Join Taft partners Rob Bilott, Isaac Colunga, Ian Fisher, Ron Holman, Gillian Lindsay, Andrew Murphy, and Mike Zbiegien for a complimentary webinar where they will discuss the topics below.
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026
Time: 12 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. ET
Register HERE.
AGENDA:
12:00 – 12:05 p.m.
Introduction and Agenda Overview – Taft’s Class Action Litigation Team
12:05 – 12:15 p.m.
Getting Their “Day in Court?” The Circuit Split Over
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.
Continue Reading Taft Takeaways: Class Action Insights and Updates
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
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?
Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Claims Against Bob Baffert and Churchill Downs
Two weeks ago, Mystik Dan won the Kentucky Derby by a nose over Sierra Leone and Forever Young. If you didn’t watch the race and haven’t seen the finishing photo, you should check it out here and here.
The 2021 Kentucky Derby also had a notable finish, albeit for less auspicious reasons. That year, Medina Spirit was the first horse to cross the finish line at the Kentucky Derby. Nine months later, however, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission disqualified Medina Spirt because the horse tested positive for betamethasone in a post-race drug test. As a result, Maundaloun was declared the winner. Nineteen individual plaintiffs who would have won their wagers on the new order of finish brought a putative class action against Bob Baffert and Bob Baffert Racing, Inc. (who trained Medina Spirit) and Churchill Downs, Inc. (which owns the racetrack where the Derby is run). Just in time for Triple Crown season, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for reasons that provide insight beyond horse racing. Mattera v. Baffert, No. 23-5750 (6th Cir. May 2, 2024).Continue Reading And They’re Not Off . . .
On this Cyber-Monday, we would like to address one of the hottest technology topics of the past year: artificial intelligence. Some have speculated that AI may help boost low response rates to settlement notices. But there are also concerns that AI could make it easier to file fake class-action suits. Continue Reading How Will AI Affect Class Actions?
For Halloween, rather than discuss any of the various litigation over candy (e.g., the litigation over Skittles or “slack fill” in packages), we are going to travel back to 1984 to look at what a mishap with a sheep costume says about how consumer expectations can affect liability from Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson, 983 F.2d 1066 (6th Cir. 1992) (Table). Continue Reading Little Bo Peep’s Fiery Sheep
Over the past year, there have been a growing number of lawsuits, including class actions, filed against website operators in various states — including California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania — for violations of state wiretapping laws or the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA).
At a high level, these wiretapping lawsuits claim that the website intercepts website user and visitor information via session replay technology and other tracking technology in violation of certain state wiretapping laws. The states in which
Continue Reading Increasing Litigation Related to Website Technology and Data Sharing