Until the California legislature takes action, the plaintiff’s bar will continue filing lawsuits challenging companies’ website tracking tools under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA. As of now, courts don’t agree on how far this old California privacy law actually goes, which means companies should take action.

Continue Reading Class Action Review: What We’re Seeing with CIPA Class Actions in California Challenging Website Tracking Tools

Courts in Florida are redefining how a decades-old privacy law applies in the digital age. The Florida Security of Communications Act (FSCA) was originally passed to stop phone calls and private messages from being recorded unlawfully, but now it’s being tested in ways lawmakers likely didn’t envision.

Continue Reading Class Action Review: A Brief Look at How Florida Courts Are Interpreting the Security of Communications Act in the Digital Age

Join Taft partners Rob Bilott, Isaac Colunga, Ian Fisher, Ron Holman, Gillian Lindsay, and Mike Zbiegien for a complimentary webinar where they will discuss the topics below.

Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Time: 12 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. EST
Register HERE.

The ABCs of Class Actions

Class actions represent high-stakes litigation for corporations and their lawyers. That’s why it’s critical to have a firm grasp of the fundamentals – namely, Rule 23. This session will focus on the key elements for achieving and defeating class certification.

“Forever Chemicals” and Consumer Class Actions: An Emerging Trend in PFAS Litigation

2025 has brought a new wave of litigation involving “forever chemicals,” also known as PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances). While litigation in this area has often involved either personal injury claims or claims concerning damage to natural resources and municipal water systems, a growing trend of class actions is emerging, implicating consumer protection laws.

Navigating BIPA Perils: Avoiding Costly Class Actions Amid Evolving Case Law

Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is the most robust and dangerous biometric privacy legislation in the country. Plaintiff’s firms have filed thousands of class actions arising from biometric timeclocks and facial recognition software to virtual sunglass try-on technology and truck driver dash cams. Violations are strict liability and permit recovery for each class member of $1,000 per negligent/unintentional violation or $5,000 per reckless/intentional violation, leading to potentially billions of dollars in exposure. The case law is quickly evolving, driven by a recent amendment and a few key court decisions. Don’t let your company get named in a potentially ruinous BIPA class action!

Arbitration and Class Action Waivers

Under the Supreme Court’s decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l., agreements to arbitrate are presumed to require arbitration on an individual basis unless the agreement expressly permits class arbitration. As a result, arbitration clauses can be an effective tool to avoid a potential class action. This session will look at the potential benefits and pitfalls of incorporating arbitration clauses into your form agreements and the best practices for doing so.

Let’s Talk About Ascertainability. Is it an Element of Certification or Not?

The concept of ascertainability requires a plaintiff to show that class members are identifiable. After all, it certainly helps to know who falls into whatever class the named plaintiff wants to represent. But, as we all know, ascertainability is not an express requirement of Rule 23. Recognizing this, courts have mostly held that there is no heightened requirement to ascertain class members before a class is certified. A growing number of courts are breaking away from the majority and are requiring a feasible way to find out who is and who is not in the proposed class. This short segment examines this circuit split over this important concept.

Pending approval for Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Ohio CLE credits.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579. That decision immediately gave rise to a pressing question: How is Daubert pronounced? With a French pronunciation, i.e. “dough bear,” or a more American pronunciation, i.e., “dow (rhymes with cow) burt” or “daw burt”? (Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage says the last pronunciation is correct.)

Recently, courts have wrestled with another question: To what extent does the Daubert framework apply to expert testimony offered to support motions for class certification?  Last month, the Sixth Circuit weighed in and joined the side of those who hold that district courts must apply a Daubert analysis when challenged expert testimony is relevant to class certification in In re Nissan N. Am., Inc. Litig., No. 23-5950 (6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024).

Continue Reading To Daubert or not to Daubert — That Is the Question: Sixth Circuit Weighs in on Expert Standards at Class Certification

For this Cyber Monday, we are looking at one of the hot topics in data-privacy and cybersecurity litigation: the Video Privacy Protection Act. Recent years have seen an uptick in lawsuits asserting violations of the VPPA by companies that host video content on websites or mobile apps and then share information about the individuals who watched those videos with other businesses. While the companies have experienced some success in getting VPPA claims dismissed, the Second Circuit recently reinstated a putative class action asserting VPPA violations against the NBA that may breathe new life into VPPA claims. Salazar v. National Basketball Association, No. 23-1147 (2d Cir. Oct. 15, 2024). But is the worry about VPPA class actions overblown?

Continue Reading Video Privacy Protection Act Claims – Maybe Not a Slam Dunk After All

State Seeks to Derail NCAA NIL Settlement

The State of South Dakota has unleashed a two-pronged attack attempting to undo, or at least modify, the NCAA’s settlement of antitrust claims regarding its name, image, and likeness rules. In September, shortly after the $2.78 billion settlement was announced, South Dakota sued the NCAA on behalf of the University of South Dakota and South Dakota State University in a separate case, complaining that the settlement would result in non-power-conference schools losing approximately $960 million in NCAA distributions to help pay for the deal. 

Then, two weeks ago, just after the federal judge hearing the main antitrust case granted preliminary approval of the settlement, the state filed a motion in that case arguing that the set­tle­ment notice provided to the various state Attorneys General did not satisfy the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act. This is an unusual challenge to a class-action settlement, so we thought we would take a further look at what South Dakota is arguing.

Continue Reading South Dakota a Giant (Settlement) Killer?

With the rise in remote work, not to mention better technology, many employers have begun using apps and other services to monitor employees’ activities to track, assess, and evaluate workers. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued a Circular stating that employers’ use of the reports generated by those apps and services may be subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Action (FCRA) just like a traditional employee background check.

Continue Reading Whatcha Watching? The CFPB’s Recent Guidance on Employer Monitoring

By now, you have probably heard about the Federal Trade Commission’s new “click to cancel” rule, which requires sellers to provide a simple mechanism to cancel a negative-option feature (essentially any recurring or automatically renewing subscription). If you haven’t, you can check out our previous post here. But “click to cancel” is just one facet of the FTC’s broader “Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Options.” There are three other aspects to the new negative-option rule. 

Continue Reading Beyond “Click to Cancel:” What Else Is Included in the FTC’s New Negative-Option Rule

On Oct. 16, the Federal Trade Commission announced its final “click to cancel” rule. The rule is part of the FTC’s broader “Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Options.” Notably, the click-to-cancel provision is not as straightforward as its moniker suggests. Here are four questions delving deeper into that portion of the rule. We will follow up with a separate post that looks at other aspects of the new rule.

Continue Reading Not as Simple as Clicking Your Mouse: A Look at the FTC’s “Click to Cancel” Rule

Sixth Circuit Affirms: AAA Rules Require Disputes Over Arbitrability Be Decided in Arbitration

Parties that have agreed to arbitrate certain disputes often disagree about whether a particular claim falls within their agreement to arbitrate, and also about who should make that threshold determination: a court or an arbitrator. The well-established rule is that a court should decide such gateway questions of whether a claim falls within an agreement to arbitrate, absent “clear and unmistakable evidence” that the parties agreed that an arbitrator should do so. E.g., Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143, 149 (2024). Given that demanding standard, one could be forgiven for assuming that such questions would typically be resolved in court. But that is frequently not the case, as illustrated by the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in New Heights Farm I, LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., No. 24-1087, — F.4th —- (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024).

Continue Reading Don’t Put the Cart Before the Horse