U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich for Arizona in Phoenix denied loanDepot’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Lee Abrahamian’s first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action for failure to state a claim (see 2308080041), said her signed order Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00728). She also denied loanDepot’s motion to strike Abrahamian’s class allegations, said her order. The plaintiff seeks damages for the “illegal and unlawful” text messages and calls that loanDepot made to his cellphone number, saying the number has been listed on the national do not call registry since October 2007. But loanDepot argued the complaint "must be dismissed" because Abrahamian failed to allege he “personally listed his number” on the national DNC registry. The TCPA’s regulations require that DNC registrations “must be honored indefinitely,” or until the consumer cancels the registration or the database administrator removes the telephone number, said the judge’s order. The court reads this language to mean that as phone numbers change hands, the DNC registry may not always reflect which consumers requested to be included, it said. The court therefore finds that the language includes the term “indefinitely” to remove the “ambiguity” of which numbers should be protected, it said. At this stage of the case, the court “is permitted to draw reasonable inferences,” and look to the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, said the order. Regardless of any “textual analysis,” it remains a “reasonable inference” under these facts that Abrahamian registered his phone number with the DNC registry, it said. On loanDepot’s next assertion that Abrahamian can’t establish that the calls at issue qualify as telephone solicitations, the court agrees with him that the calls and the text he received were solicitations, it said. The plaintiff has adequately pleaded that he didn’t provide his phone number to loanDepot or make any sort of business inquiry with the company, the order said. Though the court recognizes that the first call Abrahamian received, without more, “would be insufficient to save this claim, it was immediately followed by a text message” soliciting his business, it said. The defendant then called Abrahamian a second time, it said: “This suggests a common purpose to the calls, especially when taken in conjunction with the text message.”
U.S. District Judge Joan Azrack for Eastern New York in Central Islip adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge James Wicks' Jan. 19 report and recommendation (R&R) and granted summary judgment for Crown Castle on all three of its claims against Oyster Bay, New York (see 2401220028), said her signed memorandum and order Wednesday (docket 2:21-cv-06305).
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.
Montana’s statewide TikTok ban is an “ordinary exercise” of the states’ police power to protect their citizens from deceptive and harmful business practices, said Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares (R) and the Republican AGs of 18 other states in an amicus brief Saturday (docket 24-34) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The brief supports the appeal of Montana AG Austin Knudsen (R) to reverse the district court’s Nov. 20 injunction that blocks him from enforcing SB-419 (see 2312010003).
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.
Corporate officers can’t be held liable for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, said defendant Michael Lansky, president of Avid Telecom, Tuesday in a defendants’ supplement (docket 4:23-cv-00233) to their motion to dismiss a robocall case brought in May by the attorneys general of 48 states (see 2305240010). The complaint alleged Avid Telecom and executives Michael Lansky and Stacey Reeves facilitated robocalls or helped others make them. It alleged the defendants received 329 notifications from the USTelecom-led Industry Traceback Group, putting them “on notice” that Avid was transmitting illegal robocalls. The AGs seek a permanent injunction preventing defendants from initiating or transmitting illegal robocalls to U.S. consumers and from transmitting calls that violate the TSR, plus an award of damages of $1,500 per Title 47 violation, civil penalties of $10,000 and state penalties. Referencing what he called a “growing trend of caselaw,” Lansky noted Perrong v. Chase Data, in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court, citing City Select Auto Sales v. David Randall Associates, dismissed all TCPA claims vs. an individual business owner, raising doubt as to whether “common-law-personal participation liability is available against corporate officers under the TCPA.” Since the City Select ruling, courts in the 3rd Circuit have found that "a corporate officer is not liable under the TCPA common law personal liability principles,” said the supplement, noting KHS Corp. v. Singer Financial Corp. The defendants “acknowledge that the Perrong case is not binding precedent” on the court, but said the legal analysis it contains “is sound and reflects the growing view in courts across the country that the TCPA does not and cannot create personal liability in corporate officers for the allegedly illegal conduct of the company,” it said. The defendants request that claims against each of them in their individual capacities should be dismissed with prejudice.
The U.S. Supreme Court should reject Ambassador Animal Hospital's Nov. 20 cert petition to reverse the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Ambassador’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint, said respondent Elanco’s brief Friday (docket 23-552) in opposition to the petition.
The district court erred in concluding that TikTok and its individual users were likely to prevail on the merits of their First Amendment, supremacy clause and commerce clause challenges to SB-419, Montana’s statewide TikTok ban, said Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) opening brief Friday (docket 24-34) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. He's seeking to reverse the injunction that blocks him from enforcing the ban (see 2312010003).
Business Insider parent Insider Inc. violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) by using a tracking tool that collects the IP addresses of visitors to its website without prior consent and a court order, alleged a class action Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-01566) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Meta is violating the EU data protection law by requiring users to pay for ad-free service or consent to the use of their personal data, eight European consumer groups alleged Thursday. Meta didn't immediately comment. The groups, from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, France, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain, are European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) members. In complaints filed with their national data protection authorities (DPAs), they charged the tech giant with failing to comply with GDPR principles of fair processing, data minimization and purpose limitation. Moreover, they said Meta has no valid legal basis to justify the massive data sweep it carries out on Facebook and Instagram users because the choice it gives them can't lead to free and informed consent. "Meta has tried time and time again to justify the massive commercial surveillance it places its users under," said BEUC Deputy Director-General Ursula Pachl. "Its unfair 'pay-or-consent' choice is the company's latest effort to legalise its business model." In recent years several DPAs have tried to force Meta to change the legal basis for collecting and processing people's data, and the company's "last resort" is to obtain users' consent for those activities by offering them the choice to either pay to see a supposedly ad-free service or consent to the company's full commercial surveillance with ads, BEUC said. Asked why BEUC didn't file the complaint with the DPA in Ireland, where Meta is headquartered, a spokesperson said the organization wanted to involve national data protection authorities that can then take ownership of the issue when those authorities transfer the matter to the Irish authority. In addition, he said, BEUC wanted to involve its members because they know the procedural rules of their own DPAs and to maximize coverage of the issue to show that it affects all Europeans.