In a recent decision, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a deceptive advertising class action filed against Mondeléz International, Inc. (“Mondeléz”). Salguero v. Mondeléz Int’l, Inc., 2025 WL 3004534, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025). Mondeléz, a snack food company, manufactured and distributed energy snack bars (“Zbars”) while labeling the packaging as “climate neutral certified.” Id. The plaintiff, allegedly purchasing Zbars under the impression that the label meant Zbars did not cause pollution, initiated a class action suit, bringing claims under California’s consumer protection statute, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment. Id.Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Dismisses Deceptive Advertising Class Action Against Snack Food Company
Class Actions
Insurance Considerations for Privacy Class Action Lawsuits in This Technology Driven World
In this increasingly growing digital landscape, companies are entrusted with vast amounts of sensitive personal information. From names and email addresses to browsing habits and location data, companies routinely collect users’ personal data all to enhance convenience and functionality, advertise products, personalize experiences for consumers, and improve services. Plaintiffs’ law…
Continue Reading Insurance Considerations for Privacy Class Action Lawsuits in This Technology Driven WorldCourt Clarifies Federal Wiretap Act’s Crime-Tort Exception: “Commercial Purposes” Are “Not the Stuff of Which a Crime-Tort Is Made”
By Austin Riddick & Matthew Verdin on
Posted in Class Actions, Data Protection
After last year’s landmark ruling holding that the Massachusetts Wiretap Act does not prohibit businesses’ use of pixels to capture website browsing data, Massachusetts plaintiffs have shifted their focus to the federal Wiretap Act. The problem: unlike the Massachusetts Wiretap Act, its federal counterpart is a “one-party consent” law, meaning that a business’s consent to the use of the pixels is enough to preclude liability. Last month, a federal court held that a “crime-tort exception” to this consent exemption does not apply when website browsing data is collected for “commercial purposes or advantages.” Goulart v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc., 2025 WL 1745732 (D. Mass. June 24, 2025).Continue Reading Court Clarifies Federal Wiretap Act’s Crime-Tort Exception: “Commercial Purposes” Are “Not the Stuff of Which a Crime-Tort Is Made”
District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules
By Marc Capuano & Sonya Winner on
Posted in Class Actions, Consumer
Expert evidence commonly plays an important role in class certification determinations. On August 5, the Seventh Circuit addressed this issue, holding that in a proposed antitrust class action, the district court erred in certifying a class when it failed to engage with conflicting expert evidence regarding antitrust impact that could have established lack of predominance.
The case, Arandell Corp. v. Xcel Energy Inc., — F.4th —, 2025 WL 2218111 (7th Cir. 2025) was a long-running natural gas price fixing case. Plaintiffs moved to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class. They argued that common questions of law or fact predominated, including “whether the class paid higher prices for natural gas[.]” Id. at *4. Plaintiffs and defendants had competing experts on the predominance issue as it related to impact. Id. Continue Reading District Courts Must Address Conflicting Expert Evidence to Certify Antitrust Class Action, Seventh Circuit Rules