A class action lawsuit against Burger King for data privacy violations could be headed to trial. Burger King was sued for a faulty consent banner on its website, with plaintiffs alleging that the fast-food giant continued to track user activity and private communications even after their clear rejection of cookies and other tracking technologies.
As more consumers fight back against data privacy violations, Big Tech companies and their defense attorneys are trying to spread 5 myths about the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA). These companies have attempted for years to persuade legislators to weaken CIPA protections for consumers, but the law remains more relevant than ever.
An important data privacy case recently concluded with a shocking verdict by the jury: Google secretly collected user data on cellphone apps. As a result, Google must now pay $425 million to affected consumers. The lawsuit, Rodriguez v. Google LLC, was filed in federal court and alleged that Google violated the privacy rights of millions of cellphone users in the United States who thought that their online activity was private.
Flo Health, the owner and operator of the popular Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker app, was sued in federal court for allegedly sharing users’ personal health data with Meta (Facebook) and Google. Although Flo Health settled the class action lawsuit, the case still went to trial with Meta named as a defendant – and a jury issued a precedent-setting verdict against the social media parent company.
A high-profile trial about data privacy violations by Facebook parent company Meta concluded with a shocking verdict from the jury: Meta violated California’s consumer privacy laws. The lawsuit concerned allegations that Meta unlawfully collected the personal health data of users of the Flo Ovulation & Period Tracker app. Women who use the app are encouraged to enter private details about their health, including sexual activity, birth control, and menstrual cycles.
In major legal news, Flo Health settles data privacy lawsuit accusing the company of violating California’s consumer privacy laws. The class action lawsuit alleged that Flo Health collected the highly personal health information of millions of women who used the company’s period-tracking app and then unlawfully shared that data with Meta (Facebook), Google, and other tech companies. The harvesting of users’ protected healthcare information is seen as particularly invasive because the data often includes intimate details about a person’s health and sexuality.
LiveRamp, one of the largest data brokers in the world, was sued for invading the privacy of consumers – and now a federal court has ruled that the case can move forward. The invasion of privacy lawsuit against LiveRamp, Riganian v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc., was filed as a class action in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District. The plaintiffs are California consumers who accused LiveRamp of unlawfully collecting consumer information both online and offline and then selling that information to third parties for marketing purposes.
A federal court in California recently issued a key ruling in an important, potentially precedent-setting case, and court observers and legal experts are now asking: Did Rack Room Shoes violate federal wiretap law? The pre-trial ruling, issued by the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District, might have implications for the future of consumer privacy laws nationwide. The case, Smith v.
Tauler Smith LLP filed an ARL claim against textbook company Chegg for allegedly renewing customer subscriptions without notice or authorization. KNTV, which serves as the NBC outlet for the San Francisco Bay Area, reported that the civil lawsuit was filed in federal court on behalf of a student who rented a book for her law school class. It is not uncommon for consumers who make what they thought was a one-time purchase online to later realize that they have been charged again – and again! – for an auto-renewing subscription.
Many companies that offer shipping insurance on e-commerce sites are violating California insurance laws, which have strict requirements about who is allowed to offer insurance and how that insurance can be offered. Moreover, California’s insurance laws can serve as a predicate for civil lawsuits brought under other statutes, including the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). When it comes to shipping insurance claims and the UCL, there is strong legal precedent in favor of consumers who are charged for insurance by an unlicensed agent.