In a win for Georgia employers seeking to enforce restrictive covenants, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that restrictive covenants are not required to contain an express geographic limitation to be enforceable under the...more
Takeaway: In Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, No. 23-3, 2024 WL 2333424 (U.S. May 23, 2024), the Supreme Court unanimously held that where parties have agreed to two contracts – one with an arbitration clause and one without – the...more
Takeaway: In True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 22-15710, 2023 WL 7015279, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decertification of a “junk fax” class, finding that...more
Takeaway: In Drazen v. Pinto, 74 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit held a single “unwanted, illegal” text message sufficient to establish concrete injury for standing purposes. This holding...more
Takeaway: In Van v. LLR, Inc., 61 F.4th 1053 (9th Cir. 2023), the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of class certification and remanded for re-assessment of whether the plaintiff had satisfied the predominance...more
Takeaway: In Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc., -- F.4th ----, No. 20-35962, 2022 WL 6884084 (9th Cir. Oct. 12, 2022), the Ninth Circuit expanded the scope of standing under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), finding...more
Takeaway: In Lindenbaum v. Realgy, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 20-4252, 2021 WL 4097320 (6th Cir. Sept. 9, 2021), the Sixth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) had been...more
Once a month, we cover an interesting topic in 60 seconds. This month, Richard Goldstucker and Jeff Fisher discuss protecting your organization's data against data scrapers....more
Takeaway: In Tsao v. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners, LLC, 986 F.3d 1332, 1339 (11th Cir. 2021), the Eleventh Circuit held that evidence of a “mere data breach” is not sufficient to establish standing where the hackers...more
Takeaway: The Eleventh Circuit has yet to address whether a future risk of identity theft is sufficient to establish standing in a data breach case. In Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 16-16486, 2020 WL 6305084, at *12...more
Takeaway: Most commentators (including this one) interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s fractured plurality opinion in Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc, 140 S. Ct. 2335, 2343 (2020) (“AAPC”), as invalidating the...more
Takeaway: Data breach cases often turn on whether the threat of future identity theft suffices to establish Article III standing. In yet another data breach case, In re Brinker Data Incident Litig., 3:18-CV-686-J-32MCR,...more
Takeaway: In Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc, No. 19-631, 2020 WL 3633780 (U.S. July 6, 2020), the Supreme Court invalidated the exception for calls made for the purpose of collecting government...more
7/15/2020
/ ATDS ,
Auto-Dialed Calls ,
Barr v American Association of Political Consultants Inc ,
Cell Phones ,
Compelling Governmental Interest ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Content-Based Restrictions ,
Debt Collection ,
Exceptions ,
Federal Bans ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Government Debt-Exception ,
Robocalling ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Strict Scrutiny Standard ,
TCPA
Takeaway: Counsel for companies that suffer a data breach often hire an outside cybersecurity firm to remediate the breach and assist counsel in preparing for and defending against litigation. These companies typically take...more
Takeaway: The recent explosion in telemarketing calls has been driven by telephone equipment that allows companies to automatically dial a stored list of potential customers. In Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co., LLC,...more
Takeaway: A key issue in data breach litigation is whether a data breach plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to establish a cognizable injury. In Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.A., S19G0007, 2019 WL 7046786 (Ga....more
Takeaway: Despite the relatively minor nuisance of receiving an unsolicited advertisement, TCPA defendants have had little success challenging TCPA claims on Spokeo (standing) grounds. In Salcedo v. Hanna, --- F.3d ---, No....more
Takeaway: More class actions are filed under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) than any other statute, and TCPA claims often present common issues capable of class certification. But courts will not certify a...more
Takeaway: Plaintiffs in data breach class actions usually assert common law tort claims, such as claims for negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se. Negligence claims, however, require the breach of a recognized...more
Takeaway: A recent Ninth Circuit decision find holding that the plaintiff had provided “prior express consent” to receive calls from a third-party telephone consultant shows that the scope of “prior express consent” is based...more
Takeaway: A recent Fourth Circuit decision finding that UTC and Honeywell, manufacturers of home-security systems, could not be held vicariously liable for calls by downstream retailers in violation of the Telephone Consumer...more
Takeaway: A March 2017 D.C. Circuit decision excluding solicited faxes from the scope of the TCPA may spell trouble for class action plaintiffs. The Northern District of Illinois recently ruled that, at least where there is...more
Takeaway: Decisions addressing a seller’s exposure to vicarious liability for calls placed by a third-party telemarketer in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) offer little predictability or guidance....more
Takeaway: With new stories of data breaches popping up almost daily, a recent Second Circuit decision illustrates the difficulties named plaintiffs face establishing actual injury and surviving a motion to dismiss based on...more
In ARcare v. Qiagen N. Am. Holdings, Inc., No. CV 16-7638 PA (ASX), 2017 WL 449173, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017), the district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss a TCPA class action, finding that the simple...more