Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review – 2024

competition,” and plaintiffs failed to identify a specific injury or monetary loss for purposes of the UCL. Id. at *22. The defendant argued that the wiretapping claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to plead the interception of “contents” as defined under the relevant statutes. The court rejected the defendant ’ s argument. It found that the plaintiffs pled enough to withstand dismissal. However, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because no such standalone claim exists in California, and the plaintiffs did not allege any “mistake, fraud or coercion, or that a benefit was conferred on Oracle that would be unjust for it to retain.” Id. at *28. In Alholm, et al. v. Vrdolyak Law Group LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7564 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2023), the plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the defendant, a law firm, alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, related state laws, fraud, and misappropriation of likeness under Illinois and Tennessee state law. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b). The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. The plaintiff joined the defendant ’ s law firm, but after relocating to manage the firm ’ s Tennessee office, he alleged that the firm lacked resources, could not support his cases, and often could not pay expenses. The plaintiff also asserted that the defendant engaged in unethical and illegal activities including overcharging clients, steering them to specific physicians, and allowing offensive behavior within the firm. The plaintiff contended that the defendant ’ s Chicago and Nashville offices were equipped with audio and video surveillance cameras, that it ordered an employee to obtain recordings of a conference call, and that the employees were unaware they were being recorded. The defendant argued that the plaintiff ’ s wiretapping claims were untimely, but the court declined to dismiss the claims based on the statute of limitations because the date when the plaintiff became aware of the alleged wiretapping was a factual dispute. The court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff ’ s fraud claim because the alleged statements about future intent were not actionable as fraud under Illinois law. The court explained that it was well-settled that heightened pleading for fraud is a response to the “great harm to the reputation of a business firm or other enterprise a fraud claim can do,” and the plaintiff failed to meet that standard. Id. at *14-15. The court also denied the motion as to the plaintiff ’ s claims of misappropriation of likeness. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendant ’ s motion to dismiss. In the litigation entitled In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157678 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023), the plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that the defendant provided sensitive information about their health to Meta when they logged-in to patient portals, where the tracking tool had been installed, thereby enabling Meta to make money from targeted advertising. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and the court denied the motion. The court determined that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the defendant violated the federal wiretap law and a California privacy law, and violated its own contractual promises governing user privacy on Facebook. The court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that sensitive healthcare information was intentionally captured and transmitted to Meta. In the proceeding captioned In Re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation , 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203926 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2023), the plaintiffs, on behalf of children and adolescents, filed hundreds of individual cases across the United States against major social media platforms, such as Meta ’ s Facebook and Instagram, Google ’ s YouTube, ByteDance ’ s TikTok, and Snapchat. In addition to individual suits, the litigation included over 140 actions brought by school districts and joint actions by over 30 state Attorneys General. The actions were consolidated and the operative complaint brought 18 causes of action in different states. The defendants - including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube - moved to dismiss. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions. The plaintiffs specifically alleged that the defendants’ platforms primarily make money by selling advertising space and leveraging vast user data. The plaintiffs asserted that these platforms specifically targeted children as a core market and designed their interfaces to appeal to and addict them to social media. The plaintiffs further alleged that the platforms’ designs were such that they facilitated a youth mental health crisis and contributed to the sexual exploitation of children.

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online