Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Gibbons P.C.

Flawed Theory: District Court Refuses to Dismiss Video Privacy Claim Challenging Use of Meta Pixel Web Tracking Technology

by

Posted in Class Action

On March 27, 2025

In Lee v. Springer Nature America, Inc., Judge Lewis J. Liman in the Southern District of New York held that a longtime subscriber to Scientific American plausibly alleged, on behalf of a putative class, that the website violated the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA) based on its use of website tracking technology. The plaintiff, a 10-year subscriber, filed a complaint alleging that Scientific American unlawfully installed a code known as “Meta Pixel” on its website. The Meta Pixel supposedly transmitted information to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) about the subscriber’s use of the site (including Facebook ID, URLs accessed, and titles of videos viewed) in exchange for Meta providing advertising capabilities to Scientific American. Scientific American moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds: first, that the plaintiff lacked standing because he had not suffered an injury, and second, that the plaintiff did not plead the elements required to state a claim under the VPPA. Judge Liman rejected both arguments. Citing the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Salazar v. National Basketball Association, Judge Liman held that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was a subscriber to Scientific American, that Scientific American disclosed to Meta the plaintiff’s personal information (Facebook ID, URLs accessed, and titles of videos viewed), and that Meta used this information without...

Dog Doesn’t Hunt: After Plaintiff Drops Federal Claim, U.S. Supreme Court Says Dog Food Case Must Be Remanded to State Court

by

Posted in General Litigation

On February 4, 2025

The United States Supreme Court clarified this month in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger that when a plaintiff amends her complaint, following removal from state to federal court, to “cut[] out all her federal-law claims, federal-question jurisdiction dissolves” and the case must be remanded “to the state court where it started.” In Royal Canin, Anastasia Wullschleger purchased “a brand of dog food available only with a veterinarian’s prescription” and “sold at a premium price,” thinking that the dog food “contained medication not found in off-the-shelf products.” When Ms. Wullschleger learned that, despite its trappings, the dog food was just “ordinary dog food,” she brought suit in Missouri state court, filing a complaint that included asserted violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as well as factually intertwined state-law claims. The defendant dog food company removed Ms. Wullschleger’s complaint from state to federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction resulting from the FDCA. In response, Ms. Wullschleger amended her complaint to remove any reference to the FDCA, and she asked the federal court to remand the case back to state court, arguing that there was no longer federal jurisdiction over the “amended, all-state-law complaint.” The district court denied Ms. Wullschleger’s petition. It reasoned that federal jurisdiction could not be unilaterally eliminated by a plaintiff’s...

Without Further Ado: Third Circuit Limits Discovery on Motions to Compel Arbitration

by

Posted in Class Action

On November 21, 2024

More than a decade after its seminal decision in Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified that a plaintiff’s claims may be sent straight to arbitration, without any discovery, if there is no challenge to an arbitration agreement’s existence or validity. In Guidotti, the Third Circuit held that unless “it is apparent, based on ‘the face of a complaint, and documents relied upon in the complaint,’” that the “party’s claims ‘are subject to an enforceable arbitration clause,’” then a plaintiff should be given a chance to take “discovery on the question of arbitrability” before a motion to compel arbitration is decided under the summary-judgment standard of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because most plaintiffs who file in court craft their complaints to try to avoid arbitration, the practical result of the Guidotti decision was that many cases went to discovery before a ruling on a defendant’s motion to compel – even when discovery was unlikely to impact the outcome. The Third Circuit’s recent published decision in Young v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. limits the need for such pre-arbitration discovery. In Young, the plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Experian in the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey...

District Court Affirms United States Copyright Office’s Denial of Copyright Registration for AI-Generated Visual Art

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / Privacy Class Actions

On October 2, 2023

Pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device” are eligible for immediate copyright protection, provided certain requirements are met. Against this backdrop, Stephen Thaler applied for copyright registration with the United States Copyright Office (USCO) of a piece of visual art produced by a generative artificial intelligence system he created – the “Creativity Machine.” The USCO subsequently denied the application, reasoning that Thaler’s work “‘lack[ed] the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim,’” as “copyright law only extends to works created by human beings.” After Thaler filed suit against the USCO, both parties moved for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether a work generated entirely by an artificial system should be eligible for copyright protection. On August 18, 2023, in Thaler v. Perlmutter the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the USCO’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.” The court rejected as contrary to the Copyright Act’s plain language Thaler’s contention that because he created the AI system that “autonomously” produced...

Pay Equity Compliance Front and Center in New Jersey Department of Labor’s Proposed Regulations for the Temporary Workers Bill of Rights

by

Posted in Employee Benefits

On August 31, 2023

The New Jersey Department of Labor recently issued proposed regulations for the Temporary Workers Bill of Rights (TWBR). The proposed regulations include new definitions and further guidance for employers to comply with TWBR’s pay equity requirements. The proposed regulations are open for public comment until October 20, 2023. By way of background, the TWBR, which became fully effective on August 5, 2023, seeks to protect more than 127,000 temporary workers working in the state and employed through a temporary help service firm in designated occupations, including protective services; food preparation and serving; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance; personal service and care; construction labor, helpers, and trades; installation, maintenance, and repair; production; and transportation and material moving. The TWBR, among other things, implements detailed wage notice requirements to be provided to temporary workers in both English and the temporary worker’s primary language, recordkeeping requirements, advanced notice for changes to temporary worker schedules, pay equity, and anti-retaliation rights with a rebuttable presumption for any disciplinary action taken within 90 days of a temporary worker’s exercise of those rights. The goal of the TWBR is to strengthen employment protections for temporary workers in these designated occupations, and employers need to be mindful of the TWBR’s requirements for compliance purposes. The TWBR’s pay equity component requires temporary workers...

“Say Cheese!” CVS Passport Photo Practices Subject to BIPA Suit

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / Privacy and Data Security / Privacy Class Actions

On August 11, 2023

In May 2022, a group of plaintiffs brought a putative class action against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS) alleging the company violated several provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) through its practices for taking passport photos. On May 4, 2023, in Daichendt and Odell v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied CVS’s motion to dismiss, holding the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim under Section 15(b) of BIPA. Section 15(b) of BIPA prohibits private entities from collecting “or otherwise obtain[ing] a person’s or a customer’s biometric identifier or biometric information, unless it first”: (1) provides notice of collection; (2) provides notice of the specific purpose of collection; and (3) obtains affirmative written consent. Here, the plaintiffs alleged that CVS required them to “enter[] their names, email addresses, and phone numbers into a computer terminal inside defendant’s stores prior to scanning their biometric identifiers.” Thereafter, CVS’s system would “check” and “verify” an individual’s facial features (i.e., whether the individual is smiling) to comply with government requirements. Against this backdrop, the plaintiffs argued this system violated Section 15(b) because it “collected and stored their personal contact data (‘real-world identifying information’), such as their names and email addresses,” thus allowing CVS the ability to identify the plaintiffs “when...

Are You Hallucinating? Attorneys Sanctioned for the “Unprecedented” Act of Submitting Nonexistent Case Law Provided by ChatGPT

by

Posted in Technology Developments and Issues

On July 28, 2023

On June 22, 2023, District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sanctioned a law firm after it submitted fabricated judicial citations and opinions provided by the popular artificial intelligence (AI) engine, ChatGPT. After plaintiff’s counsel filed an affirmation with the court, which was drafted by one attorney but signed by another at the same firm, defense counsel advised that he had “‘been unable to locate most of the case law cited in [the Affirmation], and the few cases which the undersigned has been able to locate do not stand for the propositions for which they are cited.’” The court “conducted its own search for the cited cases but was unable to locate multiple authorities cited in the Affirmation [].” Accordingly, Judge Castel issued an order to show cause for sanctions, emphasizing the “unprecedented circumstance” presented to the court. The court required a hearing as to whether sanctions ought to be imposed. Following submissions, it made several findings and ultimately imposed sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel. First, Judge Castel found that the attorney who signed the Affirmation “violated Rule 11 in not reading a single case cited in his … Affirmation [] and taking no other steps on his own to check whether any aspect of...

Unintentional Consequences? The District Court of Maryland Holds Evidence Failed Rule 37(e)’s “Intent to Deprive” Requirement

by

Posted in E-Discovery: Legal Decisions and Court Rules

On July 10, 2023

A recent opinion from the District Court of Maryland highlights the challenges litigants face proving intent to deprive under Rule 37(e)(2) when seeking sanctions for spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). In Gov’t Emps. Health Ass’n v. Actelion Pharm. LTD., et al., Magistrate Judge Mark Coulson set forth the requirements to prove entitlement to remedial measures or sanctions under Rule 37(e)(1) and (2) and then applied these requirements to decide the ESI spoliation claims before the court. This blog has written extensively on what is required to trigger Rule 37(e) and resulting sanctions. In June 2017, defendant Actelion (“defendant”) was purchased by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”). Following the acquisition, Actelion migrated its data to J&J, which managed the data of both companies. On November 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed this antitrust litigation against Actelion alleging the plaintiff was forced to pay higher prices for one of Actelion’s drugs because of the unavailability of a cheaper generic version caused by the defendant’s blocking of competition. Soon after, J&J issued a legal hold to preserve relevant information for the antitrust litigation. The defendant’s custodians included in the legal hold were determined by the defendant’s then in-house counsel (“Thompson”). Absent from the legal hold were five former defendant employees (“at-issue custodians”) with documents relevant to the antitrust litigation....

I’m Sorry, Motion Denied: Washington District Court Rejects Second Try at Class Action Suit Over Amazon Alexa’s Collection of Voice Data

by

Posted in Privacy Class Actions

On June 27, 2023

In June 2022, a group of plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Amazon.com (“Amazon”) alleging the company violated several statutory and common law rights through its use of voice data collected through Alexa, its digital assistant software. After the court granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss, the named plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint. On March 29, 2023, in James Gray and Scott Horton v. Amazon.com, et. al., the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied the motion, concluding the plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint (PAC) failed to allege new material facts. The PAC alleged that Amazon failed to disclose to its consumers that it would use the data collected from the voice recordings made by Alexa devices for the purposes of targeted advertising. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted, as they had done previously, that Amazon: (1) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and Personality Rights Act (PRA); and (3) violated common law privacy rights. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied covenant claim because the PAC “merely repeat[ed] the same arguments the Court ha[d] already rejected.” For example, the court previously rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Amazon’s terms and conditions failed to inform them of Amazon’s use of their...

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories