Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Author: Michael R. McDonald

Class Action Certified in In re Yahoo Mail Litigation for Violations of Stored Communication Act and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / Privacy and Data Security

On June 25, 2015

On May 28, 2015, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California certified a class of email users in a privacy action that claims Yahoo Inc. (“Yahoo”) violated the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) and California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) through its practice of scanning and analyzing emails of non-Yahoo Mail subscribers in order to display targeted ads to Yahoo Mail subscribers. In re Yahoo Mail Litigation, No. 13-CV-04980-LHK, (N.D. Cal. 2015). Plaintiffs are non-Yahoo Mail subscribers who sent emails to Yahoo Mail subscribers from non-Yahoo email accounts and allege that Yahoo routinely copies and extracts key words from emails and stores this information for later use. Plaintiffs allege that Yahoo’s practices violate § 2702(a)(1) of the SCA, which prohibits, among other items, divulging the contents of a communication without consent and § 631 of CIPA, which prohibits the recording or reading of any type of communication without the prior consent of all parties.

Third Circuit Confirms Prospective Application of New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton Decision, Dooming Underlying Class Action

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 21, 2015

In a recent precedential decision, the Third Circuit, in Bohus, et al. v. Restaurant.com, held that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Shelton decision — responding to a question of law certified by the Third Circuit as to the proper interpretation of the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) — may be applied prospectively, thus defeating the class claims and leaving only two individual claims for a $100 penalty.

Third Circuit Clarifies Apparent Confusion Regarding Rule 23(b)(3) Ascertainability Requirement

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On May 19, 2015

In Byrd v. Aaron’s Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added to, and clarified, its “quartet” of ascertainability cases to resolve the “apparent confusion in the invocation and application of ascertainability in this Circuit.” The plaintiffs in Byrd brought a class action claiming violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 because laptop computers had “spyware” installed, which had captured a wide array of personal information from the users including photographs and screenshots of websites visited. Adopting the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the District Court denied class certification for failure to establish ascertainability, finding that the proposed classes were both “underinclusive” (i.e., did not include all individuals whose information was gathered) and overinclusive (not every computer user had data intercepted), and that it was insufficient to propose that “household members” be identified by public records. “Because the District Court confused ascertainability with other relevant inquiries under Rule 23,” it “erred in determining that the Byrds’ proposed classes were not ascertainable.”

Third Circuit Confirms That Challenged Expert Testimony Must Survive Daubert Challenges in Order to Demonstrate Conformity with Rule 23

by and

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 20, 2015

Drawing upon its own precedent and that of the Supreme Court in Comcast v. Behrend, the Third Circuit recently held in In re Blood Reagents Antitrust Litig. that a district court must resolve any Daubert challenges to proffered expert testimony as part of its “rigorous analysis” of the requirements for class certification.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds the UTPCPA’s “Ascertainable Loss” Requirement Cannot Be Manufactured by Voluntarily Hiring Counsel and Incurring Litigation Costs

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On January 20, 2015

In Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Phila., LLC, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the retention of counsel to institute suit alone does not constitute “ascertainable loss” under the state’s consumer protection statute. The plaintiff in Grimes had rented a car from an Enterprise branch in Philadelphia and apparently declined to purchase Collision Damage Waiver or Loss Damage Waiver coverage.

Be Careful What You Wish For: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitrator’s “Erroneous” Class Arbitration Ruling

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 19, 2013

In Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed an arbitrator’s decision that an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes, constituted an agreement to participate in class arbitration. While at first blush this appears to be a departure from Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., it is not. Oxford Health says more about limited judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision than it does about the permissibility of class arbitration.

Rejecting Tele Aid, the Third Circuit in Maniscalco v. Brother Holds that the Laws of Consumers’ Home States Apply in Nationwide Class Actions

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 22, 2013

On March 8, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its precedential decision in Maniscalco v. Brother International Corp., which significantly restricts the ability of out-of state plaintiffs to use the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) to pursue nationwide class actions in New Jersey against New Jersey based companies.

Supreme Court Prohibits Efforts to Evade CAFA’s Scope

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 12, 2013

In a unanimous decision interpreting the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), the U.S. Supreme Court in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, held that a named plaintiff cannot avoid the scope of CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating that the class he seeks to represent will not seek damages that exceed the $5 million amount in controversy threshold.

Third Circuit Rejects Volkswagen Class Settlement for Fundamental Intra-Class Conflict in Consumer Fraud Class Action

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On June 8, 2012

In a precedential opinion issued on May 31, 2012, the Third Circuit in Dewey v. Volkswagen AG, et al., reversed an order granting final approval of a nationwide class action settlement on the ground that the class representative plaintiffs could not adequately represent the interests of the entire class, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

Third Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Off-Label Marketing Actions Against Schering for Lack of Standing

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / General Litigation

On May 31, 2012

In a consolidated appeal pitting a putative class of third-party payors of drugs prescribed for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a putative class of individual patients prescribed such drugs, against Schering-Plough and affiliated entities, the Third Circuit in In re Schering-Plough Corp. Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action affirmed the district courts’ dismissals of both actions for lack of standing. The Third Circuit held that both plaintiffs, who brought federal and state statutory and common law causes of action, failed to allege a plausible nexus between Schering’s allegedly illegal marketing campaign and the doctors’ decisions to prescribe various drugs for unapproved uses.

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