Author: Joshua S. Levy
Since the United States Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins in May 2016, lower courts have struggled to consistently determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue in federal court, which, as the Spokeo court explained, “requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” That is, even when Congress has made something unlawful and authorized an award of statutory damages for the unlawful act, the mere violation of that law is not itself sufficient to confer standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. But precisely what is required to demonstrate sufficient “injury” under Article III remains unclear after Spokeo, especially in the data-breach and data-privacy contexts. In Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., however, a unanimous Seventh Circuit decision, authored by Judge Posner, held that the defendant’s possible failure to comply with a requirement contained in the Cable Communications Policy Act (requiring the destruction of personally identifiable information (“PII”) if the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected) did not afford the plaintiff Article III standing to sue for violation of the statute where his personal information was not released or disseminated in any way. The plaintiff...
California District Court Dismisses Facebook’s TCCWNA “Website Terms and Conditions” Lawsuit in Light of Valid Choice-of-Law Provision
New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) ushered in a wave of class actions last year, targeting various provisions in retailers’ websites “terms and conditions.” Broadly speaking, the TCCWNA prohibits “consumer contracts” from containing language that violates any “clearly established legal right[s].” New Jersey courts have not been alone in adjudicating these cases, however, as a number of similar lawsuits have been brought in other jurisdictions, including California federal district courts. For example, on September 7, 2016, the Central District of California dismissed the complaint in Candelario v. Rip Curl, Inc. on standing grounds, holding that because the plaintiff’s “only connection to the Terms and Conditions appears to be her decision to read them” and because her complaint essentially alleged only “bare procedural violation[s]” of the TCCWNA – without more – she could not satisfy “the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” Even more recently, although on different grounds, the Northern District of California dismissed a “website terms and conditions” class action against Facebook. In Palomino v. Facebook, Inc., as in Candelario, the plaintiffs alleged that the social media company’s website terms and conditions violated the TCCWNA because of “provisions that purport to ‘1) disclaim liability for claims brought for...
Owners and operators of e-commerce websites should be aware of an eruption in threatened and filed class actions against online retailers under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”). The TCCWNA was enacted decades ago, as the New Jersey Supreme Court has explained, to “prohibit businesses from offering or using provisions in consumer contracts, warranties, notices and signs that violate any clearly established right of a consumer.” Yet, as laudable as this goal may be, with the potential for class-wide statutory penalty damages, the brevity and breadth of the statute has led to a tidal wave of litigation now targeting terms and conditions within e-commerce websites—an application of the law that could not have even been conceived of when the TCCWNA was passed in 1981.
In the thick of a torrent of litigation, mostly class actions, premised upon purportedly unlawful contractual provisions under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) – a statute that permits “no-injury” claims – the District of New Jersey has reaffirmed a bright-line rule concerning this law: Omissions don’t trigger liability.
Class actions brought under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) are on the rise. This year alone, Wal-Mart, J. Crew, Avis, Toys R Us, and Apple – among many others – have been sued under this unique state statute that prohibits certain types of unlawful provisions in consumer contracts and other documents. In the past decade, courts have continued to expand the scope of this law – from the New Jersey Supreme Court, which, in 2013, instructed lower courts to construe the statute broadly, to the District of New Jersey, which, in 2014, allowed a TCCWNA class action to go forward against contracts containing commonly-worded exculpatory and indemnification provisions.
EIFS litigation is no stranger to New Jersey. EIFS (or “exterior insulation and finish system”) – a popular, post-World War II building system that resembles stucco while simultaneously providing watertight exterior insulation – originated in Europe and migrated to American homes in the late 1960s and early 1970s. According to The New York Times, it was utilized in the construction of “countless homes built in New Jersey,” which meant that the state was deeply affected when it became evident that, installed in a certain way, EIFS trapped water behind its siding and led to crumbling wall sheathing and rampant mold. Nationwide lawsuits ensued and, while a class action settlement was eventually reached with the largest EIFS manufacturer in 2003, New Jersey courts – at every level – returned to EIFS litigation again and again.
“Bound by the Terms of His Bargain”: Third Circuit Underscores the Difficulty of Vacating Arbitration Awards
In a recent precedential decision, Whitehead v. The Pullman Grp., LLC, the Third Circuit reminded litigants that it’s as tough as ever to vacate an arbitration award – and cast further doubt on the viability of the “manifest disregard of the law” standard here. Appellant Pullman entered into a contract with two singer-songwriters in May 2002, which gave him the exclusive option to purchase their song catalog following a 180-day due diligence period.
Super Bowl Tickets Not the Ticket to Federal Class Action, as Third Circuit Finds No Standing for Uninjured Plaintiffs
“[T]he disappointment of wanting to attend a concert or athletic event only to discover that the event has sold out,” does not confer constitutional standing. That was the take away from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recent precedential decision, Finkelman v. Nat’l Football League. Addressing the always-thorny contours of constitutional standing to bring a federal lawsuit, the Court held, in the face of high Super Bowl ticket prices, that neither non-purchasers of tickets nor purchasers of “scalped” tickets at elevated prices, had standing to sue under Article III. This opinion sets up yet another obvious roadblock in the path of plaintiffs looking to bring claims—whether or not as class actions—when their perceived injuries are either non-existent or so tenuous as to make “difficulties in alleging an injury-in-fact . . . insurmountable.”