Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals the Aug. 23 denial of his application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin YouTube from enforcing its medical misinformation policies (see 2308240039), said his notice of appeal Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-03880) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Kennedy’s lawsuit against Google and other social media companies alleges the Biden administration took “extraordinary steps” to silence information it doesn’t want Americans to hear, including Kennedy's position on COVID-19 and other vaccines.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred six more cases in Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation to the U.S. District Court for Northern California, bringing to 117 the number of actions transferred since Oct. 6, said conditional transfer order CTO-16 (docket 3047) Tuesday. The actions in the order involve questions of fact common to the actions previously transferred to the court; all such actions have been assigned to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The negligence cases allege social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube are fueling a mental health crisis among minors in the U.S. The six additional cases, all naming Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap as defendants, are Pennsylvania school districts: Crestwood, Hazleton Area, Hanover Area, North Pocono, Luzerne County and Wyoming County.

Burns & McDonnell, an engineering and consulting firm, received permission to participate in the federal court proceeding in which Dish Network is asking for more time to buy T-Mobile’s 800 MHz licenses. “As a potential alternative purchaser of the spectrum that DISH is apparently unable to purchase by the already-extended deadline, Burns & McDonnell has a critical interest in both the underlying controversy and the outcome of DISH’s motion, and no other party adequately represents that interest,” the company said in a pleading last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “Burns & McDonnell’s brief will thus meaningfully assist this Court in understanding the full context of DISH’s request -- including the significant interests of parties not currently before the court -- in adjudicating the pending motion,” Burns & McDonnell said. Judge Timothy Kelly granted permission to the company to file a brief opposing Dish’s motion for relief from judgment. The spectrum was part of a complicated set of arrangements allowing T-Mobile to complete its buy of Sprint. Dish was required to pay $3.6 billion to buy the licenses, with a $72 million fee for walking away from the deal (see 1907260071).

An arbitrator’s award in Amazon’s favor “must be vacated on the grounds that the decision is completely irrational” and “manifestly disregards the law,” said former Amazon third-party seller Longyan Junkai in a reply memorandum Monday (docket 1:23-cv-04869) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its petition to vacate the award, and in opposition to Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm the award. Junkai seeks recovery of $461,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized, and an arbitrator ruled it could keep, when Amazon deactivated the seller’s online store for selling counterfeit goods (see 2306270041). The award also should be vacated because it violates “strong public policy” by ruling that Section 2 of Amazon’s contract with third-party sellers has a “liquidated damage clause” that’s valid and enforceable, said the memorandum. The “primary legal issue” is whether Section 2 is within the law when it grants Amazon “the right to confiscate all sales proceeds in the seller account as purported liquidated damages without filing any counterclaim for damages or presenting evidence to substantiate its claimed damages,” it said. This is done after Amazon subtracts its sales commissions and service fees from the confiscated sales proceeds “and ensures all customer refunds have been properly addressed and deducted from the seized sales proceeds,” it said. It’s “a well-defined, explicit, and clearly applicable legal principle that a valid liquidated damage clause must pass the ‘reasonable forecast’ test,” said the memorandum. The parties “argued vigorously about this test in the legal briefs,” and the arbitrator “was briefed multiple times about this test,” it said. The arbitrator “knew of the governing legal principle” but “refused to apply it or ignored it,” it said.

Meta filed a second notice of supplemental authority to support its motion to transfer a case to California from U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas, citing a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Truncale in Texas Nationalist Movement et al. v. Meta Platforms (docket 1:22-cv-00572) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Beaumont. Truncale’s Aug. 17 order, granting Meta’s motion to transfer in a lawsuit that also asserts a claim under chapter 143A of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, determined that Meta’s forum-selection clause is “mandatory, valid, and enforceable, and that extraordinary circumstances did not weigh against transfer,” said Meta's Monday notice (docket 3:23-cv-00217). “In doing so, it specifically rejected arguments—like those here -- that the plaintiffs could avoid their contractual obligations by asserting that Meta’s forum-selection clause violates Texas public policy or is contained in a contract of adhesion,” Meta said. Two private Facebook groups, Wise Guys I and Wise Guys II, alleged in a January complaint that Meta engaged in “viewpoint discrimination.” Meta filed a motion to transfer the case in March, saying “not only does the complaint lack the facts necessary to allege a substantive claim or establish personal jurisdiction over a California company, but Wise Guys’ underlying legal theories -- including that they can use Texas’ novel social-media censorship law to control out-of-state conduct or that they can assert the First Amendment against a private entity -- are untenable as a matter of law" (see 2305020037).

After hearing oral argument, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson took under submission Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Google, said a text-only minute entry in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco Monday. Kennedy, a 2024 Democratic presidential candidate, sued Google in a freedom of speech lawsuit for removing videos of Kennedy’s comments on COVID-19 and other vaccines (see 2308030049). Thompson set jury selection and trial for March 17, 2025, with a final pretrial conference set for Feb. 13, 2025. An in-person hearing on Kennedy’s motion for a preliminary injunction against YouTube to prevent the streaming platform from enforcing its medical misinformation policies, and Google’s motion to dismiss, is set for Nov. 7 at 2 p.m., said a Monday tentative case management and scheduling order (docket 3:23-cv-03880).

A trial on the allegations by Legacy Equity Advisors that AT&T blocked the private equity firm from bidding on DirecTV and other divested assets because it’s African American owned and managed is set for the two-week docket period beginning Feb 18, 2025, said an order signed Friday (docket 3:23-cv-00979) by U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater for Northern Texas in Dallas. Legacy alleges violations of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, saying it tried for years to contract with AT&T to acquire the “non-core” assets that AT&T was divesting, including DirecTV and Cricket Wireless, but “to no avail” (see 2305040065). Sept. 3, 2024, is the deadline for filing summary judgment motions in the case, said Fitzwater’s separate signed scheduling order Friday.

Amazon seeks to dismiss two of the four claims in the June 23 complaint in which GSC Logistics alleged it reneged on a contract for GSC to perform supply chain services in late 2020 when COVID-19 demand for Amazon’s products and services went through the roof (see 2306260005). GSC’s Count III claim for a declaration that its valid contract with Amazon was breached must be dismissed because it’s “merely duplicative” of GSC’s breach of contract claim, said Amazon’s memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:23-cv-05368) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of the motion to dismiss. “These issues will necessarily be resolved in litigating GSC’s breach of contract claim,” it said. GSC’s request for declaratory relief and specific performance therefore “is superfluous and should be dismissed,” it said. Count IV, for a claim of promissory estoppel, “must also be dismissed as a matter of law,” it said. The existence of the written agreements between the parties, which bar any promises other than those set forth in the agreements, “is fatal to GSC’s promissory estoppel claim,” said the memorandum. GSC further fails to allege any clear and unambiguous promise made by Amazon and any reasonable and foreseeable reliance by GSC on any supposed promise by Amazon “as required to establish a claim for promissory estoppel,” it said.

Verizon agreed to accept $165 to fully resolve a billing dispute with a customer, but it continued to report to credit reporting agencies that he owed the carrier money, said plaintiff Jerry Wakeman of Anoka County, Minnesota, in a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit (docket 0:23-cv-02520) removed Wednesday from Minnesota's 10th Judicial District Court to U.S. District Court for Minnesota. Wakeman sent disputes to Equifax, Experian and TransUnion to correct the Verizon reports, but defendants “did nothing other than verify Verizon’s previously reported information,” the complaint said. Wakeman lost his mobile phone in 2021, and though he had insurance, it took Verizon three months to issue him a new device, said the complaint. Once he received a new phone, Verizon had difficulty setting it up with Wakeman’s existing contract, then canceled his contract, it said, leaving Wakeman responsible for “hundreds of dollars in charges.” Wakeman and Verizon agreed he would pay $165 to settle the disputed amount, and the customer paid $165 to Verizon on Nov. 2, 2021, it said. Despite the payment, Verizon reported on Wakeman’s credit reports that he was past due for $164. The credit reporting agencies responded to his disputes by continuing to report a false balance owed to Verizon, and Verizon added a $29.61 “collection fee,” said the complaint. Wakeman seeks actual, statutory and punitive damages, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff Stacey Barrus and defendant Meta agreed to dismiss all of Barrus’ vicarious liability claims with prejudice because the case is resolved, said their joint motion for dismissal Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00776) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in San Antonio. Barrus alleged Meta let an unknown John Doe hack his Facebook and Instagram business accounts, and he could no longer gain access to either account (see 2306210020).