Public comments to recently published regulations governing compliance with the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) show that stakeholders sharply disagree on multiple areas of the CPRA. Seventy submissions totaling nearly...more
Service contracts allow retailers and manufacturers to offer service plans for consumer products, and sellers and administrators of such contracts are categorically exempted from California’s ARL....more
With the passage of the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) during its latest legislative session, Colorado has become the third state to enact a comprehensive consumer data privacy law, following California and Virginia. Corporations...more
Key Points -
The U.S. Supreme Court held that all members of a certified class must demonstrate that they suffered a concrete harm—such as physical injury or monetary loss—to have Article III standing to recover damages in...more
6/30/2021
/ Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Members ,
Credit Reporting Agencies ,
Credit Reports ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
SCOTUS ,
Standing ,
TransUnion ,
TransUnion LLC v Ramirez
While some states have enacted privacy laws granting consumers the right to bring a private right of action in a data breach context, federal courts have struggled to fit data breach injury into traditional Article III...more
The U.S. Supreme Court granted review last week in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which presents the question of whether Article III or Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a damages class action where most...more
12/23/2020
/ Article III ,
Class Certification ,
Class Members ,
Class Representatives ,
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) ,
FRCP 23 ,
Injury-in-Fact ,
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Standing ,
TransUnion
- The 9th Circuit has held that settlement of a plaintiff’s individual claims moots the appeal of an order denying class certification, unless the settlement agreement specifically preserves the plaintiff’s personal stake in...more
6/18/2020
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Class Representatives ,
FRCP 23(f) ,
Litigation Fees & Costs ,
Microsoft v Baker ,
Mootness ,
Putative Class Actions ,
Settlement Agreements ,
Settlement Negotiations
On October 2, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 208 (“SB 208”), the Consumer Call Protection Act of 2019. The law seeks to protect consumers from fraudulent robocalls. SB 208 adds Section 2893.5 to the...more
On July 1, California became the first state in the country to require that “bots” reveal their “artificial identity” when they are used for certain commercial and political purposes. The law does not provide for a private...more
• On May 16, 2019, the California Senate Appropriations Committee held Senate Bill 561 (SB-561) in committee, likely blocking its passage this term.
• SB-561, co-authored by the California Attorney General, would have...more
• The Supreme Court has once again affirmed that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) protects a party’s right to individualized arbitration, and preempts state policy that would force resolution of broader, more complex...more
4/26/2019
/ Ambiguous ,
Appeals ,
Arbitration ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Class Arbitration ,
Consent ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Federal v State Law Application ,
Jurisdiction ,
Lamps Plus Inc v Varela ,
Motion to Compel ,
Preemption ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
• The United States Supreme Court held that a disseminator of a false statement with intent to defraud can be held liable under subsections (a) and (c) of Rule 10b-5, §10(b) of the Exchange Act and §17(a)(1) of the Securities...more
4/2/2019
/ Appeals ,
Enforcement Actions ,
False Statements ,
Fines ,
Intent to Defraud ,
Investment Banks ,
Lorenzo v SEC ,
Material Dissemination ,
Misleading Statements ,
Reaffirmation ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations ,
Suspensions
• The United States Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for parties to seek permission for interlocutory review of class certification decisions is not subject to equitable...more
3/5/2019
/ Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Collective Actions ,
Decertification ,
Equitable Tolling ,
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ,
Filing Deadlines ,
FRCP 23(f) ,
Interlocutory Appeals ,
Leave to Appeal ,
Motion for Reconsideration ,
Nutraceutical Corp v Lambert ,
SCOTUS