The class-action complaint filed Nov. 23 in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh alleging Samsung failed to implement and follow “basic security procedures," resulting in the summertime data breach (see 2211250025), is a “potential tag-along action” in the massive fraud litigation against Samsung, attorneys for the company told the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in a notice (case 3055) Tuesday. The Pittsburgh case “involves common questions of law and fact with the actions currently under consideration for transfer,” said the attorneys, so it “should be considered as a related action for purposes of this pending multidistrict litigation.” Plaintiffs in the roughly 14 class actions are split between wanting the cases transferred to and consolidated in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco and those who want the District of New Jersey in Newark as the venue.

Netflix and Hulu don't qualify as video service providers under Ohio's Fair Competition in Cable Operations Act and the Cleveland suburb of Maple Heights can't sue the streaming services under the law's video service provider provisions, the Ohio Supreme Court said in an opinion Wednesday penned by Justice Michael Donnelly. Before the court were two questions submitted by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where Maple Heights' lawsuit against the streamers for unpaid video service provider franchise fees is pending (see 2204130044). Oral argument was in April (case 2021-0864). The court said the state law is unambiguous that only the state commerce director can determine if an entity is a video service provider, and the law doesn't authorize local governments to challenge that determination. "Maple Heights simply does not have express statutory authority to bring the underlying action," it said. "The legislature knows how to grant local governments such authority and chose not to do so here." Maple Heights outside counsel didn't comment.

Attorneys for plaintiff Alison White and Amazon agreed that White “voluntarily dismisses” Amazon as a defendant in her false-advertising claims against Amazon’s Ring subsidiary, said a stipulation Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909). That leaves Ring and Home Depot to defend against White’s allegations that Ring falsely tells consumers its $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit will automatically call authorities if their motion sensors have been activated when the kit is used with an internet connection and Ring’s Protect Pro security subscription (see 2210090005). Ring and Home Depot responded that the kit was never advertised promising the functionality White describes, and that she agreed to arbitrate any disputes when she bought the product. All parties that appeared in the case “have consented and agreed to the dismissal” of Amazon, and so the dismissal is effective without a court order, said the stipulation.

California’s antitrust complaint against Amazon was granted “complex designation” status and assigned to Judge Ethan Schulman, said an order Wednesday (docket CGC-22-601826) in California Superior Court in San Francisco. Schulman scheduled a case management conference Jan. 4 at 10 a.m. PST, and ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement at least five court days in advance. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a heavily redacted Sept. 15 complaint, alleged Amazon "makes consumers think they are getting the lowest prices possible, when in fact, they cannot get the low prices that would prevail in a freely competitive market" (see 2210130034). He alleged Amazon "coerced and induced its third-party sellers and wholesale suppliers to enter into anticompetitive agreements on price."

Due to Samsung’s failure to implement and follow “basic security procedures," the personally identifiable information of plaintiff Kenneth Hasson and millions of other consumers “is now in the hands of cyber-criminals,” alleged his class action Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-1669) in U.S. District Court for Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. It's the 14th class action emanating from Samsung’s summertime data breach. Plaintiffs before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are divided into two camps, one favoring consolidating the cases and moving them all to U.S. District Court for Northern California and the other preferring the district for New Jersey. Hasson seeks statutory and punitive damages, plus orders requiring Samsung “to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised” and to adopt “reasonably adequate security practices and safeguards” to prevent future incidents. He also wants the court to order Samsung to give consumers lifetime "identity theft protective services” because they will forever be at “an increased risk of identity theft” due to Samsung’s negligent conduct. Samsung didn’t comment Friday on Hasson’s complaint. It suggested strongly in a recent court filing that its defense would be based on motions to compel arbitration.

U.S. District Judge John Walter for Central California in Los Angeles set a Jan. 9 scheduling conference in plaintiff Allison White’s class action alleging Ring, its Amazon parent and retailer Home Depot duped consumers with false advertising claims about the functionality of Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit (see 2211220037), said Walter’s order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909). A joint status report in the case is due Dec. 29, the order said. White’s claims “must be resolved in arbitration” because she accepted “broad arbitration agreements” when she bought the product, said the defendants’ motion to compel Monday.

The attorneys general of nine blue states plus the District of Columbia worry about “reproductive health privacy” on the App Store since the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, they wrote Apple CEO Tim Cook Monday. The AGs urged Cook to “protect consumers’ private reproductive health information.” Third-party apps available on the App Store “collect consumers’ private reproductive health data, which can be weaponized against consumers by law enforcement, private entities, or individuals,” they said. “This gap in Apple’s protections threatens the privacy and safety of App Store consumers, and runs directly counter to Apple’s publicly expressed commitment to protect user data.” They asked Apple “to ensure that the apps on its App Store meet the privacy standards necessary to protect against the misuse of private reproductive health data.” Apple should require app developers “to either certify to Apple or affirmatively represent in their privacy policies” that they will delete data “not essential” to the use of the app, including location history, search history and any other related data of consumers “who may be seeking, accessing, or helping to provide reproductive health care,” they said. Apple should also require developers to “provide clear and conspicuous notices regarding the potential for App Store applications to disclose to third parties user data related to reproductive health care, and require that applications do so only when required by a valid subpoena, search warrant, or court order,” they said. Developers of App Store apps that collect consumers’ reproductive health data or that sync with user health data stored on Apple devices should “implement at least the same privacy and security standards as Apple with regards to that data,” said the AGs. Apple didn’t comment Monday.

Plaintiff Allison White’s false-advertising claims against Ring, its parent Amazon and Home Depot “must be resolved in arbitration,” said the defendants Monday in a motion to compel (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in Los Angeles. White’s Sept. 23 class action alleges the packaging, ads and marketing materials for Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit falsely represent to consumers that the kit, when used with an internet connection and Ring’s Protect Pro security subscription, will automatically call authorities when their motion sensors have been activated (see 2210090005). When purchasing the kit from Home Depot and the Protect Pro subscription from Ring, “White accepted broad arbitration agreements with each defendant,” said the motion. “White seeks to assert a litany of class claims” based on her belief that Ring “would provide a feature Ring never promised,” it said. “White’s claims rest solely on her misinterpretation of a Ring webpage and have no merit.” White “has no basis to avoid her arbitration agreements with Ring and Home Depot,” said the motion. “White, a licensed attorney and real estate broker, cannot show grounds to invalidate her repeated agreements to arbitrate this dispute.”

California Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow in San Francisco denied without prejudice Amazon’s motion to keep sealed portions of a California complaint alleging the company skirted antitrust and unfair competition laws (see 2210130034), said an order he signed Friday (docket CGC-22-601826). The Oct. 11 declaration from Cristina Fernandez, Amazon corporate counsel-competition, in support of the motion to seal was flawed because “it does not tie a rationale for redactions to any specific redaction, leaving it to the court to guess which rationale supports which specific redaction,” said Karnow’s order. He cautioned Amazon that “literally every word sought to be redacted must be shown to be confidential information subject to sealing.” The complaint remains “provisionally under seal,” pending Amazon’s renewed motion to seal, said the judge. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) filed the heavily redacted complaint Sept. 15, alleging Amazon "makes consumers think they are getting the lowest prices possible, when in fact, they cannot get the low prices that would prevail in a freely competitive market." That's because Amazon "has coerced and induced its third-party sellers and wholesale suppliers to enter into anticompetitive agreements on price," said Bonta.

Raffi Kelechian, a plaintiff in one of the dozen or more fraud class actions arising from Samsung’s summertime data breach, supports “centralization” of all the cases in the Northern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco, he told the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in a filing Tuesday (case number 3005). Kelechian supports Northern California as the venue because that’s where Samsung’s U.S. operations are based, he said. The Samsung Research America subsidiary is in Mountain View, California, and Samsung Electronics America is headquartered in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. Though a group of plaintiffs has moved to consolidate the cases in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, Kelechian said the Northern District of California “would be the best, most efficient and most streamlined forum.” His own case is pending in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are evenly divided into camps that support consolidating the cases in San Francisco or Newark. Samsung supports centralizing them in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas as the most appropriate forum because it’s home to the first-filed class action (see 2211030006). Samsung is hinting strongly it will base its defenses on motions to compel arbitration because consumer account holders agreed in their terms and conditions not to bring disputes before a trial judge or jury.