Litigation

Does a plaintiff’s use of a website constitute consent to a privacy policy linked in the website’s footer?  A Pennsylvania federal court answered yes in Popa v. Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc., 2025 WL 896938 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025), granting summary judgment in favor of an online retailer (Harriet…

Continue Reading Implied Consent to Privacy Policy in Webpage Footer Forecloses Website Wiretapping Claim

Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE v Bath Racecourse Company Ltd[2025] EWCA Civ 153

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in an important COVID-19 business interruption case, just three weeks after the hearing took place. There were two main issues that were considered in the appeal in Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE -v- Bath Racecourse Company Limited and others [2025] EWCA Civ 153. First, whether each insured entity within a group of companies under a composite policy is entitled to claim its own separate limit of indemnity. Second, and considered for the first time by the Court of Appeal, whether furlough payments received by policyholders during the pandemic can be deducted by insurers from their payouts to policyholders.

The Court’s decision on both issues will have significant ramifications for many large policyholders who have suffered COVID-19 business interruption losses, especially where claims have been on hold pending the outcome of these points.

Another win for composite insurance policyholders…

Insurance policies often list multiple insured entities within a group in a single policy document, even though the named insureds under the policy operate different businesses across different locations.

On this issue, the Court concluded that separate limits of indemnity were available for each named insured.  In each of the claimant policyholders’ wordings the policy listed (i) separate aggregate limits for each of the insured premises (Bath) and (ii) the insured companies as “Named Insureds” and “Additional Named Insureds” (Starboard). Insurers argued that although each policyholder had a separate contract of insurance, the contracts were interrelated, and an aggregate limit of indemnity applied, which was to be shared between the insured businesses.  Policyholders argued that there were separate policies of insurance. Taking a commercial common-sense approach, policyholders expected any limits to be applicable to their own insured interest.

The Court of Appeal found in favour of policyholders stating that the policies “are to be construed as applying to each insured policyholder separately, in other words the “Business” with which there has been interruption or interference is the business of that insured and no other “Premises” affected are those of that insured and no other”.

This confirms that policyholders with composite policies of insurance have a distinct interest in their own premises and business and do not have any interest in the premises and businesses operated by other insureds (even within the same group), and in turn, the limits of indemnity are not shared between the entities.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case necessarily means that composite insurance policies provide separate limits of indemnity. However, the Court of Appeal also made clear that this decision was based on the policies in question. If the policy wording clearly set out that there was only one shared aggregate limit and there were provisions to deal with priority of competing claims, the courts will look to specific provisions in the policy.

…but a loss for policyholders on furloughContinue Reading Latest COVID-19 Business Interruption Decision

Website analytics and advertising tools, such as pixels, are regularly targeted in lawsuits brought under various wiretap laws, including the federal Wiretap Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).  We cover significant developments and trends in website wiretapping lawsuits on Inside Class Actions.  Over the last several…

Continue Reading Website Wiretapping Litigation: Recent Decisions and Developments

A court in the Northern District of California recently denied Google’s request to prevent more than 69,000 putative class members from opting out of a certified class in favor of pursuing individual arbitration of their claims against Google.  See In re Google Assistant Privacy Litig., 2025 WL 510435, at *1…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Permits Thousands of Arbitration Opt-Outs from Certified Class

A California federal judge has largely granted summary judgment in a data privacy lawsuit against Yodlee, Inc., finding that two of the five plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for all remaining claims and that the three other plaintiffs lacked Article III standing for—and failed to create genuine disputes of fact…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Grants Summary Judgment on Most Claims in Data Privacy Case

A Pennsylvania court recently dismissed a wiretapping complaint filed against a trio of defendants for lack of Article III standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim in Ingrao v. Addshoppers, Inc., 2024 WL 4892514 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2024).

The two plaintiffs in this case…

Continue Reading Pennsylvania Court Dismisses A Trio of Defendants in Website Wiretapping Suit Challenging Email Marketing Program

Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC.  Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D.

Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages

In a new post on the Inside Class Actions blog, our colleagues discuss a new Illinois federal court decision, Gregg v. Cent. Transp. LLC, 2024 WL 4766297, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024), which holds that the state’s recent amendment to its Biometric Information Privacy Act capping…

Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Rules BIPA Single-Violation Amendment Applies Retroactively

This quarterly update highlights key legislative, regulatory, and litigation developments in the third quarter of 2024 related to artificial intelligence (“AI”) and connected and automated vehicles (“CAVs”).  As noted below, some of these developments provide industry with the opportunity for participation and comment.

I.      Artificial Intelligence

Federal Legislative Developments

There continued to be strong bipartisan interest in passing federal legislation related to AI.  While it has been challenging to pass legislation through this Congress, there remains the possibility that one or more of the more targeted bills that have bipartisan support and Committee approval could advance during the lame duck period.

  • Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee: Lawmakers in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee moved forward with nearly a dozen AI-related bills, including legislation focused on developing voluntary technical guidelines for AI systems and establishing AI testing and risk assessment frameworks. 
    • In July, the Committee voted to advance the Validation and Evaluation for Trustworthy (VET) Artificial Intelligence Act (S.4769), which was introduced by Senators John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).  The Act would require the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) to develop voluntary guidelines and specifications for internal and external assurances of AI systems, in collaboration with public and private sector organizations. 
    • In August, the Promoting United States Leadership in Standards Act of 2024 (S.3849) was placed on the Senate legislative calendar after advancing out of the Committee in July.  Introduced in February 2024 by Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), the Act would require NIST to support U.S. involvement in the development of AI technical standards through briefings, pilot programs, and other activities.  
    • In July, the Future of Artificial Intelligence Innovation Act of 2024 (S.4178)— introduced in April by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-CA), Todd Young (R-IN), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)—was ordered to be reported out of the Committee and gained three additional co-sponsors: Senators Roger F. Wicker (R-MS), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), and Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ).  The Act would codify the AI Safety Institute, which would be required to develop voluntary guidelines and standards for promoting AI innovation through public-private partnerships and international alliances.  
    • In July, the Artificial Intelligence Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of 2023 (S.3312), passed out of the Committee, as amended.  Introduced in November 2023 by Senators John Thune (R-SD), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Roger Wicker (R-MS), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), the Act would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for “high-impact” AI systems, including testing and evaluation standards, risk assessment requirements, and transparency report requirements.  The Act would also require NIST to develop sector-specific recommendations for agency oversight of high-impact AI, and to research and develop means for distinguishing between content created by humans and AI systems.
  • Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee:  In July, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted to advance the PREPARED for AI Act (S.4495).  Introduced in June by Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Thomas Tillis (R-NC), the Act would establish a risk-based framework for the procurement and use of AI by federal agencies and create a Chief AI Officers Council and agency AI Governance Board to ensure that federal agencies benefit from advancements in AI.
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025:  In August, Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mike Braun (R-IN) proposed an amendment (S.Amdt.3232) to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025 (S.4638) (“NDAA”).  The amendment would add the Transparent Automated Governance Act and the AI Leadership Training Act to the NDAA.  The Transparent Automated Governance Act would require the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to issue guidance to agencies to implement transparency practices relating to the use of AI and other automated systems.  The AI Leadership Training Act would require OMB to establish a training program for federal procurement officials on the operational benefits and privacy risks of AI.  The Act would also require the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) to establish a training program on AI for federal management officials and supervisors.   

Continue Reading U.S. Tech Legislative, Regulatory & Litigation Update – Third Quarter 2024

A federal judge in the Northern District of California recently dismissed a class action complaint accusing Google of unlawfully wiretapping calls to Verizon’s customer service center through its customer service product, Cloud Contact Center AI.  See Ambriz v. Google, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-05437 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2024).

Plaintiff Misael…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses Complaint Accusing Google of Wiretapping Customer Service Calls