Dish Network failed to properly secure customers’ and employees’ personal information from hackers in a February network outage, alleged a Tuesday class action (docket 1:23-cv-01168) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver.
Amazon deactivated seller accounts and their associated advertising campaigns “without any adequate warning and without good cause,” hasn't resolved technical and account access issues necessary for basic business functions and denied access to funds owed to plaintiffs, said a Tuesday complaint (docket 3:23-cv-00603) in U.S. District Court for Connecticut in New Haven. Plaintiff Benjamin Ligeri, a Connecticut resident who owns co-plaintiff companies Central Concepts, Trademark Holdings, Global Specialty Products and Medcare, said he can’t access his My Medical Warehouse account, renamed to Twin Horses upon acquisition, which he has “rights of access to,” said the complaint. Amazon’s “defective system" denied access to funds owed to plaintiff Medcare for up to nine months, and it continued to “fraudulently take funds” owed to plaintiffs under the “pretense of bogus fees such as ancient removal orders,” the complaint said. Medcare “never got its pay cycle where it had accrued thousands of dollars,” it said. In its terms of service (TOS), Amazon told plaintiffs they would receive protection for their intellectual property from counterfeits; timely disbursements of their profits by Amazon; reliable and useful technology to operate on the platform; a fair market; fixed and knowable fees in advance; and “protection against the placement of dangerous products” on Amazon’s platform that could be confused with plaintiffs’, the complaint said, but "none of these representations were true.” Plaintiffs claims include trademark infringement; negligence; a declaratory judgment that TOS are a voidable adhesion contract; violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act; negligent misrepresentation; fraud and civil theft; tortious interference with business; conversion; anti-trust violation; breach of fiduciary duty; unjust enrichment; and theft of trade secrets. Plaintiffs seek damages, an injunction commanding either reactivation of their accounts or permanent destruction of their data, plus an accounting of the data’s usage, unauthorized sharing and profits derived.
The three named plaintiffs in the data breach class action against Macmillan (see 2304040003) filed an unopposed motion for leave Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01217) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan to file a second amended complaint against the publisher. Plaintiffs Victoria Batchelor, Diana Griffin and Jaime Ariza allege Macmillan stores a “litany” of highly sensitive personal identifiable information (PII) about its current and former employees, but it “lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach.” The second amended complaint removes the negligence per se and the breach of fiduciary duty claims against Macmillan, and adds certain allegations from the negligence per se claim to their claim for negligence. The negligence claim now alleges Macmillan violated its duty under Section 5 of the FTC Act “by failing to use reasonable measures to protect PII and not complying with applicable industry standards.” Macmillan’s conduct “was particularly unreasonable” in light of the nature and volume of the PII it collected and stored, says the new complaint. Macmillan failed to prepare for “the foreseeable consequences of a data breach, including, specifically, the immense damages that would result to individuals in the event of a breach, which ultimately came to pass,” it says.
The U.S. Supreme Court is difficult to predict, but lawyers see reason to believe the court will use an upcoming case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, to clarify the status of the Chevron doctrine, legal experts told us. The doctrine underlies the authority of independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC. The court last week agreed to hear the maritime case (docket 22-451). The court hasn’t cited Chevron for several years, though it continues to be cited by lower courts.
Defendants in a negligence and public nuisance lawsuit didn’t maintain or prevent damage to the property arising from work on a cell tower installed on the roof of a two-story commercial building in Torrance, California, alleges building owner Aurea and tenant Ace Sushi, in a Tuesday complaint (docket 23TR-cv-01388) in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Torrance. The suit, which also alleges trespass, names cell tower installation company SBA Site Management, infrastructure firm Betacom, MasTec Network Solutions, project management company Vantage Telecom and T-Mobile USA Tower. Defendants “owed a duty of care” to prevent damage arising from work on the systems and to perform work in a “reasonable, skilled, and knowledgeable manner,” said the complaint. Due to defendants’ alleged breach of duty of care, plaintiffs suffered damages including cracking of the roof, “widespread leaks,” water intrusion, deterioration of the property, costs to repair damage and a reduction in property value, the complaint said. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and legal costs.
U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett for Maryland in Baltimore signed a memorandum opinion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02456) granting defendant Global Tower’s Jan. 31 motion to dismiss with prejudice property owner Olcan III’s claims for negligent misrepresentation, negligence and public nuisance emanating from a dispute over a rooftop cell tower.
An Illinois plaintiff’s claims fail, said T-Mobile's response to a February complaint that a Metro by T-Mobile store violated the Federal Communications Act (FCA) and Stored Communications Act (SCA) in a SIM card swap. T-Mobile filed a motion to dismiss (docket 2:23-cv-00271) the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted review of two cases concerning questions about whether it's constitutional for public officials to block critics on social media.
Amazon on Friday removed to U.S. District Court for Southern New York from New York County Supreme Court the petition of Amazon third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to vacate a $507,619 arbitration award in Amazon’s favor. Amazon had declined to disburse the $507,619 in sales proceeds to the seller after “uncovering” that it was “manipulating customer product reviews to artificially and deceptively inflate the perceived value of the goods it was selling in the Amazon store,” said Amazon’s notice of removal (docket 1:23-cv-03334).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has denied the Standard/Tegna broadcasters’ petition for writ of mandamus, according to a brief, unpublished decision in docket 23-1084 Friday morning.