The Seventh Circuit Revisits Standing for Data Breach Class Actions

By Zachariah DeMeola, Guest Editor, BakerHostetler
Link to original post: http://bit.ly/1pOpf9K 

 

One obstacle for named plaintiffs in proposed data breach class actions is the extent to which plaintiffs must allege an injury-in-fact to have standing. Disputes often arise about whether proactive efforts to mitigate against the potential misuse of stolen data, such as utilizing credit monitoring services, are sufficient to confer Article III standing. Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, Continue reading “The Seventh Circuit Revisits Standing for Data Breach Class Actions”

To Employ(ee) or Not to Employ(ee): Are Uber Drivers Employees or Independent Contractors?

Author: Gabriel Fletcher, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

Uber drivers in the state of California are challenging Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) in a class action suit, arguing that they should be classified as employees instead of independent contractors.[1] The classification of Uber’s drivers will dictate the drivers’ rights and eligibility for employment related benefits. Continue reading “To Employ(ee) or Not to Employ(ee): Are Uber Drivers Employees or Independent Contractors?”

“Costanza Defense” Potentially No Longer Applicable in Class Action Securities Claims

Author: Collin L. Ryan, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

George Costanza once imparted to Jerry Seinfeld the infamous advice, “It’s not a lie, if you believe it.”[1] Although this advice is entertaining, the Supreme Court granted certiorari last March to resolve a circuit split regarding the extent to which Mr. Costanza’s advice applies in class action securities litigation.[2] The Supreme Court will review the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Indiana State District Council v. Omnicare, Inc. from May 23, 2013.[3] The Court will likely determine the pleading standard for plaintiff-investors filing suit under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§ 11 or section 11) against a defendant-corporation. In particular, the Court will determine whether the plaintiff’s plea that the defendant’s misstatement or omission was objectively false satisfies federal pleading requirements, or whether the plaintiff must also plead that the defendant subjectively knew that the misstatement or omission was misrepresentative.[4]

Continue reading ““Costanza Defense” Potentially No Longer Applicable in Class Action Securities Claims”