Justia Class Action Opinion Summaries

Two individuals brought a class action against Amazon, alleging that its Virtual Try-On (VTO) feature—used to preview makeup and eyewear products by rendering them on users’ faces via their mobile devices—violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The VTO software, developed both in-house and by a third party, captured users’ facial geometry to overlay products for virtual preview. The plaintiffs claimed Amazon collected, stored, and used their facial data and that of many others in Illinois without proper notice, informed consent, or the creation of required data retention and destruction policies as mandated by BIPA.After removal from Illinois state court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the plaintiffs moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The district court certified a class of all individuals who used Amazon’s VTO feature in Illinois after September 7, 2016. The district court found the class satisfied the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy, and that common questions—primarily concerning the VTO’s functionality and Amazon’s use of biometric data—predominated over individual questions such as location and damages. It also found a class action was superior due to the size and cost of potential individual litigation.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed only the class certification decision, focusing on predominance and superiority. The court affirmed the district court’s certification, holding that common questions about Amazon’s alleged statutory violations predominated and that individual questions regarding user location and damages were manageable. The court also agreed that a class action was superior to individual suits, given the complexity and cost of litigation, and affirmed the district court’s discretion. View "Svoboda v Amazon.com Inc." on Justia Law

A woman rented a car from a rental company in 2014 and, after a traffic camera recorded a violation during her rental, the company paid the fine and charged her both the fine amount and an administrative fee. She filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of customers who were charged fines and fees in similar circumstances, alleging state-law claims such as violations of consumer fraud statutes and unjust enrichment. The rental company later updated its rental agreements in 2016 to include an arbitration clause and class-action waiver, but this provision applied only prospectively to rentals after its adoption. The named plaintiffs’ rentals predated this clause.The District Court, after years of litigation that included several amended complaints, discovery, mediation, and a motion to certify a class, ultimately certified a subclass that included some renters whose agreements contained the arbitration provision. The District Court found that the rental company had waived its right to enforce arbitration by participating in litigation for several years without moving to compel arbitration. The company then filed a motion to compel arbitration for the affected class members, which the District Court denied again on waiver grounds, emphasizing that the company had not sought to enforce arbitration until after class certification.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the waiver issue de novo. The Third Circuit held that waiver of the right to compel arbitration did not occur here, because the company’s conduct—such as raising arbitration as an affirmative defense and the futility of seeking to compel arbitration prior to class certification—did not evince an intentional relinquishment of that right. The Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded for consideration of other unresolved questions about enforceability. View "Valli v. Avis Budget Group Inc" on Justia Law

A Missouri consumer purchased several containers of coffee that prominently displayed the number of servings each container could make. He claimed these representations were misleading, arguing that following the recommended single-serving brewing method would not produce as many servings as advertised. He filed a lawsuit against the coffee manufacturer and its parent company, alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of Missouri consumers who purchased the same products.Multiple similar lawsuits from around the country were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The district court appointed interim class counsel and, at the parties’ suggestion, considered whether to certify a Missouri class before addressing other states. The district court ultimately certified the Missouri class, finding that the plaintiff’s claims were suitable for class treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that common questions predominate over individual ones.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred in certifying the class. The appellate court determined that individual questions about whether consumers saw, interpreted, or relied upon the product representations would predominate over common questions. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that all class members suffered harm due to alleged price inflation, reasoning that only those who were actually misled or cared about the representations could have incurred an ascertainable loss under the MMPA. The court also found the unjust enrichment claim similarly unsuited to class treatment because it would require individualized inquiries into whether each transaction was unjust. The Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Sorin v. The Folger Coffee Company" on Justia Law

A consumer purchased a used vehicle from a dealership, with the transaction documented in two contracts: a purchase order and a retail installment sale contract (RISC). The purchase order included an arbitration provision for disputes arising from the purchase or financing of the vehicle, while the RISC detailed the financing terms but did not include an arbitration clause. The RISC contained an assignment clause by which the dealership assigned its interest in "this contract" (the RISC) to a third-party lender, and defined the agreement between the buyer and the assignee as consisting "only" of the RISC and any addenda. The consumer later filed a class action against the lender, alleging improper fees under Maryland law.The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found for the lender, ruling that the purchase order and RISC should be read together as one contract for the purposes of the transaction, and that the arbitration agreement was enforceable against the consumer. The court granted the lender’s motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the consumer was bound by the arbitration provision and that the assignee lender could enforce it, even though the consumer did not receive or sign a separate arbitration agreement.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case, focusing on contract interpretation and the scope of the assignment. The court held that, even if the purchase order’s arbitration provision was binding between the consumer and the dealer, it was not within the scope of the assignment to the lender. The RISC’s assignment language made clear that only the RISC and its addenda, not the purchase order or its arbitration clause, were assigned to the lender. As a result, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA" on Justia Law

A consumer brought a lawsuit against a national retail pharmacy chain after receiving electronically printed receipts that displayed the first six and last four digits of her prepaid debit card number when she added funds to her card at one of the chain’s stores. She alleged that the retailer willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by printing more than the last five digits of her card number, and she claimed this exposed her to a heightened risk of identity theft and invasion of her privacy. The consumer sought to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and requested statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs.The case began in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, where the retailer moved to dismiss, arguing that the consumer lacked standing because she had not alleged an actual injury and was merely a “no-injury” plaintiff. The circuit court denied the motion, reasoning that a statutory violation alone was sufficient for standing under Illinois law, and subsequently granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, with some modifications to the class definition. The retailer petitioned for leave to appeal this certification order. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the plaintiff had standing based on the three-part test for standing under Illinois law and finding that the violation of FACTA constituted a distinct and palpable injury, fairly traceable to the retailer’s conduct, and capable of being redressed by the requested relief.On further appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois reversed both the appellate and circuit courts. The supreme court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because she failed to allege a concrete injury—her asserted risk of future identity theft was deemed too speculative. The court concluded that, without such an injury, the plaintiff could not maintain her individual or class claims under FACTA, and directed the circuit court to dismiss the case for lack of standing. View "Fausett v. Walgreen Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff purchased products from a company’s “Sustainability Collection,” which were advertised as sustainable and environmentally friendly. She alleged that these representations were false because the products were made with virgin synthetic and non-organic materials that are harmful to the environment. The plaintiff claimed that she would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, had she known the truth. She brought a putative class action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, asserting that the company’s advertising was misleading.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri first considered and dismissed the plaintiff’s initial complaint for failure to state a claim, after which she filed an amended complaint. The company again moved to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint lacked sufficient factual support and did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be misled. The district court agreed, finding that the amended complaint failed to provide facts making the plaintiff’s claims plausible and did not meet the required pleading standards. The court dismissed the case without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The plaintiff then filed a post-judgment motion for reconsideration and for leave to amend, which the district court denied, citing her failure to properly request leave to amend before judgment and her delay in doing so.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed only whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits (i.e., with prejudice) unless the order states otherwise. The court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Several individuals brought a class action lawsuit against a group of insurance companies after a data breach compromised the driver’s license numbers of nearly three million people. The breach occurred when hackers exploited the companies’ online insurance quoting platform, which auto-populated sensitive information using data from both customers and third-party sources. The plaintiffs, whose information was compromised, alleged various harms, including time spent monitoring their financial records, increased risk of identity theft, emotional distress, and, for two plaintiffs, discovery of their driver’s license numbers on the dark web.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the consolidated class action complaint, finding that none of the named plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims. The district court concluded that the alleged injuries were either too speculative or not sufficiently concrete to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. The Fourth Circuit held that two plaintiffs, who alleged that their driver’s license numbers were actually posted on the dark web, suffered a concrete and particularized injury analogous to the common-law tort of public disclosure of private information. This injury was sufficient to confer standing to seek damages. However, the court found that the other plaintiffs, who did not allege their information was made public, lacked standing because their alleged injuries—such as increased risk of future harm, time spent on mitigation, and emotional distress—were either not imminent or not independently sufficient for standing. The Fourth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal as to those plaintiffs, reversed as to the two plaintiffs with information posted on the dark web, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Holmes v. Elephant Insurance Co." on Justia Law

A group of borrowers in California brought a class action against Flagstar Bank, alleging that the bank failed to pay interest on their mortgage escrow accounts as required by California Civil Code § 2954.8(a). Flagstar did not pay interest on these accounts, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempted the California law, and therefore, it was not obligated to comply. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the unpaid interest.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A., granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court ordered Flagstar to pay restitution and prejudgment interest to the class. Flagstar appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Lusnak foreclosed Flagstar’s preemption argument. However, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to correct the class definition date and the judgment amount due to errors in the statute of limitations tolling and calculation of damages.On remand from the United States Supreme Court, following its decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it could overrule Lusnak in light of Cantero. The court held that Cantero did not render Lusnak “clearly irreconcilable” with Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, the panel lacked authority to overrule Lusnak. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the NBA does not preempt California’s interest-on-escrow law, but vacated and remanded the judgment and class certification order for modification of the class definition date and judgment amount. View "KIVETT V. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB" on Justia Law

A consumer defaulted on credit payments, and the debt was assigned to a third-party debt collector. The collector sent a collection letter to the consumer that included mandatory language about debtor rights, but the notice used a smaller type size than required by California law. The consumer, on behalf of himself and a proposed class, filed suit alleging that the collection notices violated the type-size requirements of the Consumer Collection Notice law and, by extension, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit sought statutory damages, attorney fees, costs, and injunctive relief.The Superior Court of Lake County granted summary judgment in favor of the debt collector. The court reasoned that the consumer and the class lacked standing to pursue statutory damages because they had not alleged or demonstrated any actual injury, harm, or loss resulting from the violation. The court concluded that civil liability under the relevant statutes could not be imposed without proof of actual or reasonably foreseeable harm.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, under the Collection Notice law and the Rosenthal Act, a consumer has standing to seek statutory damages based solely on a statutory violation, regardless of whether the consumer suffered actual injury. The court explained that the statutory scheme authorizes recovery of statutory damages as a penalty to deter violations, not merely to compensate for actual harm. The court distinguished the relevant statutes from others that require proof of injury and rejected the argument that federal standing requirements or the use of the term “damages” limited standing to those who suffered actual harm. The judgment of the trial court was reversed. View "Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing themselves and a putative class, purchased Kleenex Germ Removal Wet Wipes manufactured by Kimberly-Clark Corporation. They alleged that the product’s labeling misled consumers into believing the wipes contained germicides and would kill germs, rather than merely wiping them away with soap. Plaintiffs claimed that this misrepresentation violated several California consumer protection statutes. The wipes were sold nationwide, and the plaintiffs included both California and non-California residents.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California first dismissed the non-California plaintiffs’ claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the labels would not plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer. The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without leave to amend, and plaintiffs appealed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed under diversity jurisdiction statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1332(d)(2). The court found that the SAC failed to allege Kimberly-Clark’s citizenship and did not state the amount in controversy. The panel held that diversity of citizenship cannot be established by judicial notice alone and that the complaint must affirmatively allege the amount in controversy. Plaintiffs were permitted to submit a proposed Third Amended Complaint (TAC), which successfully alleged diversity of citizenship but failed to plausibly allege the required amount in controversy for either statutory basis. The court concluded that neither it nor the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction and vacated the district court’s judgment, remanding with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice. The panel denied further leave to amend, finding that additional amendment would be futile. View "ROSENWALD V. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION" on Justia Law