Perkins Coie is pleased to present the fourth edition of Labor Law Today—Year in Review, offering a summary of the past year’s most noteworthy and influential developments in traditional labor law.

The new Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 includes the Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2022, which amends the amounts and tiers for Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 filing fees as discussed in a prior Update. It also includes two important amendments to antitrust laws.

Consumer protection issues generated a lively discussion at the American Bar Association's 70th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting, held April 5-8 in Washington, as thousands of practitioners, enforcers, academics and jurists from around the world interacted in person for the first time since 2019.

On April 5, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refined the standard for enforcing terms of service presented on websites via hyperlinks.

Perkins Coie is pleased to present the third edition of Labor Law Today —Year in Review, highlighting the past year’s most noteworthy developments.

When are communications with counsel that are for both legal advice and business purposes protected by the attorney-client privilege?

In a significant decision on securities class actions, the Supreme Court last week held that the generic nature of alleged misrepresentations will often be “important evidence of a lack of price impact” that can be used by defendants to defeat class certification

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently upheld a lower court’s decision in Hunstein v. Preferred Collection and Management Services, Inc., 994 F.3d 1341 (11th. Cir. 2021).

In this report, Perkins Coie offers an analysis of the past year’s most noteworthy regulatory developments and litigation outcomes in the mortgage lending and servicing industry.

In an unexpected shift, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, ordered courts to abandon the commonly followed “two-step” certification process for collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Perkins Coie is pleased to present the second edition of Labor Law Today —Year in Review, highlighting the past year’s most noteworthy developments.

As colleges and universities reopen, the potential for another shutdown and lawsuits over refunds for tuition, fees, and health and safety looms.

Hundreds of COVID-19-related class action claims have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the country.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, institutions of higher education are facing significant revenue challenges and incurring extra expenses for which their insurance programs should provide relief.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, cosmetic companies continue to see growing numbers of class action litigation cases targeting the industry.

The parties to class action litigation frequently contest whether plaintiffs are entitled to pre-certification discovery aimed at identifying additional or replacement class representatives.

A flurry of recent class action lawsuits against manufacturers of CBD products involving a range of claims—from marketing to stock pricing to CBD content—should put the industry on alert. Perkins Coie attorneys look at the recent spate of class actions, what the FDA is doing, and offer mitigating steps for CBD suppliers and manufacturers.

A decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Maza v. Waterford Operations LLC, 300 Or. App. 471 (2019), raises the bar for Oregon employers on meal breaks, making employers liable for missed meal breaks even if they make every effort to provide them.

Perkins Coie is proud to announce that the third edition of A Manufacturer's Guide to Product Liability Law in the United States is now available as an e-book and in a Chinese printed version, as well as the original English printed version.

This is the final article in a three-part series on the American Bar Association's 67th Antitrust Law spring meeting.

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued its long-awaited decision in ACA International v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2018).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to a machine's ability to simulate human intelligence to perform tasks like planning, decision-making, and recognizing objects or sounds. Its use is not always obvious, but AI is now present in nearly every aspect of our lives—from our "smart" home products to our medical care, jobs, and businesses.

This holiday season, brands are ready for bustling sales, special offers and joyful consumers.

A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cut back on the protections afforded by the safe-harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 for public companies whose forward-looking statements are alleged to be false or misleading.

The American Bar Association’s 65th Antitrust Law Spring Meeting held at the end of March included a number of sessions focused on consumer protection.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down its (by now) hotly discussed decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017), on January 3, 2017, holding there is no separate “administrative feasibility” requirement for class action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

This year brought a wave of class action complaints alleging that national retailers are violating the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. §§ 56:12-14 et seq., by including certain provisions in their online terms and other consumer-facing notices and agreements.

The U.S. Department of Labor recently released 12 questions and answers in a publication called “Misclassification Mythbusters.”

Perkins Coie’s Privacy & Security and Class Action Defense groups defend Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases throughout the country. This newsletter provides updates on litigation and regulatory developments regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).   View the full newsletter.

In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the mere allegation of a statutory violation is not necessarily enough to create Article III standing.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo on March 22, 2016.  The Court held that a group of employees in a class action could use a statistical study to establish the employer’s liability for unpaid overtime.  The employees claimed that they should have been paid for time spent donning and doffing protective gear.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. --- (2016), that a lawsuit is not moot after a plaintiff declines to accept an offer of judgment made by the defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

In last Friday’s long-awaited TCPA Omnibus Declaratory Ruling and Order (Order), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) may have dramatically altered the landscape for TCPA class action defense.

Target’s 2013 data breach has generated over 100 consumer lawsuits, which were consolidated last year before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On December 18, 2014, Judge Paul A. Magnuson issued a decision on Target’s motion to dismiss the consolidated consumer cases.

During this busy holiday shopping season, retailers may end up facing litigation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending advertisements to consumers’ cell phones.

The holidays are quickly approaching, and shoppers are expected to spend in excess of $600 billion this season. The holiday season is shaping up to become a winter wonderland for retailers.

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, issued an opinion on October 15, 2014, that considered whether the definition of “employee” from the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9 (Wage Order) or the common law test found in S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989) (Borello) applied to the analysis of whether a putative employer properly classified courier and delivery service individuals as independent contractors.

On Monday the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, 2014 WL 2807181 (U.S. June 23, 2014), rejecting all pleas to overturn the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance established in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

The future of California labor and employment class actions took several blows this week.  First, the Supreme Court of California issued a decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. L.A., LLC, No S204032 (Cal. June 23, 2014) upholding a class action waiver in a dispute resolution policy.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that arbitration agreements with class action waivers are generally enforceable, but it refused to compel the waiver of representative claims brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

The Supreme Court of California released its decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association on May 29, 2014.  The decision will likely reshape the landscape of class-action practice in California.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the preemption of state law class actions afforded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2014).

The Southern District of California last month let 8 out of 51 claims survive in a putative class action arising out of the 2011 breach of the Sony PlayStation network.  In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL 11MD2258 AJB MDD, 2014 WL 223677 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (Sony II).

On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded, in a 5-4 decision, that when the individual plaintiff in a "collective action" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) resolves her own claims before certification, the case is moot and must be dismissed.  Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059 (U.S. 2013).

This is the latest opinion in the ongoing litigation arising out of a massive data breach suffered by Hannaford Bros. grocery stores. In re Hannaford Bros. Privacy Litigation, __F. Supp. 2d __, Case No. 2:08-MD-1954-DBH, 2013 WL 1182733 (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2013).

On March 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. ___, No. 11-864, 2013 WL 1222646 (Mar. 27, 2013).

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.

A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently added to the growing list of cases rejecting attempts to recover damages resulting from data breaches.  In In re LinkedIn User Privacy Litigation, Case no. 5:12-CV-03088 EJD (March 6, 2013), the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by LinkedIn users who were upset over the June 2012 posting of 6.5 million stolen LinkedIn user passwords.

On Tuesday, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit held that the certification requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court for a multimillion plaintiff gender discrimination class action in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), applied equally to a 200-person class of newspaper employees with wage and hour claims.     

In its long-awaited decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, No. 11-1085 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in a securities-fraud class action do not need to establish the materiality of alleged misrepresentations in seeking class certification.

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.

On January 6, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice Mehrens v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a putative class action against Redbox alleging that Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting ZIP codes and email addresses in connection with credit card transactions.

In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arbitration provisions governed by the Federal Arbitration Act may disallow class action proceedings.  In doing so, the Court disapproved the California Supreme Court's decision in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, which held that a consumer arbitration provision prohibiting class arbitration was unconscionable and unenforceable.

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, No. 09-893, the U.S. Supreme Court validated consumer contracts with arbitration clauses containing class action waivers. This decision may cause companies that do not have arbitration provisions in their consumer contracts to add them in order to limit or avoid class actions.

On February 10, 2011, the California Supreme Court held that a customer's ZIP code is "personal identification information" ("PII") under the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 and that businesses cannot request and record a customer's ZIP code during a credit card transaction.