The ‘Long Arm’ of CIPA and Its Newfound Pen-Trap Claims
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Jerry West Thinks His Portrayal in HBO’s “Winning Time” is a Loser
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Jerry West Thinks His Portrayal in HBO’s “Winning Time” is a Loser
BakerHostetler Partner Paul Karlsgodt Discusses Privacy Class Actions
“The chirp, buzz, or blink of a cell phone receiving a single text message is more akin to walking down a busy sidewalk and having a flyer briefly waved in one’s face. Annoying, perhaps, but not a basis for invoking the...more
In Salcedo v. Hanna, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a TCPA plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a claim based on the alleged receipt of a single, unsolicited text message....more
• In Salcedo v. Hanna, the court found that a single text message sent in alleged violation of the TCPA does not result in concrete injury required by Article III. • A single text message does not result in the type of...more
A single missed call from a telemarketer constitutes a concrete injury that gives rise to standing, a federal district court in California has ruled. In Shuckett v. DialAmerica Marketing, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29598...more
As we have frequently discussed, Article III standing is a recurring issue here at TCPALand. This week another TCPA matter was heard in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal where the court is attempting to decide whether...more
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that, for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), the scope of a consumer’s consent depends on the transactional context in which it is given. Van...more
The rise of Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation in the past decade has been staggering. From just 14 cases in 2007, the number of TCPA-related filings has exploded to 4,860 in 2016 — a total that is expected to...more
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) – which held that Article III standing requires a concrete injury, even when an injury has otherwise been established...more
On the May morning that the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, I was among those who read the case as a bellwether. The Spokeo appeal addressed a long-festering issue about whether Congress may...more
In the consolidated cases Espejo v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 11 C 8987, 2016 WL 6037625 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2016) and Levins v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No. 12 C 9431, 2016 WL 6037 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2016), the...more
On October 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied a petition for an en banc rehearing of its September 12 decision in Galaria, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nos. 15-3386/3387). In...more
In May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Spokeo v. Robins, providing guidance on the “injury-in-fact” aspect of the constitutional standing requirement for putative class action plaintiffs. 136 S. Ct. 1540...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), lower courts have begun to address whether alleged violations of statutes intended to protect privacy suffice, in the absence of...more
A plaintiff did not have Article III standing to assert claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for alleged autodialed calls made to her without her consent, a California federal district court recently...more
Law360, New York (July 1, 2016, 12:12 PM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court made a big splash this year establishing a murky threshold for standing that has already been widely cited by both sides of the bar, while consumers...more
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. May 16, 2016), it is clear that “Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation,” such that a...more
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed the defendants a partial victory in In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litigation on June 27. While its decision last year in In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy...more
In a decision almost a year in the making, the Third Circuit’s recent opinion in In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Privacy Litig. (3d Cir. Nov. 10, 2015), (“Google”), reversed a trial court order dismissing a lawsuit...more