NEW YORK - A federal judge in New York on April 15 denied Apple's motion to dismiss an action by the attorneys general of several states that alleges that Apple conspired with publishers to fix prices of electronic books, rejecting Apple's arguments that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the states' damages action against Apple because the states do not have constitutional standing (In re: Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-2293, S.D. N.Y. $(State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 3394, S.D. N.Y.$); 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52127).
OAKLAND, Calif. - A California federal judge on April 11 granted a motion to amend the class definition and partially granted a summary judgment motion both filed by current and former student-athletes who have accused the National Collegiate Athletic Association of misappropriating their names, images and likenesses in violation of their statutory and common-law rights of publicity and of violating federal antitrust law by conspiring with Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) and Collegiate Licensing Co. (CLC) to restrain competition in the market for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses in game footage (In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, No. 09-1967, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50693).
NEW YORK - A New York federal judge on April 11 dismissed a parent corporation from a putative class action alleging that a company that sells publishing and marketing services to people who want to self-publish books has defrauded customers; however, the judge allowed claims under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws to proceed (Kelvin James, et al. v. Penguin Group (USA) Inc. and Author Solutions, No. 13-2801, S.D. N.Y.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50769).
SAN FRANCISCO - A consumer's revised allegations that he relied on a juicemaker's false and misleading "No Sugar Added" statement when deciding what 100 percent apple juice product to buy and that he will buy less of the product in the future due to the misrepresentation are sufficient for his claims to proceed under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other statutes, a federal judge held April 8 (Mohammed Rahman v. Mott's LLP, No. 13-3482, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49169).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Consumers have standing to pursue California unfair competition law (UCL) class action claims alleging that a global consumer goods company misrepresented that its "naturals" line of hair care products contained no artificial ingredients because they adequately pleaded economic injury and reliance on the company's representations, a federal judge held April 9 (Alba Morales and Lanie Cohen v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 13-2213, E.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49336).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on April 7 denied Safeway Inc.'s bid for summary judgment on consumer class action claims that the grocer was negligent and violated California's unfair competition law (UCL) by failing to notify "Club Card" members of product recalls, finding that the state negligence law imposes a general duty of care on Safeway and that the grocer provided no basis to grant it an exception to that duty (Dee Hensley-MacLean and Jennifer Rosen v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-01230, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48591).
CHICAGO - A federal judge in Illinois on April 7 denied cross-motions for summary judgment on American Needle Inc.'s antitrust claims related to conduct by the National Football League, its 32 teams and the clubs' wholly owned licensing company in granting an exclusive license to Reebok International Ltd. to use the NFL's and teams' trademarks on apparel (American Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, et al., No. 04-cv-7806, N.D. Ill.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47527).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a Connecticut landlord's class action claim that DIRECTV Inc. violates California's unfair competition law (UCL) by placing satellite TV dishes on apartment houses without consent of the owner because the claim is actually for trespass, a local action under California law that should have been brought where the real property is located, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held April 9 (Eldee-K Rental Properties, LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. 11-17994, 9th Cir.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on April 4 refused to exclude plaintiff employees' expert testimony in an antitrust suit accusing high-tech companies of conspiring to fix and suppress employee compensation and to restrict employee mobility by entering into agreements not to compete for one another's employees (In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-2509, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47181).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A federal judge on April 4 refused to dismiss homeowners' claims under the "unfair" and "unlawful" prongs of California's unfair competition law (UCL) challenging a lender's pending foreclosure of their home after finding that the homeowners adequately pleaded a violation of the one-action rule under state law (Jeffrey Lanini and Krista Lanini v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., No. 2:13-cv-00027, E.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47348).
LOS ANGELES - A class action against a satellite TV company alleging that its early termination fees violate California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws cannot be resolved through arbitration because the arbitration provision in the company's customer agreement contains a class action waiver that is not enforceable under California law, a state appeals court held April 7 (Amy Imburgia, et al. v. DIRECTV, Inc., No. B239361, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 1).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal court erred in dismissing antitrust and California unfair competition law (UCL) claims against a manufacturer of computer memory cards based on the statute of limitations because the manufacturer committed two overt acts during the limitations period, which extended the deadline for a rival manufacturer to sue, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held April 4 in reversing the trial court's ruling and remanding the case (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation, No. 12-15185, 9th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6256).
HOUSTON - A Texas federal judge on March 31 dismissed a putative class action against a provider of e-filing services in Texas county courts for failure to demonstrate antitrust standing and for not establishing unconscionability or violations of the Texas Constitution (Karen McPeters, et al. v. LexisNexis, No. 4:11-cv-02056, S.D. Texas; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43068).
SAN FRANCISCO - An eBay user did not plausibly allege that he relied on alleged misrepresentations by eBay Inc. when using the online market site's automatic bidding auction service, so his claim under California's unfair competition law (UCL) fails, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held April 1 in affirming the dismissal of the user's class action complaint (Marshall Block v. eBay Inc., No. 12-16527, 9th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5995).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Plaintiffs from a multidistrict litigation alleging that several banks rigged the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) on March 26 filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting that the high court decide whether a dismissed suit in a consolidated action can be immediately appealed, regardless of whether claims remain the consolidated action (Ellen Gelboim, et al. v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al., No. 13-1174, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. of Appeals on March 27 reversed parts of a district court's decision that a mortgage borrower lacked standing to bring a suit alleging that Deutsche Bank National Trust and Barclays Bank manipulated London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) to drive up mortgage rates, holding that the borrower did suffer injury from the alleged manipulation (Helen Galope v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, et al., No. 12-56892, 9th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5686).
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other retailers filed a complaint on March 25 in an Arkansas federal court against Visa U.S.A. Inc., alleging that Visa worked with banks to illegally inflate the "swipe fees" retailers pay for Visa transactions and requesting more than $5 billion in damages (Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al., No. 14-5101, W.D. Ark.).
LOS ANGELES - A federal judge on March 25 decertified a nationwide class of consumers in litigation challenging the marketing of pomegranate juice products under California's unfair competition law (UCL) and other statutes, finding that the consumers failed to show that common issues of fact regarding damages predominate over individualized questions and that there is no way to reliably determine who is a class member (In re: POM Wonderful LLC Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2199, No. 10-02199, C.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40415).
NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 27 remanded a lawsuit alleging that United Air Lines participated in a conspiracy to fix the price of air cargo shipments in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, instructing the trial court to determine whether the antitrust claim was discharged in United's bankruptcy (DPWN Holdings $(USA$), Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., et al., No. 12-4867, 2nd Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5612).
CHICAGO - Motorola's claims that suppliers of liquid crystal display (LCD) panels engaged in a global price-fixing conspiracy based on overseas purchases by Motorola's foreign affiliates do not fall under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act's (FTAIA) domestic injury exception and were properly dismissed, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed March 27 on interlocutory appeal (Motorola Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., No. 14-8003, 7th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5596).
NEW YORK - The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 27 in an unpublished order affirmed the dismissal of claims that JPMorgan violated federal antitrust law by participating in a conspiracy to manipulate market prices for silver futures (In re: Commodity Exchange, Inc. Silver Futures and Options Trading Litigation $(Brian J. Beatty, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al.$), No. 13-1416, 2nd Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5597).
SAN DIEGO - A federal judge in California on March 24 dismissed with prejudice a couple's allegation that their loan servicer violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by failing to inform them that it had been assigned to their loan, finding that the plaintiffs received a letter providing the information more than a year before filing suit (John Kilpatrick, et al. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. 12-cv-1740-W, S.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39472).
SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on March 24 dismissed a virtual currency provider's complaint against a number of its competitors, ruling that the provider lacks standing to bring its claims because it is not a competitor of the defendants and could not suffer a competitive disadvantage (Think Computer Corp. v. Dwolla Inc., et al., No. 13-2054, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38758).
PITTSBURGH - Defendants accused in class action lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania of manufacturing and marketing dog treats that harm the dogs by causing kidney damage and death were granted a motion to dismiss an unjust enrichment claim on March 25; claims of marketing misrepresentations and violation of consumer protection laws survived the motion to dismiss (In re Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, No. 12-1011, W.D. Pa.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39190; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39185).
SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal magistrate on March 21 refused to dismiss a putative class action alleging that a mortgage lender and an insurer were involved in an unjust kickback scheme involving force-placed flood insurance (Stephen Ellsworth, et al. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al., No. C 12-02506 LB, N.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38691).