A new shareholder derivative action seeks to hold Verizon, CEO Hans Vestberg, former Chief Financial Officer Matthew Ellis and 14 current and former board members accountable for Verizon’s “long-standing decision to bury and leave toxic telephone cables around the country indefinitely to contaminate ground water and pose other potential health risks to the public from exposure to these wires.” The complaint was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton.
The FTC has pursued administrative and judicial remedies against Meta to protect consumers’ privacy, consistent with its “statutory mandate” under the FTC Act, said the commission’s motion Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-03562) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez for New Jersey reset deadlines Monday in a lawsuit against MGM Resorts International over its September data breach, after the defendant invoked an automatic extension under Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(5), said the judge’s text-only order (docket 1:23-cv-20419). MGM’s letter cited plaintiffs Saul and Shirley Lassoff’s Nov. 30 motion to preclude all other venues and duplicate litigation against MGM Resorts International only and to issue a proposed first to file preclusion order and transfer remaining cases to U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The motion was originally set for hearing Jan. 2, which has not previously been extended or adjourned, said MGM’s filing. The new and next available motion day is Jan. 16, it said. The Lassoffs’ preclusion order requests that the remaining cases involving the cyberattack on the hospitality company’s systems in September be transferred to Camden. The plaintiffs’ amended complaint added New Jersey, New York and Las Vegas MGM customers as potential class members in the action against MGM Resorts International and removed Caesars Entertainment, following the dismissal of Caesars without prejudice from the case in November. The Lassoffs assert claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence (see 2311160060).
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit repeatedly pressed International Dark-Sky Association (ISDA) about its standing during oral argument Monday in the group's legal challenge to the FCC's approval of SpaceX's second-generation satellite constellation (see 2301030014).
Core Communications’ opening brief is due Jan. 16 at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its appeal of the district court’s Oct. 13 order granting AT&T summary judgment in its access service charges dispute with Core and Core's statewide affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia (see 2311140049), said a briefing and scheduling order Thursday (docket 23-3022). AT&T’s answering brief is due within 30 days of service of Core’s opening brief, said the order. The U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania held that Core can’t collect the millions in unpaid switched access service charges it seeks from AT&T, because Core’s tariffs didn’t authorize it to bill for those services in the first place, making AT&T entitled to summary judgment on all of Core’s claims.
The FTC's appeal of the district court’s July 11 denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard buy (see 2307110031) “is every bit about the right process for merger review as it is about the denial of relief,” FTC attorney Imad Abyad told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in oral argument Wednesday.
“No legal theory” allows the 38 plaintiff AirTags users “to hold Apple liable for the intentional misuse of its product by third parties,” said Apple’s reply Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-07668) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in further support of its Oct. 27 motion to dismiss their Oct. 6 first amended complaint (see 2310300030). Though the AirTag’s intended purpose is to find lost items like keys or luggage, “its popularity has soared as the preeminent tool for stalking and abuse due to its efficacy, low price point, and ease of use,” said the plaintiffs’ Nov. 13 opposition to Apple’s motion to dismiss (see 2311140041). But case after case, in any jurisdiction whose law the plaintiffs try to invoke, “establishes that Apple owes no legal duty to individuals with whom it has no relationship to prevent the misuse of its product by others,” said Apple’s reply. Only those third parties “wrongfully misusing” Apple products, not Apple, “can be considered a legal cause” of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, it said. Apple also can’t be held liable for statements that it didn’t make, “and that it has no legal duty to correct,” it said. Apple didn’t invade any plaintiff’s “privacy interests,” it said. “Only third parties wrongfully misusing Apple products did,” it said. The plaintiffs “have no other legal basis to sue Apple,” it said. Their opposition “fails to supply the missing legal theory,” it said. Though the plaintiffs’ opposition relies heavily on new assertions not found in the first amended complaint, the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice whether the court “considers those assertions or not,” it said. Either way, the plaintiffs “offer no factual or legal basis to overcome the conclusion” that third parties, not Apple, are responsible for their injuries, it said.
MGM Resorts International's “impermissibly inadequate data security” caused the personally identifiable information (PII) of plaintiffs and class members to be “exfiltrated by unauthorized cybercriminals” in a Sept. 7 data breach, alleged a Nov. 27 class action (see 2:23-cv-01981) transferred Thursday from U.S. District Court for Southern California to U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas.
T-Mobile breached its contractual obligations to Irvine, California-based mobile device maker Unimax by failing to accept delivery of nearly half a million devices, alleged Unimax's fraud complaint Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01830) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Many states that previously recognized state-law “analogs” to Chevron deference “have abolished those counterparts, either by statute or judicial decisions,” with no detriment, said five former state supreme court justices, a former state appeals court judge and the American Commitment Foundation in a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief Monday (docket 22-1219). The brief was in support of the petitioners in Relentless v. Commerce Department that urge SCOTUS to do away with the Chevron doctrine.