When 23andMe made several announcements about a data breach in October, it didn’t disclose that hackers who infiltrated its computer network “were after the personal information of Jewish and Chinese customers,” alleged a class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-01418) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. 23andMe customer Rudy Thompson filed the complaint.
A Jane Doe plaintiff who sued PHE, owner of adult products website Adam & Eve, for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) moved Friday (docket 2:24-cv-01065) to remand her class action to Los Angeles County Superior Court from U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Doe originally filed her action alleging PHE disclosed her private and protected sexual information, plus her IP address, in the Central California district court Sept. 25. The case was dismissed and Doe then added Google to the lawsuit and filed in state court; Google removed the case to district court last month (see 2402080070). Doe, a Los Angeles resident, alleges PHE caused Google to learn the contents of her private and protected sexual information without notifying her and without her consent, and that Google violated CIPA each time it “read, learned from, and/or utilized” that information without her consent. Both defendants violated CIPA by operating under an agreement under which PHE installed Google Analytics to disclose Doe’s protected sexual information “in exchange for payment or another form of consideration,” says the complaint. The putative class comprises California residents solely, satisfying the local controversy exception for remand to state court, said the motion, and Google is also a citizen of California. The plaintiff and class members seek statutory damages of $5,000 for each time Google “read, learned the contents of” and used information obtained from a message or communication between PHE and the class without consent. Google’s potential exposure in the action is $5 million or more, it said.
U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian for Eastern Washington in Richland granted Barbara and Everett Knudson's motion to intervene on the side of Walla Walla, Washington, in the city's cell tower dispute with AT&T (see 2401170024), said his signed order Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-05162). The city backed the Knudsons' motion, but AT&T opposed it (see 2402010001).
U.S. Magistrate Judge Brendan Day for New Jersey in Trenton granted seven Belmar, New Jersey, residents' motion to permissively intervene as defendants in Verizon’s small-cells fight with Monmouth County, said his signed memorandum order Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-18091). The county took no position on the motion to intervene, but Verizon opposed it (see 2310240030).
U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg for Northern Georgia in Atlanta ordered Roswell, Georgia, to "proceed expeditiously" in its search for a replacement expert witness after its original expert resigned abruptly from the case days before he was to testify at this week’s evidentiary hearing, said Totenberg’s signed order Monday (docket 1:10-cv-01464). Ronald Graiff had been Roswell’s expert witness on the case against T-Mobile since 2017, but he told the city Friday that his role was causing him too much stress and taking a toll on his physical and mental health, said a declaration Monday from the city’s counsel. Searching for a replacement expert as soon as possible “in Georgia and elsewhere” was necessary to comply with the “relevant disclosure rules,” and to allow plaintiff T-Mobile “a sufficient opportunity to depose the replacement,” said the order. The judge ruled in March that the FCC’s September 2018 small-cells declaratory ruling preempting aspects of local and municipal cell tower permit reviews is a “substantive rule” that shouldn’t be applied retroactively to Roswell’s 2017 denial of T-Mobile’s application to build a tower in a residential neighborhood (see 2303210036).
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
A long-time T-Mobile customer is suing the carrier over the “regulatory programs & telco recovery fee” on its monthly invoices, said a class action removed Thursday to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles.
E.W. Scripps promotes Kate O'Brian to president-news, newly created role ... Airwavz smart building tech provider elevates Perry Welch to chief sales officer ... Snowflake cloud company promotes Sridhar Ramaswamy to CEO and adds him to its board, effective immediately; Frank Slootman retires as CEO, but remains chairman ... Quantum computing company IonQ adds Bill Scannell, Dell Technologies president-global sales and customer operations, to its board ... Berns Communications Group hires Hearst Magazines’ Kelly Roma, also former Conde Nast, as senior director-events and partnerships ... Pionaire Podcasting taps Ben Juster, ex-iHeartMedia, as vice president-podcasting operations ... Arlo Technologies, smart home security company, hires former Life360 and Fitbit executive Samir Kapoor as chief technology officer, effective March 11, and names Chief Financial Officer Kurt Binder to additional role of chief operating officer ... Wireless Infrastructure Association hires Karen Groppe, ex-ACT | The App Association, as vice president-communications … SpaceFund announces Kfir founder Sagi Kfir, ex-Blue Origin, as general counsel … Lantronix appoints Calumet Park Advisors’ Kurt Hoff, ex-Synaptics, as vice president-worldwide sales, effective March 4, succeeding Roger Holliday, retiring.
Vintage Stock opposes the plaintiffs' Feb. 12 motion to remand the dismissed count II of their first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to the Missouri state court where it originated before the home entertainment retailer removed it in January 2023 (see 2402130004), said the retailer's memorandum in opposition Monday (docket 4:23-cv-00042) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Missouri in St. Louis. In dismissing count II without prejudice, the judge found that Sheila and Dennis Thompson lacked standing to bring the allegation that Vintage Stock failed to institute procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to be called. The Thompsons contend the judge improperly dismissed count II without prejudice, and that based on 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals precedent, the judge should remand count II to state court. But Vintage Stock asks that the motion, which it interprets as “effectively a motion for reconsideration” of the judge’s order, be denied, said its memorandum. The claim “was properly dismissed for lack of standing,” the defendant said. Remand of a single claim where two others remain in federal court also “is futile and would needlessly increase the burden on the parties and courts,” it said. As a preliminary matter, the claim was dismissed without prejudice and the Thompsons may refile count II in state court if they choose, it said. But doing so would render the Thompsons’ remand motion “all the more unnecessary,” it said. Even if the Thompsons refiled count II in state court, “it would still be dismissed for lack of standing,” it said.
A law firm settling a federal class action in state court “to increase attorneys’ fees at the expense of the class’s recovery improperly ‘subordinates the interests of the class to its own interests,'" said intervenors’ memorandum in support of intervention Friday (docket 3:21-cv-08592) in a 2021 fraud class action over hidden Verizon fees.