Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Class Action Defense

Catching a Break: Eleventh Circuit Vacates the FCC’s “One-to-One” TCPA Consent Rule

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 1, 2025

In recent years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted various Reports and Orders containing new rules aimed at thwarting rampant abuse of robocalling and robotexting, especially in light of emerging technologies that make such illegal calls easier to place and more dangerous to consumers, as scammers are using this technology to trick individuals into divulging personal information such as Social Security numbers, credit card details, and financial account information. The volume of new rules coming out of the FCC regarding this ever-changing landscape makes it challenging for companies that have to deploy compliant consent mechanisms to continue their marketing and advertising activities. The latest of these rules was set to take effect on January 27, 2025, based on the FCC’s Second Report and Order (R&O) that imposed new standards under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for obtaining prior written consent to receive certain marketing calls and text messages. Part III.D of the R&O states that a consumer cannot consent to a telemarketing or advertising robocall unless the consumer: (1) consents to calls from only one seller at a time; (2) receives a clear and conspicuous disclosure from the seller that the consumer will receive telemarketing calls or texts using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (3) consents...

ChatBot or Not: California Federal Courts Limit CIPA Applicability

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On September 3, 2024

The Northern District of California recently issued a decision further constraining plaintiffs’ ability to assert claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). In Ambriz v. Google, LLC, the plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that Google violated CIPA § 631(a) because its Cloud Contact Center AI software-as-a-service, a virtual customer service tool, wiretapped, eavesdropped on, and recorded his call to Verizon’s customer service center.

New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms the Enforceability of Class Action Waivers

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 25, 2024

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on July 10, 2024, holding that class action waivers in consumer contracts are not per se contrary to public policy. While such waivers may be unenforceable if they are unconscionable or violate other tenets of state contract law, the opinion confirms that there is no blanket prohibition on them – a positive development for businesses in New Jersey. Pace v. Hamilton Cove concerned a putative class action filed by residential tenants of Hamilton Cove Apartments, a luxury apartment complex in a high crime area. In its advertisements, brochures, and oral statements to prospective tenants during tours, Hamilton Cove Apartments promised that the complex would have “elevated, 24/7 security,” with security personnel stationed round-the-clock near each building’s entrance. The plaintiffs alleged that the promises were knowingly false when made, and that they relied on those representations in deciding to sign the lease. The lease contained a “Class Action Waiver” Addendum, by which the lessee “expressly waive[d] any right and/or ability to bring, represent, join, or otherwise maintain a Class Action.” The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claim, arguing in pertinent part that a class action was not necessary to vindicate the plaintiffs’ interests and, in any event, that the leases contained class...

Fourth Circuit Revives Claim that Faxes Promoting Free Webinars are “Unsolicited Advertisements” Under the TCPA

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On July 19, 2024

Last month, the Fourth Circuit in Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, et al. revived Family Health’s putative class action, finding that it plausibly alleged facts sufficient to state a claim that the defendant’s fax invitation to attend a free webinar was an “unsolicited advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA). In doing so, the Fourth Circuit revisited its recent holding in Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC that an “unsolicited advertisement” does not include offers or solicitations with no commercial component or purpose. Under that reasoning, a fax promoting a free webinar would seem not to fall within the TCPA’s definition of an “unsolicited advertisement.” However, because Family Health’s complaint alleged that the webinar was being used to market Pulse8’s healthcare coding technology, the court drew a reasonable inference that Pulse8 sent the fax hoping to persuade recipients to use its products. As a transmission of “information with a commercial nexus to the sender’s business,” the fax was therefore plausibly alleged to qualify as an advertisement. To survive a motion to dismiss, the Fourth Circuit continued, Family Health was not required to plead facts alleging the specific products or services that were promoted. Rather, it was reasonable to infer that a company that invites you to...

New Jersey Supreme Court Holds “Illusory Discounts” Do Not Support a Claim of Ascertainable Loss Under the Consumer Fraud Act

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 25, 2024

In a 4-3 opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the mere purchase of a product falsely represented as “discounted” does not, without more, satisfy the “ascertainable loss” element under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA). In Robey v. SPARC Group LLC, the plaintiffs – a proposed class of shoppers at the retail clothing store Aéropostale – alleged that the store advertised clothing as being discounted when, in fact, the items had never been offered or sold at the higher prices off of which the “discount” was taken. The plaintiffs contend that this practice of so-called “illusory discounts” violated the NJCFA, the Truth in Consumer-Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), and various common law contract rights. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, determining that the plaintiffs failed to allege an “ascertainable loss.” The Appellate Division majority disagreed and reversed, noting some confusion as to whether the NJCFA’s “ascertainable loss” requirement was the same as the TCCWNA’s “aggrieved consumer” requirement. The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed, finding that the plaintiffs’ NJCFA claim failed because they could show neither of the two recognized types of “ascertainable loss” for a claim based on a seller’s alleged deception: an out-of-pocket loss or a loss of the benefit-of-the-bargain. First, the plaintiffs...

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...

“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...

Delaware District Court Allows for Single Claim to Proceed Against Amazon in Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act Class Action Suit

by

Posted in Class Action Defense / Privacy Class Actions

On May 3, 2023

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is designed to protect and regulate the use of both “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” of Illinois residents. “Biometric identifiers,” for instance, include “a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.” In contrast, “biometric information” means “any information … based on an individual’s biometric identifier used to identify an individual.” On March 29, 2023, in McGoveran v. Amazon Web Servs., Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted in part Amazon Web Services (“Amazon”) and Pindrop Security’s (“Pindrop”) motion to dismiss a proposed class action brought pursuant to BIPA for lack of standing, based on a strict interpretation of the definitions of “biometric identifiers” and “biometric information” and the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege that they suffered any concrete, actual, or imminent injury as a result of the defendants’ conduct. In McGoveran, a group of Illinois residents alleged that Amazon and Pindrop violated BIPA by extracting their biometric information for authentication purposes when the plaintiffs called John Hancock to discuss their retirement accounts. At the outset, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring a claim under BIPA Section 15(a) and Section 15(c) or to otherwise obtain injunctive relief. Under Section 15(a), a company is...

Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Grant of a Motion to Strike Class Allegations

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On April 5, 2023

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the grant of a pre-discovery motion to strike class allegations. In Elson v. Black, 14 women from seven states sought to bring a putative class action against the defendant companies, alleging that the defendants falsely advertised its FasciaBlaster product. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the FasciaBlaster had been falsely advertised as a product that would eliminate cellulite, help with weight loss, and relieve pain. The district court, in a three-sentence opinion, struck the class allegations, finding that the class failed to establish commonality. The next day, the district court dismissed the remainder of the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. While the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the district court opinion to be “inappropriately brief,” it agreed that the class could not be certified, nor could the plaintiffs establish their claims of fraud. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the district court’s ruling dismissing two plaintiffs’ express warranty claims, finding that the court failed to apply the law of a specific jurisdiction. The appellate court held that the class could not be certified under Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement and Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement. First, the plaintiffs’ claims were governed by different states’ laws, and the plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden establishing that “such differences...

Appellate Division Holds Plaintiffs Can State a Claim Under New Jersey’s CFA and TCCWNA Statutes Where an Advertised Discount Is Alleged to Be Illusory

by

Posted in Class Action Defense

On March 22, 2023

A recent split decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division called into question whether the “ascertainable loss” requirement for pleading a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) is the same as the “aggrieved consumers” requirement under the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). Without deciding that question, the court found that the pleading sufficiently alleged both in asserting that the defendant inflated its prices to offer an illusory discount. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, SPARC Group LLC, falsely advertised clothing at two of its Aeropostale stores as being discounted from a higher price when the clothing allegedly had never been sold in those stores at the higher price. The plaintiffs asserted that this “markup to markdown” practice violates both the NJCFA, the TCCWNA, and the common law. The trial judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and largely rested her decision on a determination that the plaintiffs failed to allege an “ascertainable loss.” The Appellate Division majority disagreed and reversed. The majority noted some confusion as to whether the NJCFA’s “ascertainable loss” requirement was the same as the TCCWNA’s “aggrieved consumer” requirement. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that an “ascertainable loss” must be “quantifiable and measurable” and not “hypothetical or illusory,” while the...

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