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

In August, Disney found itself in a public-relations firestorm. Facing a wrongful-death lawsuit after a customer suffered an allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, the company had attempted to use the arbitration clause in the Disney+ terms of service to force the suit out of court and into arbitration, and the public reacted negatively. Disney ultimately withdrew its request for arbitration. 

Last week, Uber found itself in the news when a New Jersey appellate court held that the rideshare company’s arbitration clause was enforceable against a couple who were injured in an automobile accident when their Uber driver ran a red light. We often file motions to compel arbitration in consumer suits, so we thought we would provide three thoughts on this latest suit.

Continue Reading Not the Same “Small World”: Three Thoughts on the Disney and Uber Arbitration Cases

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 these lawsuits are occurring are states that require two-party consent to record conversations. Generally, session replay technology is the website’s ability to capture or track a user’s behavior, including what screen is being viewed, the user’s inputs — keyboard and mouse clicks — and other movements around the website. This also includes information provided in chat windows and other free text boxes. Other suits cite violations of VPPA’s prohibition of sharing information about one’s video viewing habits without consent.

To read the full Taft law bulletin, which provides background on state law wiretapping and VPPA claims, as well as some key takeaways, visit here.

Did you know that there was a class-action lawsuit after Super Bowl XLV?  The game was played at Cowboys Stadium (now known as AT&T Stadium) in Dallas, Texas, between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers. The litigation arose out of a temporary-seating debacle: the full complement of temporary seats was not installed in time, resulting in some ticketholders being left without seats and others being relocated. There was also another group of ticketholders who complained about a restricted view from their seats even though they did not receive the lower, restricted-view ticket price. On the field, the Packers defeated the Steelers 31-25. In the courtroom, the plaintiffs’ bid for class certification suffered the same fate as the Steelers. A look at the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Ibe v. Jones, 836 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2016), provides some valuable insights.

Continue Reading Super Bowl Class Action
Pepsi_Stuff_logo

Over the holidays, I enjoyed watching Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?, the Netflix four-episode documentary about John Leonard’s attempt to claim a Harrier fighter jet through the “Pepsi Stuff” promotion during the 1990s. Pepsi ultimately prevailed in the litigation that ensued when the soft-drink company denied Leonard’s claim.  See Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp.2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Here are four thoughts that I had on the series as someone who practices consumer litigation.

Continue Reading Four Thoughts on Pepsi, Where’s My Jet?