The federal government can encourage and even coerce social media platforms into moderating content without violating the First Amendment when there’s compelling public interest, conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices agreed Monday.
The district court correctly concluded that when purchasing toll-free calls from third parties that were destined for AT&T’s customers, Core Communications didn’t provide its tariffed switched access services to AT&T and therefore couldn’t collect from AT&T its tariffed rates for that service, said AT&T’s appellee brief Thursday (docket 23-3022) at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. Core’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s Oct. 13 summary judgment decision in AT&T’s favor (see 2310160018).
T-Mobile and Wireless Vision’s Feb. 20 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be denied in its entirety, said plaintiff Jane Doe in an opposition (docket 4:23-cv-05166) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington in Richland. Doe’s November complaint alleges a T-Mobile employee downloaded, without her consent, private images and videos from a cellphone she traded in at a T-Mobile store in a Washington mall. Doe properly establishes claims against the defendants based on the actions of their employee, De'aundre Gomez, whose access and dissemination of Jane’s “explicit media occurred within the scope of his employment,” and Washington’s Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act permits claims against corporate defendants, it said. The federal civil action related to disclosure of intimate images also permits claims based on vicarious liability, it said. The defendants negligently breached duties they owed to Doe, a customer, and they owed a duty of care to her, it said. Doe’s negligence claim is “distinct and not duplicative” and her damages are cognizable, it said. The plaintiff pleads her negligent misrepresentation claim with particularity, it said. When she traded in her phone for a credit toward a new one and agreed to have the defendants transfer her data, she “reasonably relied” on their “false representation,” made through their in-store procedures and online privacy notice, that “they securely handle sensitive customer data and devices,” it said. Doe's “detailed allegations in the amended complaint give notice of the exact misconduct alleged, that in affixing a sticker to the front of Doe’s old phone, “placing it in bubble wrap, and storing it out of reach,” defendants “failed to protect Jane’s sensitive information from exploitation,” it said. Defendants failed to implement “effective common-sense security hardware or software to protect consumers from their data and privacy being exploited during ordinary transactions at their retail stores,” it said. Defendants’ representations that T-Mobile’s policies protect customers’ data is “false,” said the opposition. “Defendants know that its retail employees routinely steal customers’ data and exploit their privacy during device upgrades and trade-ins,” yet they have neglected to improve their procedures to hire and supervise responsible employees or to impose “checks and balances via technology” to deter unlawful incidents, the opposition said.
A former Maximus sales director deleted company data, “sabotaged its systems, and revoked administrator access of other Maximus employees” without authorization, alleged a fraud complaint Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-00395) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria.
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.
Indiana’s statewide “buffer law” (HB-1186), making it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty, gives the police “unlimited and unbridled discretion to move all persons away,” said Donald Nicodemus’ opening brief Monday (docket 24-1099) in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
American Tower, AT&T and T-Mobile “could easily and with minimal cost” take action to modify their facilities to end plaintiff Marcia Haller’s “debilitating symptoms” while allowing her to still use their telecommunications services, alleged Haller's Americans With Disabilities Act complaint Monday (docket 0:24-cv-00877) in U.S. District Court for Minnesota in Duluth.
Andrew Haymore was the victim for seven months of in-game aggravated cyber harassment, cyberstalking and cyberbullying, including by employees of Amazon Games, alleged his Jan. 9 complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court, removed by Amazon Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00729) to U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Sacramento. Amazon Games, by creating New World, the massively multiplayer online role-playing game, “facilitated random players and organized groups of players and gave them the platform and ability” to commit the acts against Haymore, said his complaint. The pro se plaintiff describes himself as a U.S. Army veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Haymore contacted Amazon Games’ chat support Aug. 23, and again Sept. 9, complaining about the in-game harassment, said the complaint. Trouble tickets were created online, but little else was done, it said. The Sacramento resident kept audio and video recordings of his interactions with Amazon and Amazon Games employees, most of whom “ignored his pleas for help,” it said. He alleges gross negligence, contending that Amazon failed in its “duty to the consumer to keep the gaming environment safe.” Amazon doesn’t waive “its respective rights to assert any defense” of Haymore's allegations, said its notice of removal. Amazon also reserves its right to compel Haymore’s claims to arbitration or to move to dismiss his action for failure to state a claim, said the notice.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis denied the Indiana attorney general's motion for a stay in a suit to block enforcement of HB-1186, the state's "buffer law,” pending the outcome of a YouTuber’s appeal in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2402220005), said Garcia’s signed order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805). The plaintiffs -- seven media organizations including Nexstar, Scripps, Tegna and the Indianapolis Star -- opposed the stay. HB-1186 makes it a misdemeanor for news media members to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. YouTuber Donald Nicodemus' appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s Jan. 12 decision denying his motion for a permanent injunction against the city of South Bend’s enforcement of the buffer law. Like the media organizations in the case against Rokita, Nicodemus is challenging HB-1186 on First Amendment grounds. AG Todd Rokita (R) argued that the 7th Circuit’s determination of issues in Nicodemus’ appeal “will give clear answers to numerous identical arguments raised” in the media organizations’ case against Rokita. But Garcia found that a stay would prejudice the media organizations, because amid a stay, they would have to wait for the court to rule on their motion for a preliminary injunction to block HB-1186, said the judge’s order. The preliminary injunction motion “is fully briefed and ripe for decision,” it said. Garcia also isn’t persuaded that Rokita “will face hardship if this stay is denied,” it said. The AG argues that the issues in the instant case will be simplified by awaiting a 7th Circuit ruling in the Nicodemus case. Even taken as true, a simplification of issues if a stay is granted doesn’t amount to hardship to Rokita if it’s denied, said the order.
The plaintiffs have shown injury and have “more than adequately pled" their data breach claims, said their opposition Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-01168) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver to Dish Network’s motion to dismiss their consolidated complaint in its entirety. The case involves a February 2023 ransomware attack in which the personally identifiable information (PII) of Dish employees and family members was compromised. Dish employees and their family members have suffered financial, reputational and other cognizable injuries, the opposition said. Some plaintiffs’ have experienced actual harm with bank accounts opened illegally in their names, were denied jobs or discovered attempts to apply for unemployment in their names, said the filing. It’s not just “theoretical” that plaintiffs’ PII may be misused by criminals, said the opposition: “It already has been -- and the door is wide open now for all of them to experience increased misuse going forward.” Article III standing requires that plaintiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, it said. Plaintiffs “easily satisfy this standard" by alleging the data breach occurred as a result of Dish’s “misconduct,” allowing cybercriminals to access their private information, including Social Security numbers, and that the stolen data was misused, it said. Without Dish’s “misconduct,” the plaintiffs wouldn’t have been harmed, it said. Dish argued that one injury related to a plaintiff’s debit card number being used for unauthorized charges was insufficient because the consolidated amended complaint didn’t provide details about the purchase or that he provided a particular debit card number. “But so what?” said the opposition, saying it’s unnecessary to allege debit card numbers in a pleading. Dish asserted the plaintiffs haven’t alleged any facts suggesting a future data breach is likely, but it has already been breached once “due to inadequate data security – and it is foreseeable another breach will occur,” the opposition said. Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief doesn’t rely solely on past conduct but also relies on protecting their PII still backed up in Dish’s possession, it said. Class members are largely past and current employees of Dish, and the company is obligated, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, to maintain their PII for up to three years, post severance, said the opposition. Without better cybersecurity going forward, class members’ information is “vulnerable to another hack and, if and when it does happen, the results would likely be devastating,” giving plaintiffs standing to seek injunctive relief, it said. Dish concluded it had no duty to protect plaintiffs’ PII, but an employer’s duty to protect employees’ PII has been recognized in circuit courts across the country, it said. Dish argued that a claim for breach fails because it made no representations regarding an agreement to provide data security to plaintiffs, but an express communication regarding the agreement doesn’t need to be made, the opposition said. As a condition of being employed, current and former employees were required to provide their PII to Dish, it said. Dish accepted the PII with the understanding it would take “appropriate steps to safeguard” it; otherwise, plaintiffs would not have provided it, said the filing.