U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil for Southern New York granted Dish Network’s letter motion (docket 1:22-cv-08151) for a deadline extension to Nov. 15 to answer class-action allegations that it violated New York labor laws. The Dish response to the allegation was originally due Tuesday. “The purpose of the extension is to allow the parties to confer regarding Plaintiffs’ respective agreements to individually arbitrate any dispute with Defendants,” Dish lawyers wrote the judge Monday. Dish asked that the plaintiffs “consent to a stay of this action pending the outcome of individual arbitrations under the agreements, and to the dismissal of the putative class action allegations in the Complaint,” said the lawyers. Dish failed to “properly pay” its New York installers their biweekly wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned, and took “unlawful deductions” from their paychecks, alleged an Oct. 7 class action. Installers Chris Calderon, Nick Patsonikolis and Amresh Boodoo also allege Dish wrongfully terminated them in September in retaliation for their safety complaints. A “large percentage” of the vans Dish provided its installers for work were “unsafe,” said the complaint. Many of the vans had issues with torn windshield wipers and broken side mirrors, plus tires with low tread and low coolant, causing vans to overheat and break down in the field, it said. Dish didn’t comment Monday.

The plaintiffs who brought a class action Sept. 1 in U.S. District Court for Middle North Carolina alleging their medical privacy was violated by Facebook’s Pixel tracking tool agree with Meta that the case should be severed and transferred to Northern California, said the parties in a joint motion filed Saturday in docket 1:22-cv-00727. The suit also names Duke University and the WakeMed health system as defendants. The complaint is a putative class action with a nationwide class of all Facebook users who are current or former patients of medical providers in the U.S. with “web properties through which Facebook acquired patient communications relating to medical provider patient portals, appointments, phone calls, and communications associated with patient portal users,” and did so without “valid” consent, said the motion. Four other class actions have been filed against Meta in Northern California, and a fifth was transferred there from the Northern District of Illinois and a sixth was transferred there from the Western District of Pennsylvania, it said: “All six of these actions allege similar facts and events and bring similar claims to those that Plaintiffs allege in this action.” Northern California granted a motion Oct. 12 to consolidate all the California actions into a single case (“In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation”) in docket 22-cv-04680, said the motion. The North Carolina plaintiffs agreed “it would conserve resources and promote judicial economy” to sever and transfer the case to Northern California, it said.

The U.S. Court of International Trade granted DOJ's motion for a one-week deadline extension to Nov. 4 in the Section 301 cases to file its response to the plaintiffs’ comments on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative remand results, said an order Monday in docket 1:21-cv-52 at the U.S. Court of International Trade. Good cause exists for the one-week delay, said DOJ. Though “we have been working diligently” to complete the response by the original deadline, “several logistical challenges” make it impossible to do so, said the filing. The importance of the case requires that the government’s response “must undergo a heightened level of internal review, and this review process has taken longer than anticipated,” it said. Another extenuating factor is that one of the lead DOJ attorneys, Jamie Shookman, recently sustained an injury “that impacted her ability to work on our brief,” it said. Akin Gump attorneys for lead plaintiffs HMTX Industries and Jasco Products told DOJ they would not oppose the seven-day deadline extension if they could extend to Dec. 5 from Nov. 14 their own deadline for replying to the government to accommodate international travel and other court commitments, said DOJ. The court agreed to the new deadlines.

Amazon filed its first criminal complaint in Italy, its first civil suit in Spain, plus 10 other legal actions against bad actors in the U.S. to curb the spread of fake reviews, the company said Thursday. The lawsuits collectively target more than 11,000 websites and social media groups “that attempt to orchestrate fake reviews on Amazon and other stores in exchange for money or free products,” it said. The criminal complaint in Italy targets a “high-profile broker” selling fake reviews who claims to have built a network of individuals willing to buy products on Amazon and post five-star reviews in exchange for full refunds, said the company. Amazon spoke the same day the FTC announced it will explore a rulemaking to combat fake reviews and will seek comments “on the harms and pervasiveness of fake and paid reviews, and other deceptive endorsement tactics.”

Plaintiffs in the antitrust class action to overturn T-Mobile's buy of Sprint “hammered out an agreement in principle” with T-Mobile to begin “some limited foundational discovery” in the case, plaintiffs’ attorney Brendan Glackin of Lieff Cabraser told U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin in Northern Illinois in a telephonic status hearing Friday. Seven AT&T and Verizon customers brought the class action, saying the transaction caused their rates to skyrocket through reduced competition in the wireless space. Durkin on Oct. 7 denied T-Mobile’s motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York, where U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero wrote the early-2020 opinion that enabled the deal to go forward (see 2210110003). The case has been somewhat in limbo as the plaintiffs work to serve court papers on a foreign defendant, Deutsche Telekom, through “diplomatic channels,” said Glackin. He still anticipates the process will be complete by January, he said. Durkin asked the parties to file a joint motion summarizing their agreement to proceed with limited discovery. T-Mobile attorney Rachel Brass of Gibson Dunn said her client will withdraw as “moot” its pending motion to stay the case, pending service on overseas defendants, as soon as Durkin accepts the joint motion. The judge set the next telephonic status hearing for Jan. 27.

The plaintiffs and defendants in the false advertising complaint against Ring agreed in a joint stipulation Thursday to extend by a month to Nov. 21 the deadline for the defendants to respond to the class action. The packaging, ads and marketing materials associated with Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit falsely represent to consumers that the kit, when used in conjunction with an internet connection and Ring’s Pro Subscription with “24/7 professional monitoring” will automatically call authorities when their motion sensors have been detected, alleged the Sept. 23 complaint (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The complaint also names Home Depot and Ring parent Amazon as defendants. “The Jobsite Security Kit and Pro Subscription are not capable of this advertised functionality,” it said. “Users must call authorities themselves” or instruct Ring to do so when prompted, said the complaint. Consumers were “effectively sold” a 911 speed dial to press when their motion sensors have been triggered, it said. “Ring advertises and misrepresents on its website that its Pro Subscription provides functionality that it knows it does not actually provide,” the complaint said. The suit alleges violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus false advertising and unfair competition laws. Ring, Amazon and Home Depot didn’t comment Friday.

Samsung served notice Tuesday on the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) of three potential “tag-along” class actions alleging the company was negligent when its midsummer data breach exposed to hackers the personally identifiable information (PII) of millions of account holders. “All of the potential tag-along actions involve common questions of law and fact with the actions currently under consideration for transfer” to the U.S. District Court for Northern California, said Samsung’s notice (case No. 3005). The three new cases “should be considered as related actions for purposes of this pending multidistrict litigation,” it said. The three new complaints would bring to a dozen the total number of class actions alleging Samsung should be held accountable for the PII that fell into the possession of bad actors. Plaintiffs in the previous nine class actions asked the JPML to consolidate all the cases under the watch of U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco (see 2210140042). Responses are due Nov. 2, replies by Nov. 9, to the plaintiffs’ Oct. 7 motion for transfer and consolidation of the various class actions.

Responses are due Nov. 2, replies by Nov. 9, to an Oct. 7 motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation by plaintiffs in nine class actions against Samsung to transfer the cases to U.S. District Court in San Francisco and consolidate them under the watch of District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (see 2210140042), said a text order Wednesday from panel clerk John Nichols (MDL case number 3055). All the class actions, with additional “tag-along” complaints expected, accuse Samsung of negligence in the data breach this summer that exposed to hackers the personal identifiable information (PII) of Samsung account holders, including first and last names, postal addresses, precise geolocation data, email addresses and phone numbers. The consequences of the data breach are “severe,” because the PII “has since been publicly leaked online, which has allowed for digital and potential physical attacks” against all the plaintiffs and members of the potential class, said the motion before the judicial panel.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals approved DirecTV's appeal of a lower court's granting class certification to a Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against the company (see 2208020038), per a circuit court order entered Oct. 6 in docket 5:17-cv-00179 in U.S. District Court in Wheeling, West Virginia. The case stems from a December 2017 complaint in which consumers accused DirecTV and its authorized dealer representatives of TCPA wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge John Bailey signed an order Aug. 1 certifying the class as including all U.S. persons whose phone numbers were listed on the do-not-call registry and who received more than one telemarketing call within any 12-month period from DirecTV's vendor, AC1 Communications.

A Chicago entity, Rongstar Digital, sells counterfeit Bose goods to consumers through the DH Electronics online store on the eBay marketplace, alleged a Sept. 30 complaint (docket 2:22-cv-07110) in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The goods it sells on eBay are neither made by Bose nor by a Bose-authorized manufacturer and use “reproductions, counterfeits, copies and/or colorable imitations,” it said. Customs and Border Protection in December 2021 intercepted and seized 264 units of counterfeit Bose earbuds and earphones imported from Hong Kong to Rongstar at an address in Chicago, it said. Rongstar responded to the seizure by giving CBP a fake manufacturer authorization form. Bose seeks a preliminary injunction to shut down Rongstar’s wrongful practices, plus statutory damages and restitution for lost profits. Rongstar didn’t comment.