Eleven consumers sued HP Friday over the company’s requirement that customers of certain of its printers use only HP-branded replacement ink cartridges, said an 80-count antitrust and consumer fraud class action (docket 1:24-cv-00164) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. HP required consumers who had bought its printers to use its cartridges, rather than buy ones from competitors, through firmware updates it distributed electronically to all registered owners of certain printers in late 2022 and early 2023, said the complaint. The firmware update “effectively disabled the printer if the user installed a replacement ink cartridge that was not HP-branded,” it said. During the same period, HP raised prices on its print cartridges, the complaint said, and “in effect,” created a “monopoly in the aftermarket for replacement cartridges, permitting it to raise prices without fear of being undercut by competitors.” A full HP-branded replacement ink cartridge set can cost $100 for many models, while competitors’ cartridges “may cost half as much,” it said. Among plaintiffs’ 80 claims are unjust enrichment and violations of numerous state consumer protection laws, the Sherman Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the complaint said. They seek an injunction requiring HP to disable the firmware updates that precluded the use of non-HP-branded replacement ink cartridges; compensatory, statutory and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; and attorneys’ fees and legal costs, it said.
Law firm Bursor & Fisher, which alleged in a Dec. 22 class action on behalf of plaintiff Shane Mannion that Fandango was “nickel and diming” moviegoers with its hidden per-ticket “convenience fees” (see 2312270004), asserted nearly identical allegations in a new class action Friday against AMC Theatres on behalf of plaintiff Vivian Picciotti. Because New York "is a busy place," and because these fees are "flashed" only after moviegoers select their seats, AMC “can plausibly put its customers on a shot clock and tell them they need to decide quick,” because AMC can’t hold their seats open forever, said the complaint (docket 1:24-cv-00110) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. This “cheap trick” has enabled AMC “to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers,” in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, it said. AMC's convenience fee is $2.19 per ticket, compared with $1.89 at Fandango, said the complaint. New York resident Picciotti seeks relief individually and on behalf of all other AMC ticket purchasers for film screenings in New York for actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorneys’ costs and fees and injunctive relief, it said.
U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn for New Jersey in Camden scheduled oral argument for Jan. 22 at 1 p.m. on Samsung’s Aug. 11 motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended consolidated data breach complaint and to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations, said a text-only order Friday (docket 1:23-md-3055). Despite the “benign nature” of the data stolen in the 2022 breach, the amended consolidated complaint “cobbles together 49 individuals from 34 states alleging violations of numerous different state laws based on sharply diverging experiences and injuries” that the plaintiffs attribute to the data breach, said Samsung’s motion to strike (see 2308230018). In light of the “divergent experiences” of just the 49 named plaintiffs, “the reality is that no factual development could alter the conclusion that this case cannot be certified as a class action,” it said. The court “should strike the class allegations now,” it said.
Nine former Twitter employees filed a motion Friday to compel and for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland on behalf of the “thousands” of former employees with whom Twitter and X “have refused to proceed with arbitration,” said their memorandum of points and authorities (docket 4:23-cv-03301) in support of their motion.
Negligence class actions continue apace as customers become aware of the Oct. 10 data breach at software provider Citrix that affected millions of Comcast subscribers and other Citrix customers. The breach affected more than 35 million customers, according to the Maine attorney general’s office.
Medical transcription company Perry Johnson & Associates waited nearly six months to notify “impacted individuals” of a data breach that occurred March 27-May 2, said a negligence class action Thursday (docket 2:24-cv-00025) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas. Plaintiff Huda Abdaljalil, an Ohio resident, is a patient at a healthcare provider for which PJ&A provides transcription services, it said. In “requesting and maintaining” Abdaljalil’s personally identifiable (PII) and personal health (PHI) information, the defendant didn’t take care of her information, “leading to its exposure as direct result” of its “inadequate data security measures,” the complaint said. The notification Abdaljalil received from PJ&A “put the onus” on her to protect her PII and PHI by urging her to “remain vigilant” and recommending that she “regularly review her financial accounts, report any suspicious or unrecognized activity immediately and monitor her accounts for the next 12 to 24 months,” it said. Since learning of the breach, Abdaljalil has received “multiple dark web monitoring alerts” from her credit monitoring agencies, informing her that her PII and PHI “is on the dark web,” it said. Abdaljalil has had to spend time mitigating risk of future identity theft and fraud, including spending time researching the breach, changing her passwords and freezing her credit with credit bureaus, it said. She has experienced “significant frustration, anxiety, worry, stress, and fear” knowing that hackers accessed her PII and PHI and will likely use it in the future for identity theft, fraud “and other nefarious purposes,” it said. In addition to negligence, Abdaljalil claims unjust enrichment. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages, an order of restitution, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and legal costs. PJ&A didn’t comment Friday.
PHE, owner of an adult products e-commerce website, www.adameve.com, provided co-defendant Google with information that revealed plaintiff Jane Doe’s private and protected sexual information and IP address, without notifying her and without her consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 24ST-cv-00181) in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Amazon removed to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles Friday a class action filed Nov. 23 in Los Angeles County Superior Court in which five plaintiffs allege that the conditions of use that Amazon imposes on consumers to use or shop its platfoms prohibit them from mentioning Amazon or any of its brand names in any manner that “disparages or discredits” the company.
The same attorney who previously helped bring shareholder derivative class actions against top AT&T and Verizon executives and board members for allegedly covering up their knowledge of abandoned toxic lead-laden telecom cables (see 2308020046) filed another suit Thursday (docket 3:24-cv-00063) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton on behalf of Verizon shareholder Wade Sarver.
Cherry Technologies, a payment plan company for managing dental patients’ out-of-pocket costs, sent unsolicited fax ads Dec. 11 to Kawa Orthodontics and at least 40 other recipients in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleged Kawa in a class action Wednesday (docket 9:24-cv-80005) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach. The fax that Cherry sent, trumpeting how patients could take advantage of unused dental benefits that were expiring at the end of the year, was “a generic advertising template suitable for mass transmission to numerous recipients,” said the complaint. Kawa further alleges that Cherry has sent other unsolicited advertisements via fax transmission in violation of the TCPA “during the four years preceding the filing of this lawsuit,” it said. Kawa and members of the proposed class were harmed by being sent the fax because it violated their “statutory right to be free from unsolicited fax advertisements,” it said. Court records show Kawa's lawsuit against Cherry was the third TCPA class action it has filed since June 2021, all for unsolicited fax ads. Kawa voluntarily dismissed its TCPA claims against Northwell Health Labs last month (see 2312230003).