The plaintiffs' allegations of actual identity theft in the Samsung data breach multidistrict litigation are “implausible, insufficiently pled, and not a cognizable injury absent economic loss,” said Samsung’s notice Friday (docket 1:23-md-03055) of its motion to dismiss in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden.
Verizon’s sign-up policies and practices deceive customers by prominently advertising flat monthly rates for its postpaid wireless service plans, alleged an amended class action (docket 3:23-cv-01138) brought by 50 consumers Friday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. After consumers sign up, Verizon charges them higher monthly rates than it advertised and pads their bills with an “administrative charge” that’s currently $3.30 per line on top of the advertised price, said the complaint. The ‘fictitious’ administrative charge allows Verizon to “unlawfully charge its customers more per month for Verizon wireless services without having to advertise the higher monthly rates,” it said. The carrier first began “sneaking” the charge into postpaid customers’ bills in 2005, initially at 40 cents per month for each line and has repeatedly bumped the amount on a regular basis, said the complaint. The most recent increase was on June 23, 2022, when Verizon raised the administrative charge 70% from $1.95, it said. Verizon has used the charge as a “revenue lever to covertly jack up its monthly service prices and to squeeze its existing subscribers for more cash" whenever it desires, it said. To date, the carrier has “improperly collected billions of dollars in additional, unlawful charges” from the proposed class members through the scheme, it said. Only after customers sign up for wireless service -- and are “financially committed to their purchase and cannot cancel without penalty" -- do customers learn of the charge, the complaint said. Verizon then “deliberately and affirmatively omits or misrepresents” the charge on billing statements. Its paper bills fail to mention the charge at all, telling customers to “check your online bill for all surcharges, taxes and gov fees,” it said. On online bills, Verizon omits the charge from the monthly charge section, “where it actually belongs,” and puts it under surcharges, “where it is lumped together with various government charges, taxes, and fees,” the complaint said. For years, the company “explicitly and falsely stated” on the bill that the charge is imposed on subscribers to “cover the costs that are billed to us by federal, state or local governments.” By its own design, Verizon’s monthly billing statements served to further its “deceptive scheme and keep customers from realizing they are being overcharged,” it said. On a support page, Verizon gives a different definition of the charge, claiming it’s tied to operating costs, including telephone company interconnect charges and network facility and service fees -- "all of which are basic costs of providing wireless service, and which a reasonable consumer would expect to be included in the advertised price for any wireless service plan,” the complaint said. Verizon doesn’t adjust the amount of the charge based on changes to its costs, but it “unilaterally sets and increases” the amount of the charge “based on its internal revenue targets,” it said. Verizon’s “misrepresentations on bills that the charge is imposed on subscribers to recover the costs" billed to Verizon by the government "were false statements of material fact intended to discourage customers who discovered the Administrative Charge from questioning or objecting to the Charge,” it said.
The U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco took possession Thursday of a Nov. 23 pro se lawsuit (docket 3:23-cv-04045) transferred from the Eastern District of Texas that alleges Meta and TikTok violated the Texas code by censoring social media content. TikTok removed the case to the federal court from County Court at Law No. 4 of Collin County, Texas, in November. Attorney plaintiff Paul Davis’ emergency motion to remand was denied.
Plaintiff Michael Harris became a victim of identity theft when unauthorized individuals attempted to open bank accounts in his name, said a Tuesday negligence class action (1:23-cv-11816) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston. The suit names Progress Software Corp. (PSC) for a May data breach involving its MOVEit file transfer software.
T-Mobile collected from customers a “city license” or "utility” tax it wasn't authorized to collect under ordinances of various Missouri municipalities, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-00561) in U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City.
Pollen Mobile, a subsidiary of Pronto.ai, violated federal and California securities laws by selling unregistered securities and expiring gift cards, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-04023) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
Seven former Twitter employees sued Twitter and X Corp. Tuesday for discrimination and/or violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) involving their “separations from employment with Twitter during the chaotic days” after Elon Musk bought the company, said a class action (docket 3:23-cv-04016) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed an application (docket 5:23-cv-03880) for a temporary restraining order against Google Wednesday to stop YouTube from using its “’medical misinformation’ policies” to remove videos of Kennedy’s speech "on matters of public concern” during the 2024 presidential campaign. Kennedy filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Google and YouTube (see 2308030049) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco last week involving Google's COVID-19 vaccine misinformation policy.
A copyright infringement case by Gizmodo Editor-in-Chief Tom Ackerman alleges the Tetris movie “demonstrated the confiscation” of his original work and creation of his book, The Tetris Effect. Chapters and pages of Ackerman's book were “simply adopted from the book to the film,” said the complaint (docket 1:23-cv-06952), filed Monday in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan,
Several parties filed responses Friday in opposition to consolidation and transfer in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (docket 3083) resulting from Progress Software's May data breaches in which the data of over 15 million individuals was reportedly accessed (see 2307120053).