Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Several patients brought class action lawsuits against Indiana health care providers, alleging that their medical information was improperly shared with Facebook through the use of the Meta Pixel embedded in online patient portals. The plaintiffs asserted state law claims including breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and Indiana Wiretapping Act. The health care providers had established these online portals to comply with federal regulations encouraging electronic health records, which offered incentive payments and imposed penalties for non-compliance.The health care providers removed the cases from Indiana state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that federal jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). They claimed they were “acting under” the Department of Health and Human Services when creating and maintaining their portals. District courts in multiple consolidated cases rejected this argument, finding that the providers did not meet the statutory requirements for removal under § 1442(a)(1). The courts concluded that while the providers were highly regulated and incentivized by federal policies, their actions did not amount to performing basic governmental tasks or operating under the direction of a federal officer.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals de novo. It held that compliance with federal regulations and incentives for patient portals did not constitute “acting under” a federal officer. The court found that the health care providers’ relationship to the federal government lacked the unusually close supervision and delegation required for federal officer removal. The court affirmed the district courts’ remand orders, holding that federal subject matter jurisdiction was not established under § 1442(a)(1). View "Chiaro v Methodist Hospitals, Inc." on Justia Law

A customer dined at a Mississippi restaurant specializing in local seafood, ordering premium snapper on three occasions between 2013 and 2018. The restaurant, along with its supplier and several managers, was later criminally charged for a long-running scheme to mislabel imported frozen fish as locally caught premium fish. All parties pled guilty, admitting to substituting and fraudulently selling over 29 tons of imported fish as local species during a multi-year period. The customer alleged that he paid high prices for what he believed to be premium Gulf snapper, but was instead served inferior imported fish, and he brought a class action seeking damages under federal and state law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), finding no cognizable Article III injury. The court reasoned that since the plaintiff consumed his meals without complaint, paying for fish he would not have otherwise purchased was not a concrete injury. It also found the allegations insufficiently particularized, as the plaintiff did not specifically allege that imported fish was served on the dates he dined or that all snapper sold on those dates was misbranded. The court denied motions to amend the judgment and complaint, concluding any amendments would be futile.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff plausibly suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact under Article III, either by being fraudulently induced to purchase inferior fish or by overpaying due to fraud. The court concluded that the allegations of widespread and routine fish substitution at the restaurant plausibly affected the plaintiff’s meals, particularly his August 21, 2018, visit. The denial of leave to amend was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "McCain v. Mary Mahoney's" on Justia Law

Several individuals alleged that a hospital violated Washington’s privacy statute by using Meta Pixel technology on its public website. When these individuals searched for information or clicked links on the hospital’s website, Meta Pixel tracked their activity and sent the data to Meta Platforms, which then used the information for targeted advertising. The plaintiffs argued that this tracking amounted to intercepting or recording “private communications” under the Washington Privacy Act (WPA), and asserted their searches on the hospital’s website were protected communications.A putative class action was filed in the King County Superior Court. The hospital moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs' activities on its public website did not constitute “private communication[s]” under the WPA, and that Meta Pixel was not installed on the hospital’s patient portal. The trial court granted the hospital's motion to dismiss with prejudice. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the plaintiffs’ website searches were unilateral actions and not “private communication[s]” between two or more individuals as required by the WPA.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case. The court held that the WPA provision at issue applies only to communications “between two or more individuals,” and excludes interactions between an individual and an automated system operated by a corporation. Because the plaintiffs’ activities involved only a single individual and an automated corporate server, the court concluded the WPA did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. View "Baker v. Seattle Child.'s Hosp." on Justia Law

Two individuals received fines after failing to pay parking charges at garages operated by a company that uses automated technology, such as cameras and QR codes, to manage parking payments. When the plaintiffs did not pay the required parking fees, the company mailed them notices demanding the original fee plus a significantly larger fine. The plaintiffs alleged that the company’s business model intentionally made it difficult for drivers to pay, thereby increasing the likelihood of nonpayment and enabling the company to collect higher fines.The plaintiffs brought a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as well as related Texas statutes. They argued that the company qualified as a “debt collector” under the FDCPA because it mailed notices demanding payment. The company moved to dismiss, and a magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding that the company’s principal business was operating parking lots, not debt collection, and that it did not collect debts on behalf of others. The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim with prejudice, concluding the company was not a debt collector since it originated the debt and thus fell within a statutory exception. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and denied leave to amend, finding any amendment would be futile.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court misapplied the statutory exception for debt originators. The Fifth Circuit clarified that to invoke this exception, a party must both collect debts on behalf of others and have originated the debt. However, the court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim that the company was a debt collector under the FDCPA because they did not sufficiently allege either that debt collection was the company's principal purpose or that it regularly collected debts for others. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of leave to amend. View "Frankfort v. Metropolis Technologies" on Justia Law

A company that operates a website hosting digitized yearbooks, allowing users to search for names and view yearbook pages, was sued by a California resident whose name and photo appeared in a yearbook on the site. The plaintiff alleged that the company violated California’s right-of-publicity statute by using individuals’ names without consent to advertise paid subscriptions. The plaintiff advanced a theory that simply making individuals’ names searchable on the site, even if no one actually searched for them, constituted a commercial use requiring consent under the statute.Previously, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the company’s motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff plausibly alleged a direct commercial use. The court then conditionally certified both damages and injunctive classes consisting of California residents whose names were searchable on the site, had never registered as users, and had not donated yearbooks. The company challenged class certification, arguing that individual issues predominated and that the lead plaintiff would not adequately represent the classes.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, for class certification purposes, whether being “searchable” is sufficient for liability under the statute is a merits question not to be resolved at the certification stage. The court further found that injury could be shown by common evidence of economic harm, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in managing potential individualized issues regarding class membership. The appellate court also rejected the company’s adequacy challenges, noting that the lead plaintiff could represent both classes. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order certifying the classes. View "NOLEN V. PEOPLECONNECT, INC." on Justia Law

Several individuals filed a putative class action against two related corporate defendants, alleging that the defendants’ website terms and conditions violated a California statute known as section 1670.8, or the “Yelp Law.” The plaintiffs argued that certain provisions in the website’s terms—specifically, language related to trademark use and website access—prohibited or penalized negative statements about the defendants, their employees, or their goods and services. The plaintiffs claimed these provisions constituted unlawful non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the case and sustained the defendants’ demurrer to the consolidated class action complaint, first with leave to amend and then, after an amended complaint was filed, without leave to amend. The court found that the challenged terms were limited to intellectual property protections and did not restrict consumer speech. It also determined that the statute did not create a private right of action for merely including a violative provision unless there was a threat to enforce that provision or penalize speech. The court concluded that neither the trademark nor the termination provisions in the defendants’ terms constituted actionable violations of section 1670.8 and entered judgment dismissing the case.Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the website’s trademark language did not waive consumers’ rights to make critical statements about the defendants, and the website access termination clause was not a restriction on consumer speech. The court concluded that plaintiffs had not stated a cause of action under section 1670.8 and confirmed that the inclusion of these provisions, without a threat or attempt to enforce against protected speech, does not violate the statute. View "Scott v. Ulta Beauty, Inc." on Justia Law

Insurance companies paid claims to policyholders whose Hyundai or Kia vehicles were stolen or damaged due to a vulnerability stemming from the lack of an engine immobilizer in certain models from 2011 to 2022. These companies, as subrogees, filed a nationwide class action alleging that the Korean manufacturers, Hyundai Motor Company and Kia Corporation, defectively designed these vehicles, making them prone to theft. The complaint also asserted claims for breach of warranties, violations of consumer protection statutes, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent failure to warn.Multiple lawsuits arising from this issue were consolidated into multidistrict litigation before the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court dismissed the claims against the Korean entities for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that the evidence did not establish intentional targeting of California by the manufacturers and that the claims did not arise from California-related conduct. The district court also denied leave to amend and jurisdictional discovery, entering final judgment under Rule 54(b) dismissing the Korean entities from the subrogation track.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that the Korean manufacturers were subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California. The panel found that the manufacturers purposefully directed their activities toward California by sending thousands of shipments of vehicles through California ports and designing vehicles specifically for the U.S. market. The court further held that the claims arose out of these California contacts, as the injuries were caused by vehicles shipped to California. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, leaving the question of reasonableness of jurisdiction for the district court to resolve. View "IN RE: KIA HYUNDAI VEHICLE THEFT MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who had donated funds to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleged that the Church and its investment subsidiary, Ensign Peak Advisors, Inc., fraudulently induced donations by concealing the true use and accumulation of donated funds. They claimed that the Church misrepresented that tithing would be used for charitable and religious purposes, when instead large portions were invested and used for commercial ventures, such as the development of the City Creek Mall. A key event in the case was the publication of a whistleblower report in December 2019, which was widely reported in national and local media and described how the Church managed and concealed a large investment portfolio. The Church publicly responded, and three other lawsuits were filed by different donors based on similar allegations.After actions were filed in several federal district courts, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking to represent a nationwide class of post-1997 donors. The district court dismissed the consolidated complaint with prejudice, ruling that the claims were untimely under Utah’s three-year statute of limitations for fraud. The court found that the widespread news coverage of the whistleblower report meant that plaintiffs, exercising reasonable diligence, should have discovered the alleged fraud more than three years before filing suit.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because the whistleblower report and related media coverage provided sufficient public notice to trigger the statute of limitations, and that reasonable diligence would have led to earlier discovery. The court also found no error in the district court’s procedural rulings and denied the request for leave to amend. View "In re: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" on Justia Law

Two individuals, who were patients of a regional healthcare provider, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the provider’s website used tracking software to intercept and share users’ personally identifiable health information with a third-party technology company. This software, known as Meta Pixel, collected data such as IP addresses, device identifiers, and details about users’ interactions with the website, transmitting this information to the technology company, which then used it for commercial purposes, including targeted advertising. The healthcare provider also received data analysis from the technology company and was paid for allowing access to this information. The plaintiffs claimed they did not consent to this sharing of their health information.After the claims against the technology company were transferred to another district, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed several amended complaints against the healthcare provider. The District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the allegations did not sufficiently specify what personal health information was actually shared and that further amendment would be futile. When the plaintiffs sought reconsideration and submitted a proposed third amended complaint, the District Court denied the motion, citing undue delay because the plaintiffs could have included the new details earlier and had been clearly informed of the deficiencies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed both orders of the District Court. The Third Circuit held that, although plaintiffs had Article III standing, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice or in denying the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court concluded that plaintiffs had sufficient notice of the complaint’s deficiencies after oral argument and did not act promptly to address them, justifying denial of further amendment. View "Santoro v. Tower Health" on Justia Law

Google was accused of violating the privacy rights of users in the United States by continuing to track and store their location data even after users had disabled the “Location History” feature on their devices. The lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of approximately 247.7 million individuals, consolidated multiple complaints. The parties ultimately negotiated a settlement that included both injunctive relief—requiring Google to alter its practices—and a $62 million fund. This settlement fund was to cover attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, service awards for class representatives, and administrative expenses. The remaining funds were to be distributed to selected nonprofit organizations with a focus on internet privacy, rather than directly to class members.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, after conducting a fairness hearing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), overruled objections from certain class members. These objectors argued that it was improper to distribute the settlement fund exclusively through the cy pres doctrine without first attempting a direct distribution to class members. The district court found that a direct distribution was infeasible because the pro rata share for each class member would be minimal (less than 25 cents) and administrative costs would further reduce any recovery. It approved the cy pres distribution, finding the selected nonprofit recipients had a substantial nexus to the class’s privacy interests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. The appellate court held that the district court properly considered the relevant factors under amended Rule 23(e), did not improperly presume the fairness of the settlement, and acted within its discretion in approving a cy pres-only monetary distribution where direct payments were deemed infeasible and not verifiable. The court also found the selection of cy pres recipients appropriate and declined to address new constitutional arguments not presented below. The holding is that cy pres-only distributions are permissible in class settlements when direct distribution is infeasible and the selected recipients have a substantial nexus to the interests of the class. View "PATACSIL V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law