Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘privacy class action’

Work commitments have prevented me from posting over the past week, but I wanted to take the opportunity to point out that there have been some notable developments in the privacy class action area over the past week.  Judy Selby covered these developments in a recent blog post for the BakerHostetler Class Action Defense and Data Privacy Monitor blogs.  Selby’s post, titled Hannaford v. comScore – Up and Down Results for Privacy Class Action Defendants, compares and contrasts two recent decisions, one granting and one denying class certification, in privacy cases.

Read Full Post »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling yesterday that will be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to sue call centers in class actions for violations of California’s Invasion of Privacy Law, Cal. Penal Code § 632 (sometimes called the “wiretapping” statute).  The law prohibits the recording or monitoring of confidential telephone calls without the caller’s consent.  It is an appealing basis for class action claims because it provides for statutory penalty of $5,000 per violation, creating the possibility of annihilating exposure in a case that involves a call center that handles thousands of customer calls.

In Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., the court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a claim under the statute based on allegations that a call center for a security company recorded the call of a customer who called with a billing dispute.  The Ninth Circuit fell short of holding that a billing dispute with a security company could never qualify as a “confidential” communication giving rise to liability under the law, but it did observe that whether a particular call was confidential would require unique facts:

For example, a caller might be asked to verify his identity by confirming his social security number or his unlisted telephone number, or to disclose other private or potentially private information. If adequately pled, such facts might well support a finding of confidentiality.

Slip op. at 9, n.***.  The need to examine the particular content of each call to determine whether liability is present would in most cases create an individualized issue of fact preventing class certification.  So, although the ruling does not close the door on claims against call centers for violations of the Invasion of Privacy law, it presents a hurdle to the certification of potentially bankrupting class actions.

Read Full Post »

My colleagues at BakerHostetler have put together some great content on several class action-related topics recently that readers should find interesting.

First, the Baker Hostetler Class Action Defense Team issued an executive alert today discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in another case involving class arbitration waivers.  The alert, titled U.S. Supreme Court Considers Arbitration Clauses and Class Actions Next Year, summarizes the issues to be addressed in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter.  The alert was authored by newly elected Cleveland Partner Ruth E. Hartman and Class Action Defense Team Leader Ernie Vargo.

Another executive alert, titled Recent Trends in Class Actions for Telephone and Fax Solicitation and Advertising, was issued last week by the Privacy and Data Protection and Class Action Defense Teams.   The alert, authored by my colleague in Denver, Justin Winquist, summarizes the latest trends in class action litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Finally, my partner Casie Collignon authored a blog post yesterday with an update on the latest in the ongoing saga of Dukes v. Wal-Mart on remand following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.  The post is entitled, California District Court Awaits Class Certification Motion in Wal-Mart.

Read Full Post »

Reuters contributor Alison Frankel authored an insightful column published August 20, 2012 entitled Foretelling the End of Money-for-Nothing Class Actions, that touches on issues similar to those raised by Brian Wolfman in two recent articles summarized in this August 15 CAB post.  In her column, Frankel comments on a recent trend, particularly in data privacy class actions, where large fee awards are requested in settlements for which no meaningful relief is provided to class members.  Oftentimes, the fee awards are justified by the value of prospective injunctive relief or by the fact of a large cash payment to charity in the form of a cy pres award, but not by any direct benefits to the class members themselves.

Frankel predicts that we have seen the “high point” in what she terms “money-for-nothing” class action settlements, pointing to a growing skepticism among judges who are asked to approve them.  While it remains to be seen if this prediction will come true, Frankel’s article, like Wolfman’s articles, should at least give pause to class action attorneys who are willing to sell out a class for personal gain: you may be getting away with this now, but at some point the courts will begin to look beyond the desire to clear their dockets and begin to question the societal value of these settlements.

Read Full Post »

Venkat Balasubramani over at Spam Notes has been covering developments in an interesting group of class actions against Blockbuster Video and Facebook.  The cases arise out of Facebook’s Beacon feature, which causes news feed stories to be automatically generated about users’ purchases and other actions with online partners like Blockbuster.  the plaintiffs in each of the cases allege violations of various privacy laws arising out of the use of the Beacon program. 

The first of the three actions was filed against Blockbuster in federal court in Texas.  A separate filing against Facebook and various of its online partners, including Blockbuster, followed in federal court in California.  The Texas plaintiffs later filed a similar case against Facebook in Texas.

The parties in the California case recently reached a settlement.  The settlement calls for Facebook to terminate the Beacon program and pay $9.5 million to a fund to be used to establish a “privacy foundation,” along with payment of administrative costs, incentive payments to the named plaintiffs, and attorneys’ fees.  If finally approved, the settlement would include a release of claims by users against both Facebook and its  affiliates, thus ostensibly resolving the claims in both Texas cases even though Facebook is the only named defendant in the California case. 

As Balasubramani reports, the court in the California case has preliminarily approved the settlement and denied attempts by the Texas plaintiffs to intervene.   The cases involve an interesting case study in the struggle between competing plaintiff groups.  The settlement also raises interesting questions about the use of cy pres awards to charity in lieu of direct payments to class members and the preclusive effect of a class settlement as to claims against defendants who do not contribute to the settlement consideration.

Check out Spam Notes for the latest developments as well as links to key filings and settlement documents.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts