the Android operating system, said the memorandum. Because Google disclosed the challenged data collection efforts in its policy, plaintiffs’ fraud claims “fail to allege an actionable misrepresentation” and were properly dismissed, it said. Plaintiffs also failed to state a claim for breach of contract because the contract “expressly contemplates such collection,” it said. The plaintiffs’ invasion of privacy claims were properly dismissed because Google’s disclosure precludes those claims under common law and the California constitution, it said. Google’s disclosure “expressly disclosed” its intention to track users’ activity on third-party apps so plaintiffs “have no reasonable expectation of privacy in that data,” said the memorandum.
When 23andMe made several announcements about a data breach in October, it didn’t disclose that hackers who infiltrated its computer network “were after the personal information of Jewish and Chinese customers,” alleged a class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-01418) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. 23andMe customer Rudy Thompson filed the complaint.
Pia Ginder filed a class action Friday in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando to stop a campaign by Tax Prep Advocates to market Form 1099 tax credit services for the self-employed through the use of prerecorded telemarketing calls to consumers in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ginder also alleges that Tax Prep Advocates uses automated systems that transmit prerecorded messages to make telemarketing calls into Florida, and that by doing so, it has also violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said her complaint (docket 6:24-cv-00479). At no point has Ginder consented to receive telemarketing calls regarding Tax Prep Advocates’ services before receiving those calls, it said. The Florida resident’s cellphone number has been listed on the national do not call registry since July 2006, yet she received at least one telemarketing call from Tax Prep Advocates on Feb. 19, said her complaint. The prerecorded call directed her to the company's affiliated website, Your1099Refund.com, it said. Ginder and members of her class have been harmed by Tax Prep Advocates’ conduct “because their privacy has been violated and they were annoyed and harassed,” it said. They were also harmed by the intrusion on their phones that prevented them from receiving “legitimate communications,” it said.
T-Mobile “collects and retains vast troves” of personal information from its customers, and profits from that data “through its own marketing efforts, as well as by selling sensitive consumer information to third parties,” said the consolidated consumer class action complaint Friday (docket 4:23-md-03073) in U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City filed by 38 plaintiffs who allege they were victimized in T-Mobile’s 2022 data breach (see 2306050001). T-Mobile understands “it has an enormous responsibility to protect the data it has collected,” said the complaint. But T-Mobile “completely failed to meet its obligations, yet again, to protect the sensitive consumer data of its customers,” it said. Instead, even after experiencing one of the largest and "most consequential" data breaches in U.S. history in August 2021, T-Mobile has once again suffered a massive data breach -- at least its eighth since 2017 -- which compromised the highly sensitive personal information of about 37 million consumers, it said. The 38 plaintiffs are current and former T-Mobile customers who had their personally identifiable information (PII) “exfiltrated and compromised” in the data breach that T-Mobile announced Jan. 19. 2023, said the complaint. The plaintiffs “place significant value in the security of their PII,” it said. They entrusted their sensitive PII to T-Mobile “with the understanding that T-Mobile would keep their information secure and employ reasonable and adequate security measures to ensure their information would not be compromised,” it said. Had the plaintiffs known of T-Mobile’s “lax security practices,” they wouldn’t have done business with T-Mobile, nor would they have applied for T-Mobile’s services or purchased its products, it said.
A Jane Doe plaintiff who sued PHE, owner of adult products website Adam & Eve, for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) moved Friday (docket 2:24-cv-01065) to remand her class action to Los Angeles County Superior Court from U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Doe originally filed her action alleging PHE disclosed her private and protected sexual information, plus her IP address, in the Central California district court Sept. 25. The case was dismissed and Doe then added Google to the lawsuit and filed in state court; Google removed the case to district court last month (see 2402080070). Doe, a Los Angeles resident, alleges PHE caused Google to learn the contents of her private and protected sexual information without notifying her and without her consent, and that Google violated CIPA each time it “read, learned from, and/or utilized” that information without her consent. Both defendants violated CIPA by operating under an agreement under which PHE installed Google Analytics to disclose Doe’s protected sexual information “in exchange for payment or another form of consideration,” says the complaint. The putative class comprises California residents solely, satisfying the local controversy exception for remand to state court, said the motion, and Google is also a citizen of California. The plaintiff and class members seek statutory damages of $5,000 for each time Google “read, learned the contents of” and used information obtained from a message or communication between PHE and the class without consent. Google’s potential exposure in the action is $5 million or more, it said.
Marketing firm AddShoppers “illicitly tracks persons across the internet, collects their personal information without consent,” and uses it to send direct solicitations, alleged a Friday class action (docket 2:24-cv-01022) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia against AddShoppers, Nutrisystem and Vivint.
People should be able to watch films “without the whole world knowing,” said a Video Privacy Protection Act class action Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00316) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.