Author: Mark S. Eisen
Following the FCC’s 2015 Telephone Consumer Protection Act Omnibus Order, following ten consolidated appeals of the Order filed shortly thereafter, and following an oral argument in 2016, on March 16, 2018 the DC Circuit issued its long-awaited opinion dismantling the Order. Unfortunately, the DC Circuit did not do much more than tell the FCC that many of its rulings were arbitrary and capricious—in other words, the Court did not itself provide definitive interpretations. Now, three years later, plaintiffs and defendants alike find themselves with infinitely more questions than answers, and with a long road to hoe back before the FCC. Continue reading “ATDS, WTF? The DC Circuit Dismantles the FCC’s 2015 TCPA Order”
It is no secret that there are certain jurisdictions that plaintiffs’ class action attorneys prefer to file suit, most notably, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami and New York, to name a few. While plaintiffs’ lawyers may have countless clients in those jurisdictions, rarely is the defendant they are pursuing physically resident in those jurisdictions. In order to satisfy the personal jurisdiction requirements then, plaintiffs’ lawyers thus have to rely on specific jurisdiction—jurisdiction that arises out of the defendant’s suit-related contacts with the forum—not general jurisdiction—jurisdiction that exists (with limited exception) only in those forums where the defendant is incorporated or headquartered. Continue reading “This Time, It’s Personal: TCPA Personal Jurisdiction Ruling Severely Limits Nationwide Class Actions”
On February 21, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in a TCPA defendant’s favor, holding that the TCPA plaintiff provided prior express consent for a “health care” message, precluding liability. In its decision, the Second Circuit confirmed that under the TCPA, a defendant need not obtain written prior express consent to send a health care message. Continue reading “Second Circuit Confirms Prior Express Consent For “Health Care” Messages Need Not Be In Writing Under TCPA”
On February 1, 2018, a federal district court in the Northern District of California stayed a putative class action involving the Tezos Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in a case addressing state court jurisdiction over securities class actions. In granting the defendant’s request for a stay, the court refrained from deciding the novel securities and jurisdictional issue of whether ICOs are securities offerings subject to the Securities Act of 1933. Continue reading “District Court Stays Securities Class Action Involving Initial Coin Offering Pending Supreme Court Review”
Authors: David S. Almeida, Mark S. Eisen and Courtney C. Booth
Brought about by an obscure state law passed nearly a decade ago—the Illinois Biometric Information Protection Act (740 ILCS 14/1)—the next wave of privacy class action litigation is here and in full-swing. While an Illinois law, the BIPA is appearing in cases nationwide regarding the collection, storage and use of biometric information. The BIPA, in short, regulates the collection and use of biometric information (i.e., iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints and facial geometry). The BIPA was enacted in 2008, and flew largely under the radar until an initial trickling of class actions, beginning with the first class action filed against Facebook in 2015, and followed shortly thereafter by lawsuits against Google, Shutterfly and Snapchat. Continue reading “Biometrics: The Wave of the Future Sparks a Current Wave of Class Action Litigation”
Benesch has been ranked in the top 20% of all law firms by corporate counsel for Class Actions in BTI Litigation Outlook 2018. Each year BTI reaches out to a strategically designed group of top legal decision makers at large organizations with $1 billion or more in revenue.
BTI Litigation Outlook 2018 is based solely on in-depth telephone interviews with leading legal decision makers. This comprehensive analysis trends data from more than 4,800 corporate counsel client interviews conducted over the span of 18 years.
After a protracted legal fight, Cook County’s much maligned Sweetened Beverage Tax went into effect on August 2, 2017. See
County of Cook, § 74-850, et seq
In relevant part, the tax requires retailers of sweetened beverages to tax $.01 per ounce of sweetened beverage. For bottled beverages, calculating the tax is fairly straightforward (though, as noted below, putative class action lawsuits over the taxation of bottled water have been filed against companies like PepsiCo and Walgreens). For fountain drinks—which have caused the biggest litigation headache—the tax is calculated by the number of ounces the cup can hold.
Continue reading “Bittersweet: The Chicago Sweetened Beverage Tax Sparks Class Action Litigation”