Many California-based privacy claims have turned on the application of longstanding statutes to modern technologies, with courts frequently holding that certain online tracking technologies can qualify as impermissible trap-and-trace devices in violation of California Penal Code section 638.51, part of
Latest from Inside Class Actions - Page 5
Buyer Aware, Class Beware: Court Nixes Smoked Almonds Putative Class
An Illinois federal court recently highlighted the critical role played by pre‑class‑certification discovery in testing the adequacy of a proposed class representative. In Clark v. Blue Diamond Growers, 2026 WL 483275 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2026), the defendant’s arguably “unique
District Courts Appear Skeptical of CAN‑SPAM Preemption and Constitutional Challenges to CEMA
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy LLC, 4 Wash.3d 580 (2025) has sparked a wave of putative class actions under Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (“CEMA”), targeting allegedly misleading email subject lines used by national retailers.
Pennsylvania Court Dismisses WESCA Suit Alleging Use of Analytics Tools Against Health System, Requiring “Specifics” for an “Actionable Dispute”
Recently, a Pennsylvania federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the use of a third-party website analytics tool by defendant Highlands Healthcare, Inc., an integrated health system with eight hospitals in Pennsylvania. The Court concluded plaintiffs had failed to plead the
Eggland’s Best Can’t Scramble “Cage Free” Consumer Class Action, Illinois Court Rules
So-called “greenwashing” claims have been the subject of significant activity over the last several years. In one recent example, the Northern District of Illinois permitted a consumer class action about “cage free” eggs to proceed against Eggland’s Best over the
Another Federal Court Dismisses Wiretapping Claims Premised on Crime-Tort Exception
Another recent federal court decision endorsed the “heightened intent requirement” for satisfying the crime-tort exception of the federal Wiretap Act. Progin v. UMass Mem’l Health Care, Inc., 2026 WL 632770, at *4–5 (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2026).
In Progin, the
Court Dismisses Federal Wiretap Claim Premised on Crime-Tort Exception, Rejects Aiding-and-Abetting Liability
A recent Washington federal court decision emphasizes two key federal Wiretap Act principles. First, the Act’s crime-tort exception only applies if there are plausible allegations that a party to the communication intercepted communications specifically to commit a separate wrongdoing. Second,
Use of AI Call Center Without Consent Not a Federal Wiretap Violation, Court Holds
As businesses increasingly deploy AI-powered call centers to streamline customer service, plaintiffs have turned to decades-old wiretapping laws to challenge these tools. In a recent decision, however, an Illinois federal district court held that use of an AI call analysis
A Closer Look: The Discoverability of Artificial Intelligence Prompts
Are AI prompts, and their generative outputs, discoverable in litigation? A handful of recent district court cases suggest the answer depends on whether the AI prompts and outputs constitute attorney work product.
In Tremblay v. OpenAI, Inc., 2024 WL 3748003
Ninth Circuit Partially Reverses Certification of Classes Challenging Ford Trucks’ Alleged Steering “Shimmy”
The Ninth Circuit partially reversed an order certifying multiple state‑law classes in litigation alleging that certain Ford Super Duty trucks suffer from a steering defect. See Lessin et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 25‑2211 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026).