A workout apparel supplier engages in unsolicited text messaging to promote its goods and services, and continues to text-message consumers after they have opted out of those solicitations, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act class action Friday (docket 0:24-cv-61027) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida. Kourosh Farsian seeks injunctive relief to halt Alphalete Athletics’s illegal conduct, “which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals,” said the complaint. The Palm Beach County, Florida, resident also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, plus “any other available legal or equitable remedies,” said the complaint. Alphalete has caused multiple text messages to be transmitted to Farsian’s cellphone number, though the plaintiff personally listed his number on the national do not call registry in January 2008, it said. Farsian first asked the defendant to stop contacting him on April 19 but Alphalete continued to send him at least eight more text messages between April 27 and June 13, the complaint said. As demonstrated by the screenshots embedded in the complaint, Alphalete doesn’t honor consumer requests to opt out of text message solicitations, it said. That failure shows that the defendant doesn’t maintain written policies and procedures regarding its text-messaging marketing, said the complaint. Alphalete also doesn’t properly train its telemarketing personnel, nor does it maintain a stand-alone internal do not call list, it said.
Microsoft supports OpenAI’s motion to consolidate the copyright infringement case brought by The New York Times with the related case brought by eight local newspapers (see 2406140041), said Microsoft’s joinder Friday (dockets 1:23-cv-11195 and 1:24-cv-03285) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. “In the interests of fundamental fairness and judicial economy,” Microsoft joins OpenAI’s consolidation request “but only so long as these matters proceed on a separate, and later schedule than that which the parties’ stipulated” in the consolidated authors’ cases, it said. The two cases should be consolidated because both “involve nearly identical allegations relating to the same new technology,” but that technology’s not at issue in the consolidated authors’ class actions, it said. Any consolidation between the two newspaper cases must also involve setting a new schedule that follows behind that of the consolidated authors’ class actions, it said. This is so because the different technology at issue in the newspaper cases “implicates additional, broader fact and expert discovery work that simply cannot be completed on the timeline presently set” in the consolidated authors’ class actions, it said.
SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it charges by embedding its subscribers’ monthly bills with an inconspicuous 21.4% “U.S. music royalty fee,” alleged four Oregon residents in an Unlawful Trade Practices Act class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00955) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Portland. Kara Kirkpatrick and Gillian Maxfield of Portland, Anna DeMarco of Marcola and Cody Michael of Salem filed the suit. SiriusXM intentionally doesn’t disclose the fee to its subscribers, nor does it mention the fee in its advertising, “including in the fine print,” said the complaint. Once consumers have been lured to sign up, SiriusXM “prevents them from learning about its scheme by never thereafter sending them monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices,” it said. All the while, SiriusXM “silently and automatically renews their subscriptions month after month and year after year,” it said. The complaint is the latest of several filed throughout the U.S. challenging SiriusXM’s pricing practices, including at least one case, Stevenson et al v. SiriusXM (docket 23-4018), that has reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312080023).
Less than a month after U.S. District Judge Denise Casper for Massachusetts in Boston dismissed Norma Egan's privacy lawsuit vs. X-Mode Social over geolocation tracking, the plaintiff returned to the courtroom, this time in U.S. District Court for Virginia. Egan is still claiming unjust enrichment and violation of the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia denied Aflac’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Stewart Smith’s second amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2405150017), his signed order said Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00679). June 28 is Aflac’s deadline for filing an answer to Smith’s second amended complaint, the order said. Smith’s class action alleges that Aflac placed five telemarketing calls to his cellphone without consent and in violation of the TCPA’s do not call rule.
Though the Telephone Consumer Protection Act “expressly prohibits” unsolicited fax advertising, a Delaware marketing services company, routinely sends them directly to recipients or through at least 10 hired John Doe agents, alleged a class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-04912) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. William Gress, a practicing chiropractor in Homewood, Illinois, received a fax solicitation from Klip-It or its agents on June 4, advertising an “influencer marketing platform” to attract new patients through social media, said the complaint. The defendants, “either negligently or wilfully,” violated the rights of Gress and other recipients in sending the faxes, it said. Gress had no prior relationship with the defendants and hadn’t authorized the sending of fax ads, it said. On information and belief, the June 4 fax “was sent as part of a mass broadcasting of faxes,” it said. The fax didn’t contain an opt-out notice that complies with the TCPA, it said. On information and belief, the defendants have transmitted similar unsolicited fax ads to at least 40 other persons in Illinois, it said. There’s “no reasonable means” for Gress or other recipients of the defendants’ unsolicited fax ads to avoid receiving illegal faxes, said the complaint: “Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners.”
A Miami spa promotes its goods and services by engaging in unsolicited text-messaging to consumers who have listed their phone numbers on the national do not call registry, alleged a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-22300) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida. Alexandra Lyons seeks injunctive relief to halt the Waxmee Salon & Spa’s unlawful conduct, “which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal” to Lyons and the class members, said the complaint. The Florida resident also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, plus any other available legal or equitable remedies, it said. The salon sent multiple text-message solicitations to the plaintiff’s cellphone in late May and early June to advertise its June promotions, though Lyons personally listed her number on the national DNC registry 20 years ago, said the complaint. Upon information and belief, the salon maintains or has access to outbound transmission reports for all text messages sent advertising or promoting its services and goods, it said. These reports show the dates, times, target phone numbers and content of each message sent to Lyons and the class members, it said. The plaintiff had not transacted any business with the defendant within the 18 months prior to receiving the unwanted text messages, it said. Lyons also hasn’t made any inquiries about the salon’s products or services within the three months before receiving the text messages, it said. The plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing the salon to send her text-message solicitations, it said.
Online education platform company 2U and three executives made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about business operations from February 2022 to February 2024, alleged a Securities Exchange Act class action (docket 8:24-cv-01723) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Greenbelt.
Amazon “abuses its market dominance to shield itself from competition, reduce market activity, and extract supracompetitive fees,” alleged an antitrust class action Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00851) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
OpenAI seeks the consolidation of the separate infringement lawsuits brought by the New York Times (see 2312270044) and eight newspapers (see 2404300034) because the two complaints are "functionally identical," said OpenAI’s memorandum of law Thursday (dockets 1:23-cv-11195 and 1:24-cv-03285) in support of its motion.