On September 17, 2021, in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers Inc., Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-20-563, the Illinois Appellate Court, in a case of first impression at the appellate level, addressed the statute of limitations under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, holding that a five-year period applies to BIPA claims that allege the failure to (1) provide notice of the collection of biometric data, (2) take care in storing or transmitting biometric data, or (3) develop a publicly-available retention and destruction schedule for biometric data.
Continue Reading Illinois Biometric Law Limitation Period Clarified by Illinois Court

On June 3, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court in Van Buren v. United States reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision to uphold the conviction of Nathan Van Buren, who was alleged to have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
Continue Reading United States Supreme Court Adopts Narrow Interpretation of Scope of Liability Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

As reported on Hunton’s Retail Law Blog, on April 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in a highly-anticipated case, AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, that the Federal Trade Commission cannot seek or obtain equitable monetary relief pursuant to §13(b) of the FTC Act, putting an end to the use of §13(b) as a significant enforcement tool.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules FTC Cannot Rely on “Injunction” Provision to Obtain Equitable Monetary Relief

On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States that law enforcement agencies must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause to obtain historical cell-site location information from third-party providers.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds Warrant Required to Obtain Historical Cell Phone Location Information

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins, has been nearly universally lauded by defense counsel as a new bulwark against class actions alleging technical violations of federal statutes. But Spokeo also poses a significant threat to defendants by defeating their ability to remove exactly the types of cases that defendants most want in federal court.
Continue Reading Will Spokeo Undermine CAFA?

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins, holding that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling applied an incomplete analysis when it failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement under Article III. The Court found that a consumer could not sue Spokeo, Inc., an alleged consumer reporting agency that operates a “people search engine,” for a mere statutory violation without alleging actual injury.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds Consumers Must Prove Injury in Class Actions

As reported in the Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives Blog, on March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that stipulations by a named plaintiff on behalf of a proposed class prior to class certification cannot serve as the basis for avoiding federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Limits Plaintiffs Ability to Cap Damages Prior to Class Certification