Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Ad Law Tool Kit Show – Episode 6 – Mitigating Class Action Exposure
Mass Torts vs. Class Actions: A Tale of Two Strategies
Fierce Competition Podcast | Letter From London: The Rise of UK Class Actions and the Competition Appeal Tribunal
JONES DAY TALKS®: Collective Actions in Spain: A Look Around and the View Ahead
Entertainment Law Update Episode 160 – August/September 2023
JONES DAY TALKS®: Class Actions Worldview Guide: Part 1–The United States and European Union
Eleventh Circuit Grants en banc Review to Resolve Controversial TCPA Standing Ruling
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With FCRA Focus - The Consumer Finance Podcast
2022 Year in Review and Look Ahead Crossover With The Consumer Finance Podcast - FCRA Focus
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Podcast: California Employment News - The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
California Employment News: The Basics of Wage Statement Compliance (Part 1)
What Is Mass Arbitration and How Should Companies Protect Themselves? - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Webinar Recording – Assessing the Surge in Wiretap Litigation
Fashion Counsel: Privacy in the Retail Fashion Industry
Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS Rules on PAGA, Fifth Circuit Rules on COVID-19 Under WARN, Illinois Expands Bereavement Leave - Employment Law This Week®
ESG and SEC Enforcement: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Vale S.A and its Corporate Takeaways
Current Trends in FCRA Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
A recent Ninth Circuit decision on a class action settlement, In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 2022 WL 4492078 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2022), received significant attention in the legal media. It addressed several...more
A New York federal court recently granted Apple a motion to dismiss a case where an alleged class accused Apple of misleading consumers about the waterproof nature of their iPhones. Apple had several allegedly misleading...more
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued an important decision on Article III standing in class actions that will have a significant impact on the way class actions are certified - and will likely scuttle numerous ...more
The United States Supreme Court infrequently hears antitrust cases but when it decides to hear a case, the Court has the power to shape the framework of American antitrust laws. In this episode, we’re examining the...more
Capital One Required to Produce Forensic Report in Class Action - As a litigator, when responding to any security incident, thoughtful consideration is given to the possibility that the security incident may wind up in...more
Facebook has agreed to pay $550 million to resolve a class-action lawsuit claiming that Zuck & Co.’s use of facial recognition technology violated Illinois’ biometric privacy law. Though the settlement is little more than “a...more
On November 13, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s denial of class certification in an action against Apple, Inc., holding that the plaintiffs’ expert’s wait-and-see approach to calculating the...more
Did you have an iPhone in 2011/2012? I still had a BlackBerry. If I had had an iPhone, I would have been a member of the class of more than four million users on whose behalf Mr Lloyd makes this claim. It is alleged that...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision holding that iPhone owners who purchased applications through Apple’s App Store were “direct purchasers” who could sue Apple for monopolization....more
In May 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5–4 decision in Apple v. Pepper, one of the Court's most significant antitrust rulings of the last several years. In a majority opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court...more
In a 5–4 decision, in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) followed the its 1977 precedent in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, which limits the assertion of antitrust damage claims to the first purchaser...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its most recent decision relating to antitrust class action litigation. The case, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, could represent a significant shift in antitrust class action...more
In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have reworked a longstanding precedent that has been a foundation of antitrust litigation for more than 40 years—the “direct purchaser” rule of Illinois Brick, which...more
In a recent decision decided on May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court allowed an antitrust suit to move forward against Apple. Consumers brought suit based on Apple’s operation of its App Store – which serves as the exclusive...more
In a 5-4 ruling issued on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Pepper determined that iPhone users may proceed with their claims against Apple over its alleged anticompetitive app store practices. The decision...more
• The U.S. Supreme Court split 5-4 on how to apply Illinois Brick’s prohibition on federal indirect purchaser lawsuits to a case where plaintiff app purchasers bought apps from the Apple App Store, paying a price set by the...more
The United States Supreme Court decided this week that purchasers of apps through the Apple App Store have standing under federal antitrust law to bring a class-action lawsuit against the tech giant....more
Wondering if you’re a direct purchaser from a monopoly? There’s a Supreme Court ruling for that. Our Antitrust Team downloads the Court’s Apple v. Pepper decision and considers its conclusions and implications....more
In APPLE INC. v. PEPPER ET AL., case number 17-204, the United States Supreme Court considered a case alleging Apple has monopolized the retail market for the sale of apps and has unlawfully used its monopolistic power to...more
On May 13, 2019, in a 5-4 decision in Apple Inc. v. Pepper, the U.S. Supreme Court held that consumers of iPhone apps are direct purchasers of Apple and therefore have standing to sue the company for alleged monopolization of...more
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204, holding that iPhone owners who purchase apps from Apple’s App Store are “direct purchasers” from Apple and may sue Apple for alleged monopolization...more
That massive thud? That would be the other shoe dropping in the form of Chinese counter tariffs on another $60 billion in US goods in response to the White House’s trade moves last week....more
Fascinating weekend feature from the Journal exploring how Sears Roebuck went from the dominant force in American retailing to the bankrupt shell of a company that it is now—all within a period of just 40 years....more
Many companies, such as online retailers and social media websites, participate in “behavioral advertising.” To participate in the network, the company places code on its website that permits a third party (the behavioral...more
Much of the attention on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018-19 term has concerned its composition or its handling of cases involving some of the signature initiatives of President Donald Trump’s administration. Less noticed...more