Courts are increasingly addressing putative class actions aimed at curbing allegedly illegal government conduct. An Oregon federal court recently certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class action in a challenge to alleged ICE warrantless arrest practices, holding that plaintiffs may proceed on
Recently, a California federal judge dismissed—for the second time—a suit asserting that Sojern, Inc., a travel marketing platform, violated the Federal Wiretap Act and California privacy laws by allegedly deploying “tracking technology” on two hotel websites. Crano v. Sojern,
The First Circuit recently affirmed a Puerto Rico district court’s ruling dismissing a class action suit arising from a 2019 ransomware attack against a hospital in which 522,493 patients’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) was allegedly
In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute for violations of international law and that the Torture Victim Protection Act does not provide
In In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, 2026 WL 1678954,the Northern District of Illinois recently refused to certify a proposed class of healthcare employees who alleged that their employers entered into a “no-poach agreement” that prohibited them from
The Fourth Circuit recently vacated a district court’s grant of class certification based on a lack of commonality and predominance. See Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 2026 WL 1718962 (4th Cir. June 15, 2026). The plaintiffs sought to represent a class
A district court in the Northern District of California recently denied Lyft’s motion to dismiss a putative class action on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds after the plaintiff voluntarily amended her complaint under Rule 15 to cure standing issues raised by Lyft.
“Class action counsel serve a valuable role in our legal system and deserve to be paid. But not twice.” Gelis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 24-2721, 2026 WL 1691583, at *1 (3d Cir. June 11, 2026) (“Gelis II”).
A federal court recently addressed whether plaintiffs alleging misleading commercial email practices in violation of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”) have Article III standing to pursue claims. The ruling suggests that alleged violations of CEMA, standing alone, could constitute
In a consolidated putative class action arising out of an alleged data breach, In re A-Line Staffing Solutions Data Security Incident Litigation, Case No. 24-cv-11917 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2026), a Michigan district court declined to dismiss the complaint under
