23andMe Shareholder Lawsuit: Key Developments and What It Means for Investors
Audet & Partners, LLP is actively investigating claims related to a potential shareholder lawsuit against 23andMe, a leading genetic testing company. Recent revelations have sparked significant concerns among investors, following the abrupt resignation of all independent directors from the company’s board.
The resignations occurred after learning that CEO and co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who holds a 49% stake in the company, had been pursuing plans to take 23andMe private. The board cited Wojcicki’s failure to present a “fully-financed, fully diligenced, actionable proposal” that would safeguard the interests of non-affiliated shareholders as a primary reason for their departure.
Financial Struggles and Restructuring Plans
The potential privatization move comes amid widening fiscal losses for 23andMe, which doubled to approximately $667 million in the most recent fiscal year. Shareholders have raised concerns about Wojcicki’s strategy, fearing that the absence of competitive bidding could lead to a significant devaluation of their investments.
Implications for Shareholders
Shareholders of 23andMe may have grounds to pursue legal claims if it is proven that the executive actions surrounding the privatization plan have unfairly jeopardized their financial interests. The lawsuit could address whether the company’s leadership failed in their fiduciary duties by not considering competitive offers that could have potentially yielded better returns for public shareholders.
What’s Next?
If you are or have been a shareholder of 23andMe, you may have a claim for damages. Audet & Partners, LLP is offering a free, confidential case assessment to help shareholders understand their legal rights and options. Contact us today for more information.
Consumer Class Action Lawsuit Against “The Knot” Raises Concerns for Wedding Industry
A recent class action lawsuit filed against the popular wedding services company, The Knot, has raised concerns among consumers and industry professionals alike. Plaintiffs in the case allege that The Knot, known for its online wedding planning platform, engaged in deceptive business practices that misled couples and wedding vendors, potentially impacting thousands who used the platform to manage and plan their weddings.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, claims that The Knot manipulated search algorithms to promote vendors who paid for higher visibility, regardless of consumer ratings or reviews. This alleged practice, according to the plaintiffs, deprived users of impartial search results, potentially driving them toward higher-cost vendors who may not have met the same standards as other, less-promoted providers.
Allegations of Lack of Transparency
The complaint further contends that The Knot failed to disclose its practices to users adequately, which plaintiffs argue is a breach of consumer trust. Couples using the platform to plan their special day relied on The Knot to provide unbiased recommendations, and the suit asserts that the company’s undisclosed pay-to-promote practices led many to vendors based on prominence rather than genuine reputation.
In response to these allegations, a representative from The Knot issued a statement defending the platform’s practices, emphasizing that its vendor listings are designed to enhance users’ experiences by showcasing reputable and reliable wedding professionals. The Knot has indicated plans to challenge the claims and defend its business practices.
Implications for the Wedding Industry
This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions targeting digital platforms and online marketplaces accused of prioritizing profits over transparency. If the case proceeds, it could have far-reaching effects on how wedding platforms and other consumer service sites operate, setting a precedent for greater transparency in online search results and vendor recommendations.
This case underscores a growing demand for accountability among online service providers, especially in industries where consumers invest substantial personal and financial resources. For couples planning weddings, the outcome of this case could bring heightened transparency to platforms they rely on for guidance and recommendations.
Considering Legal Action? We’re Here to Help
If you or a loved one has been affected by these practices, you may be entitled to pursue legal action. Our legal team specializes in consumer rights and is available to provide you with a free case evaluation.Contact us today to learn more about your options and how we can assist.
Key Developments in the Case Against the Popular Supplement Company
As of August 2024, the ongoing Balance of Nature lawsuit continues to evolve, with significant legal developments that could impact both the supplement industry and consumers. This high-profile case, which began several months ago, involves allegations against Balance of Nature, a well-known dietary supplement company, for misleading marketing practices and false claims about the efficacy of its products. The case has drawn considerable attention as it brings into question the role of transparency in the health supplement market.
At the core of the lawsuit are accusations that Balance of Nature’s marketing materials made exaggerated claims about the benefits of their supplements. The plaintiffs argue that the company misled consumers by asserting that their products can cure or prevent various diseases without sufficient scientific evidence to back these claims. The lawsuit contends that such claims are not only deceptive but also pose potential risks to consumers who may rely on these supplements in place of proven medical treatments.
According to the complaint, Balance of Nature’s advertising violated multiple consumer protection laws, including false advertising statutes and health regulations that govern the supplement industry. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, refunds, and stronger regulation of the company’s marketing practices.
Developments in the Case: What’s Happened So Far
Since the initial filing, there have been several important developments in the case as of August 2024:
Discovery Phase Progress: Both parties have been involved in the discovery phase, where internal documents, marketing strategies, and product formulations are being examined. These findings could provide crucial evidence to support claims that Balance of Nature deliberately misled consumers.
Consumer Testimonials Under Scrutiny: The court has allowed plaintiffs to introduce evidence from numerous consumer testimonials. These statements detail individuals’ reliance on Balance of Nature products for health improvements that were never realized, further supporting the case for false advertising.
Potential for Settlement: There have been ongoing discussions between the plaintiffs and Balance of Nature about a potential settlement. Although no agreement has been reached, there is speculation that the company may seek to resolve the case to avoid prolonged legal proceedings and potential reputational damage.
Impact on the Supplement Industry
This lawsuit may have far-reaching consequences for the supplement industry. If Balance of Nature is found liable for false advertising, it could set a new precedent for how supplements are marketed and regulated. Increased scrutiny from the FDA and FTC may follow, leading to stricter guidelines on how companies can promote the health benefits of their products.
Consumers, too, may become more cautious and discerning when purchasing supplements, seeking more transparency and scientific backing for the products they use.
What’s Next?
The next few months are expected to be crucial in determining the outcome of the case. Legal analysts are closely watching for new developments, including any court rulings on key motions or potential settlements. Additionally, further evidence could emerge during the discovery phase, shedding more light on the extent of Balance of Nature’s marketing practices.
Conclusion: What This Means for Consumers
This Balance of Nature Lawsuit Update underscores the importance of consumer protection in the dietary supplement industry. If you or someone you know has purchased Balance of Nature products based on misleading claims, you may have legal options. Our law firm is actively reviewing cases related to this lawsuit and is prepared to assist consumers who may have been affected.
For more information or to schedule a free consultation, please contact our team today.
California Supreme Court Offers Insight on Compensable Time According to State Law
On March 25th, 2024 the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on the matter of Huertas v. CSI Electrical Contractors. This ruling provides further guidance for employers and employees on what is considered compensable time, or time on the clock.
The court took up three central issues in this case. Firstly, the Court considered whether time spent by employees on their employer’s premises, waiting in personal vehicles to scan ID badges, undergo security checks, and exit through a Security Gate, qualifies as hours worked. Additionally, it examined whether the time spent driving between the Security Gate and employee parking lots, while adhering to employer-specific rules, should be compensated as hours worked or employer-mandated travel, with the court examining both it generally and specifically under Wage Order No. 16. Lastly, the court addressed if time during which employees are required to remain on the premises but are not engaged in mandated activities, specifically during unpaid meal breaks as per a collective bargaining agreement, should be considered compensable under Wage Order No. 16 or California Labor Code Section 1194.
On the first issue regarding employees waiting for security checks and procedures on company property to exit the facility, the court found that this typically should be seen as compensable time. The court reasoned that since the employee was still under the employer’s control and was subject to specific tasks such as waiting in their vehicle, showing a security badge, complying with a visual inspection, and potentially subject to a search of their vehicle, that this was still considered to be time working. As such, the employee should be compensated for this time waiting and going through security exit procedures.
On the second issue, the Court addressed both general compensatory time and specific “employer-mandated travel” issues under Wage Order 16, focusing on an employee’s drive time on company property. It clarified that merely driving on an employer’s premises while adhering to various rules—such as speed limits and no-smoking policies—does not constitute employer control sufficient to make the time compensable as “hours worked” under California’s control test. The Court argued that general site policies, which aim to ensure safety and order, do not impose control that would render such travel time compensable. Additionally, regarding “employer-mandated travel,” the Court distinguished between travel necessitated by the practical need to reach the worksite and travel required for work-specific reasons, like picking up supplies or receiving orders, underlining that only the latter falls under compensable travel in Wage Order 16’s context. This decision notably limits the scope of what qualifies as compensable “employer-mandated travel” to situations where the employee’s presence is required for reasons beyond merely accessing the work site.
On the final issue, the Court considered the scenario where an employer is exempt from California’s meal period mandates due to a qualifying occupation and collective bargaining agreement under Labor Code section 512(f). Despite this exemption, the Court concurred with the employee in that he was entitled to at least the minimum wage during any on-duty meal periods since he was not allowed to leave the worksite. The Court stated that “even when a qualifying CBA exempts employers from meal period requirements, an employee must still be compensated at minimum wage for meal periods if restrictions on leaving the worksite substantially limit the employee’s ability to use the time for personal activities.” It emphasized that while the short duration of a meal break may naturally limit what can be done, employees should still have the flexibility to engage in reasonable personal activities, like returning to their vehicle or taking a short walk, unless the location’s layout makes such activities impractical within the break’s timeframe. The Court affirmed that mere impracticality due to the worksite’s features does not amount to employer control over the break period but did not make a definitive judgment on whether the specific restrictions at CSI met this criterion.
Important Take-Aways
In this case, the court resolved three pivotal issues: First, the court determined that time spent by employees waiting in their vehicles for security checks on company property is compensable, viewing these activities as being under employer control. Second, it differentiated between general drive time on employer premises, which it deemed non-compensable due to lack of sufficient employer control, and employer-mandated travel for specific work-related tasks, which is compensable under Wage Order No. 16. Finally, regarding on-duty meal periods, the court held that even under a collective bargaining agreement, employees are entitled to minimum wage if employer restrictions limit their personal activity during these breaks. These decisions collectively emphasize the importance of the context and nature of employee activities in determining compensability.
As of early 2024, we’ve witnessed an unprecedented surge in the legal actions against Bayer, the current owner of Roundup, with plaintiffs securing nearly $5 billion in verdicts over the past month. This marks a significant momentum shift in favor of those alleging harm from the use of the glyphosate-based herbicide.
For those considering a new claim, it’s important to note that the opportunity remains open. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) continues to expand, incorporating over 100 new cases in 2024 alone, bringing the total active lawsuits to 4,281. The persistence of these legal challenges emphasizes the critical nature of the allegations against Roundup—primarily that its use is linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Key Legal Milestones
Recent months have seen several pivotal moments in the courtroom:
In January 2024, a Philadelphia jury awarded a staggering $2.25 billion to John McKivison, a long-time Roundup user diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, emphasizing the jury’s stance on punitive damages against Bayer.
A San Diego trial in October 2023 concluded with a $332 million verdict in favor of Mike Dennis, another victim of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma due to prolonged Roundup exposure.
These cases highlight not only the potential financial compensation for affected individuals but also reinforce the allegation that Bayer has consistently failed to provide adequate warnings about the cancer risks associated with Roundup.
Scientific Evidence and Regulatory Actions
The backdrop to these lawsuits is a growing body of scientific research that questions the safety of glyphosate, Roundup’s primary ingredient. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Moreover, a University of Washington study indicates that glyphosate exposure raises the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by 41%.
Regulatory bodies have also reflected this concern. The Ninth Circuit has prompted the EPA to reassess its stance on glyphosate, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Bayer’s appeal further aligns federal oversight with the scientific community’s warnings.
So far, Monsanto has settled around 100,000 cases for around $11 billion, though 30,000 cases remain unresolved, demonstrating the scale and complexity of this litigation. Each verdict brings unique insights into jury decisions, helping to shape the strategies for future litigation.
Significant Developments in 3M Earplug Multidistrict Litigation
A federal judge in Florida, overseeing the 3M earplug multidistrict litigation (MDL), has taken decisive action against duplicative cases and overlapping representation. Judge M. Casey Rodgers dismissed several claims post the October 11 deadline, aimed at addressing these issues. This order affects 3,548 cases with unresolved overlaps, where plaintiffs had the same name but different IDs and law firms. The ruling designates the primary counsel who filed the first case as the representative for each claimant, dismissing all subsequent related cases with prejudice. This development follows the tentative $6 billion settlement reached in August, meant to resolve claims of hearing damage caused by 3M Co. combat earplugs. The judge also highlighted fraudulent activities targeting claimants, with scammers impersonating Archer Systems LLC, the company handling the settlement.
Uber Driver’s Wage Dispute Arbitrated by California Federal Judge
In a significant ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered arbitration for a former Uber driver’s wage dispute, a part of a larger independent contractor misclassification case. Christina Ferreira, the ex-Uber driver, had her Fair Labor Standards Act claims moved to arbitration based on an agreement she signed with Uber subsidiaries. Judge Tigar’s decision underscores Uber’s status as a third-party beneficiary capable of enforcing the arbitration agreement. Ferreira’s case, which sought to represent a collective of Uber drivers classified as independent contractors, highlights the ongoing legal debate over the rights of gig economy workers. The ruling emphasizes the legal complexities surrounding employment classifications and arbitration agreements in the evolving gig economy landscape.
NAR Faces Legal Challenges Following Missouri Jury’s Verdict
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is set to appeal a Missouri federal court’s verdict in a case alleging commission rate fixing. The jury found that the NAR and brokerages like HomeServices of America and Keller Williams conspired to fix commission rates, potentially leading to a $5 billion award for overpayments. This verdict is part of a broader legal challenge against the NAR, including a proposed nationwide class action with potential damages reaching $200 billion. The case focuses on the NAR’s influence in the real estate industry and its commission rules. Legal experts note the significant implications of such a large verdict and its potential impact on the NAR’s future. The case highlights ongoing concerns about market competition and pricing in the real estate sector.
The Class Action Case Update is presented by Audet & Partners, LLP, a national class action and complex litigation law firm based in San Francisco, California. If you would like a free, confidential case evaluation to determine whether you may have a claim for compensation in any one of our active class action cases, please contact us either by completing and submitting the inquiry form on the right side of this page, or by giving us a call at 800-965-1461.
Several noteworthy class action lawsuits have recently been filed across a range of industries. These lawsuits involve allegations of discrimination, securities fraud, and other issues. In this Class Action Law Update provided by Audet & Partners, LLP, we will take a closer look at some of the most significant class action lawsuits filed in recent weeks.
First, a class action lawsuit was filed against investment bank Goldman Sachs, alleging that the bank discriminates against women in its hiring and promotion practices. The lawsuit claims that Goldman Sachs has a “boys’ club” culture and that women are routinely paid less than men and are given fewer opportunities to advance in their careers. The lawsuit seeks to represent all current and former female employees of Goldman Sachs in the United States.
Another notable lawsuit was filed against pharmaceutical company AbbVie, alleging that the company engaged in securities fraud by misleading investors about the safety of its blockbuster drug, Humira. The lawsuit claims that AbbVie downplayed the risks of serious side effects associated with Humira, including cancer and infections. The lawsuit seeks to represent all investors who purchased AbbVie stock between November 2018 and September 2021.
In the technology industry, a class action lawsuit was filed against Facebook, alleging that the company violated antitrust laws by acquiring rival social media companies to stifle competition. The lawsuit claims that Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp were anti-competitive and allowed the company to maintain a dominant position in the social media market. The lawsuit seeks to represent all Facebook users in the United States.
Another significant class action lawsuit was filed against retail giant Amazon, alleging that the company’s working conditions violate labor laws. The lawsuit claims that Amazon routinely denies workers overtime pay and meal breaks, and that the company pressures workers to work off the clock. The lawsuit seeks to represent all current and former Amazon warehouse workers in California.
Finally, a class action lawsuit was filed against ridesharing company Uber, alleging that the company discriminated against riders with disabilities. The lawsuit claims that Uber fails to provide adequate transportation options for riders with disabilities, and that the company’s practices violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit seeks to represent all Uber riders with disabilities in the United States.
The class action lawsuits highlighted above underscore the importance of holding companies accountable for their actions. If you believe you may have suffered losses as the result of fraudulent or unscrupulous corporate actions, you are urged to contact a class action attorney at Audet & Partners, LLP for a free, confidential case evaluation. You can contact us either by completing and submitting the inquiry form on the right side of this page or by giving us a call at 800-965-1461.
Facebook algorithms accused of age and gender discrimination while displaying ads.
Real Women in Trucking, has filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing Meta Platforms (parent company of Facebook) of systemic age and gender discrimination while displaying ads to its Facebook users. The organization representing women in the trucking industry has sought injunctive relief and damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment along with similar local and state laws.
To further their point, Real Women in Trucking have alleged that despite women being 54% of the total Facebook users and employers requiring Facebook to send job ads to all persons across age groups and genders, in some cases employers have received applications that are over 99% male and from persons below 55 years.
Specifically, the women’s advocacy group referred to 75 trucking ads in their complaint which Facebook displayed to 94% men and 5% women.
Similarly, they have also alleged that Meta’s algorithm is far more likely to show ads of conventionally masculine jobs (e.g., firefighting, trucking, etc.) to men as opposed to women. It may be noted here that the EEOC declared way back in 2019 that the use of age or gender-related algorithms are a violation of existing discrimination laws.
Proposed class action against Apple’s AirTag by stalking victims
A proposed class action by Lauren Hughes of Texas and a New York woman identified as Jane Doe has accused Apple’s AirTag to have significantly enhanced the ability of stalkers to find the exact location of their victims while simultaneously failing to adequately warn its victims of such tracking.
AirTag is a device meant to help people keep a track of lost items. However, AirTag found itself in a tough spot even before its market release for its potential to be used for stalking given its compactness, accurate tracking, and low price point. Post-which Apple claimed to have made it stalker-proof by sending out notifications to iPhone users if it detects an unknown AirTag moving with the device. However, this leaves out Android users who account for more than 40% of the total market share.
Jane Doe who was in the midst of a contentious divorce found an AirTag in her daughter’s bag. Similarly, Lauren Hughes who had moved homes after instances of stalking by her ex-partner received a notification on her iPhone notifying her of an unknown AirTag in her vicinity. Post which Ms. Hughes was able to trace an AirTag in her car.
As such, the complaint seeks to represent a total of 4 classes which include IOS and Android users who were either tracked by AirTag without consent or at-risk-of stalking classes.
The suit has sought injunctive relief and damages while accusing Apple of design defect, negligence, and violation of New York and California statutes inter alia.
Juul Labs reaches an in-principle settlement with plaintiffs in federal multi-district litigation
Juul Labs has entered into an in-principle settlement covering 4 separate matters comprising more than 8500 personal injury cases, 1400 government-entity cases, and 34 tribal cases. The recent multi-district litigation settlements come in a long line of Juul’s settlements with other states. The terms of the settlement remain undisclosed as of now.
The settlement relates to e-cigarette maker Juul’s misleading marketing and sales practices, misrepresentations relating to the safety of their devices, etc. On its behalf, Juul viewed the proposed settlement as a major step in securing the company’s path forward. The US District Court is expected to soon hold a hearing to review the proposed settlement.
Veterans accuse Citibank of non-compliance with servicemen-related lending requirements
A class of Military Veterans have filed suit against Citibank accusing it of violating laws in place to facilitate easy and cheap les nding to military members. The veterans have alleged that Citibank failed to comply with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Military Lending Act, and Truth in Lending Act along with violating other contractual and fiduciary obligations.
Laws governing the extension of credit to servicemembers inter alia restrict the amount of interest chargeable to a servicemember, when incurred before he is called to active duty.
Interestingly the suit alleges that Citibank while giving the illusion of offering servicemembers benefits in excess of those available under law fails to pass on the statutorily mandated benefits by virtue of the drastic increase in the interest and fees it charges, once the servicemember finishes active duty.
Further, one of the plaintiff’s has claimed that Citibank in addition to increasing his interest payable from 0% to 15.74%, failed to give clear notice of such a drastic increase in the post-deployment interest rate. The suit also accuses Citibank of withholding the extension of military benefits to servicemembers despite providing sufficient proof of eligibility.
Starbucks sued for misrepresenting contents of coffee powder
Starbucks is in the midst of a potential class action suit accusing it of issuing misleading advertisements about the contents of its coffee. The coffee under the lens is the French Roast Ground 100% Arabica Coffee. Despite the name, the suit claims that it includes potassium as an additive and therefore, misleadingly claims itself to be 100% coffee.
It should be noted that potassium is a common acidity regulator agent used for ensuring the coffee beans retain their flavor and aroma.
The plaintiffs argue that a product claiming to be 100% coffee should not contain potassium. Furthermore, the suit also alleges that the said coffee powder consists of higher-than-expected potassium levels which can also cause further health issues in coffee drinkers. As such, the suit has accused Starbucks’ of being fraudulent and violative of consumer laws and in breach of implied and express warranties.
3M lawsuit update: 3M asked to defend its new stance claiming that its subsidiary is solely responsible for damages
Background:
3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.
In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.
Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.
Therefore, to summarize, the lawsuit is being played out in 2 courts (concerning different questions of law) i.e., the court hearing the MDL (MDL Court, Judge Rodgers) and the bankruptcy court (Florida Court, Judge Graham).
Recent update
In an interesting turn of events, 3M has now (after around 3 years of litigation) claimed that its subsidiary Aearo is to be blamed solely for the damage caused by the Combat Arms Earplugs. As a response to this, the plaintiffs have pointed out that 3M had vehemently argued that it owns and controls Aearo while opposing a motion to treat 3M and Aearo as different entities (for deciding a per defendant damages cap).
Furthermore, this stance is in stark opposition to 3M’s trial-long conduct of taking the lead in responding to court documents filed against all defendants.
The Florida Judge after critiquing this new defense has now asked 3M to justify it. On its part, 3M insisted that its strategy is unchanged and that it is committed to working towards resolving the matter.
Amplify settlement in 2021 Huntington oil spill within sight – coast clear for suit against responsible containerships
Amplify Energy Corporation has agreed to pay $50 million to settle the class action suit instituted against them. The suit emanated from the leak of an Amplify-owned pipeline located in federal waters near Huntington Beach. The said oil leak was spread across 23 miles of California’s coastline (from Huntington beach up to Dana Point) and aside from affecting marine life and wildlife also led to the closure of several fishing blocks.
The $50 million settlement (yet to be approved by the court) will be divided as follows: $34 million to plaintiffs from the fish industry, $9 million to property owners, and $7 million to the class representing the tourism industry. Additionally, as a part of the settlement, Amplify is also required to take steps to keep the spill from recurring and undertake additional procedures (amounting to $250,000) before resuming operations.
The leak was supposedly caused by MSC Danit and M/V Beijing, two containerships, whose decision to remain at anchor during a storm led their anchors to drag over and weaken/crack Amplify’s pipeline which was carrying crude oil. The pipeline began leaking on 1 October 2021, despite which the oil companies continued using it to pump oil till the next morning.
With the settlement (almost) in place, the coast is clear for Amplify and others to pursue their claims against the Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. and COSCO Container Lines Co Ltd (i.e., operators of the containerships) responsible for causing the leak.
Equifax accused of sharing users’ viewing history with Facebook
A suit filed in the Illinois Federal Court accuses Equifax Inc., a well-known credit reporting agency, of disclosing their customers’ identities and viewing history to Facebook, without their consent. Equifax among other things offers educational financial advice in a video format on its site. The suit alleges that Equifax has been sharing details of their users’ video viewership along with their identities to Facebook.
The sharing is supposed to be facilitated through a Facebook tracking pixel, which upon installation on any page or application, tracks users and sends information to Facebook. The list of information shared includes viewing history, users’ Facebook ID (which identifies the underlying Facebook profile), etc.
The class action suit filed against Equifax, alleges that Equifax’s conduct falls foul of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The Act requires ‘video tape service providers to obtain express consent (in a written form) from users, before disclosing their personally identifiable information (which includes viewing history).
Walmart faces illegal data collection lawsuit in Illinois
In a recent suit filed by an Illinois resident, Walmart has been accused of illegally collecting its customers’ biometric data. The plaintiff intends to establish a plaintiff class and is seeking damages between $ 1000 to 5000 (per violation) for the proposed class members.
Notably, Illinois has in place a fairly strict data protection regime which includes the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). As per BIPA, several conditions are to be met before a person’s biometric data is collected. This includes intimating the person of such data collection (in writing), the purpose and period for such collection, obtaining a written release for said collection, etc.
While video surveillance is an integral part of security systems employed by malls and stores, the suit alleges that Walmart has put in place multiple advanced video surveillance mechanisms, including the Clearview AI software which matches facial scans from Walmart surveillance with Clearview’s facial recognition database collated from several open-access social media platforms (e.g., Instagram).
It may be remembered that Clearview Inc. recently settled a May 2020 lawsuit (involving violations of BIPA) and as a part of the settlement it was barred from selling its database (enabling facial recognition) to US-based businesses and private entities. If the allegations in the suit against Walmart are correct, Clearview could potentially be in contravention of its settlement terms.
On its part, Walmart stated that it is not a Clearview client and that while it did evaluate a demo version from Clearview, it decided to not proceed with the same.
Illegal tracking lawsuit: Google to pay $85 million to the state of Arizona
In 2020, the state of Arizona filed a suit against Google for violating the Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act. The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act is a set of laws aimed at protecting consumers from transactions pertaining to sale or advertisement of merchandise.
Google was accused of collecting location data even when users had expressly refused consent for such tracking (by disabling their “Location History”). User preferences were however bypassed by Google (through other settings for e.g., “Web and App Activity”) to collect information which was then used to carry out targeted advertising. Google’s motion seeking dismissal of the case on the grounds that there was not any linkage to sale or advertisement, was denied by the court.
Google has agreed to settle this dispute with the State of Arizona, for a whopping sum of USD 85 million. This settlement is all set to go down as the largest paid by Google on a per capita basis in a consumer fraud lawsuit.
At the wrong end of a historic settlement, Google’s troubles are far from over, as it continues to face similar lawsuits in Indiana, Texas and Washington, D.C.
$9.5 million settlement in LifeBridge Health law suit
LifeBridge Health is a Baltimore-based health-related service provider comprising of several hospitals and affiliated entities. In May 2018, LifeBridge discovered that they had suffered a 18-month long data breach which compromised patient details like names, addresses, diagnoses, treatment information, insurance information, (even social security numbers in certain cases) etc. A malware on the server of Potomac Physicians (associated with LifeBridge) was responsible for said breach.
Thereafter, LifeBridge suffered another data breach in 2019 wherein patient data from Sinai Hospital was compromised.
The patients whose data was compromised, alleged that the breach affected their access to email accounts, caused multiple transactions to be declined, fraudulent transactions (ranging from credit card fraud to fraudulent applications for Covid business loans and unemployment submissions). The data breach has supposedly impacted around 530,000 patients.
As a part of the settlement (amounting to a total of $9.5million) while LifeBridge has not admitted any wrongdoing, it has to shell out $800,000 as payment to class members (upto $5000 for proven monetary losses and $250 for unreimbursed losses). Additionally, LifeBridge also has to invest $7.9 million into various cyber security upgrades.
3M lawsuit update: 3M approaches eleventh circuit court to reverse bankruptcy court order
Background:
3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.
In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.
Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.
Therefore, to summarize, the lawsuit is being played out in 2 courts (concerning different questions of law) i.e., the court hearing the MDL (MDL Court, Judge Rodgers) and the bankruptcy court (Florida Court, Judge Graham).
Recent update
A few days back, 3M approached the Eleventh Circuit Court to reverse the bankruptcy court’s ruling which bars it from using Aaero’s bankcrupcy proceedings to re-adjudicate decisions of the MDL court. 3M’s main issue is with the MDL court’s injunction which prevents 3M from contesting its orders, in the bankruptcy court. Aside of restricting the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, 3M is asserting that the MDL injunction order also affects 3M’s due process rights in the bankruptcy court.
Crypto companies facing regulatory wrath combined with investor wrath
The massive fall of cryptocurrency prices earlier this year, was accompanied by a steady rise in crypto litigation whereby several buyers have sued crypto exchanges (e.g., Coinbase and Binance), coin issuers, crypto miners, etc.
Around 58 securities class action suits have been filed against multiple crypto companies for issues ranging from security law violations, defrauding investors, etc.
Crypto crash aside, the market is also reeling from additional scrutiny from the Securities Exchange Commission and the Biden administration who sought further tightening of regulatory oversight on unlawful practices in the crypto market.
On the litigation front, of significant note is the suit filed by investors against Bitfinex and its affiliate Tether (of Tether stablecoin fame) for defrauding their investors and causing losses amounting to billions. The plaintiffs/investors have successfully defended themselves against all the preliminary challenges thrown at them.
Another interesting suit is a proposed class action suit being adjudicated in the New York federal court wherein Coinbase has been accused of trading 79 token coins which were in actuality unregistered securities (requiring several legal compliances).
This litigation spree has the potential to bring much-required clarity on many fundamental legal issues surrounding cryptocurrency (especially since federal law is absent), given that crypto companies have repeatedly sought to bypass securities law compliance, by claiming that cryptocurrencies are not securities.
Meta in the soup again for tracking users without their consent
Two Meta users have filed a suit in the San Francisco Federal Court against Meta Platforms Inc. (previously Facebook) for employing mechanisms to circumvent Apple Inc.’s privacy safeguards and violate state and federal laws.
Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework allows Apple users to have the option of disallowing certain tracking functionalities which are used by applications. However, Meta allegedly bypassed the said framework by making external websites open within its apps (Instagram, Facebook, etc.) instead of using the built-in browser (e.g., Safari). Further, Meta has been accused of injecting tracking code into websites, which allows it to monitor a wide range of user activities without their consent.
Aside from going against the express wishes of the users who opted out of the App Tracking Transparency Framework, Meta has also been accused of violating the Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Interestingly, the findings of a data privacy researcher, Mr. Felix Krause, formed the basis of the said suit. His report titled ‘iOS Privacy: Instagram and Facebook can Track Anything you do on any Website in their In-App Browser’, noted that Meta redirected users to use their in-app browsers (instead of external browsers like Safari) when they clicked on any links on Facebook or Instagram apps.
By way of response, Meta denied any illegal user-data collection while acknowledging that the Facebook app does monitor browser activity.
3M denied bankruptcy protection in defective earplug suit
3M and its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC are in the midst of a 2019 multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) involving thousands of military veterans alleging 3M’s Combat Arms earplugs (CAEv2) were defective and responsible for causing members hearing loss and tinnitus.
In July 2022, 3M’s subsidiary Aearo filed for bankruptcy (which would automatically stay the suits against it) arguing that the bankruptcy proceedings would be better positioned to deal with the multiplicity of claims in the MDL.
Generally, companies opting for bankruptcy obtain an immediate reprieve from lawsuits. Aearo had argued in favor of extending said reprieve towards 3M as well. However, Judge Graham of the Florida Federal Court, held that 3M will not get bankruptcy protection because its subsidiary declared bankruptcy. Thereafter, the MDL judge, M. Casey Rodgers ordered 3M to participate in the new settlement mediation.
Furthermore, 3M also faces a new challenge in the form of the upcoming earplug trial by plaintiff David George who used the CAEv2 earplugs and suffered hearing issues after his 6-year military stint.
