Consumer Protection

On behalf of client Vonage Holdings Corp., Perkins Coie obtained complete dismissal of a purported class action anti-spam case filed against Vonage in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. __, No. 11-1450, 2013 WL 1104735 (Mar. 19, 2013), that plaintiffs attempting to bring a class action lawsuit cannot escape federal jurisdiction by agreeing to seek less than $5 million in damages.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently held that collecting a consumer's ZIP code at the point of sale may violate Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93, Section 105(a) (Section 105(a)), which restricts the ability of retailers to collect personal identification information (PII) from consumers in connection with a credit card transaction.

The California Supreme Court recently issued a landmark ruling in Apple Inc. v. Superior Court (formerly Krescent v. Apple Inc. in trial court proceedings), a case with wide-reaching implications for consumer privacy in e-commerce. The issue before the Court was whether California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the Act), which generally prohibits retailers from collecting or requesting personal identification information (PII) as a condition of accepting credit card payments, should apply to online retailers.

Companies that accept online credit card payments should be keeping an ear very close to the ground for the California Supreme Court’s decision in Apple v. Superior Court (Krescent), expected within the next few weeks.  Depending on how the court rules, the case has the potential to spawn a flood of class actions against online retailers and change the way web payments are processed.

A Supreme Court decision long-awaited by the class action bar and businesses was a surprise non-event last Thursday when, seven months after hearing oral arguments in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, the Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the writ of certiorari in the case as improvidently granted.  The Supreme Court's per curiam order, presented without reasoning, left intact the Ninth Circuit's holding that a plaintiff who pled a statutory violation but not actual damages had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that a plaintiff has suffered a concrete “injury in fact.”  The Supreme Court's decision means that, at least in the Ninth Circuit “[t]he injury required by Article III can exist solely by virtue of ‘statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing.’”

Several class action complaints filed in recent months take a novel approach regarding the requirements for website privacy policies under California's "Shine the Light" law.