LAS VEGAS - A consumer sufficiently alleges injury and adequately pleads California unfair competition law (UCL) and false advertising law claims against online retailer Zappos.com Inc. arising from an alleged data breach, a Nevada federal judge held Sept. 9 (In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 12-325, D. Nev.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128155).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Bankrupt AMR Corp. on Sept. 10 filed its answer to the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that its proposed merger with US Airways Group Inc. does not violate federal antitrust laws and contending that the DOJ's lawsuit ignores "the realities of the airline industry in the 21st Century" (United States of America v. US Airways Group Inc., et al., No. 13-01236, D. D.C.).
LOS ANGELES - The California Supreme Court on Sept. 11 dismissed and remanded two California unfair competition law (UCL)-insurance code interplay cases, according to its docket. The court originally issued both cases grant-and-hold status pending the outcome of Zhang v. Superior Court (No. S178542), which the court decided Aug. 1 (Ocie E. Henderson, et al. v. Farmers Group Inc., et al., Chris Hughes v. Progressive Direct Insurance Co., Nos. S207068, S195069, Calif. Sup.).
ATLANTA - Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that reverse-payment settlements of patent litigation between the holder of a drug patent and potential generic manufacturers of the drug are subject to the rule of reason, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 9 vacated and remanded the case, in which a trial court dismissed the Federal Trade Commission's complaint that Solvay Pharmaceuticals Inc. conspired with generic drug makers to delay the marketing of generic versions of AndroGel (Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 10-12729, 11th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS).
ATLANTA - A pro se plaintiff's complaint against a pest control company that allegedly caused damage to his home by failing to inspect or treat it for rot or termite damage is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the plaintiff had already litigated identical claims unsuccessfully, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in a Sept. 6 opinion affirming a district court decision (John William Carter v. Clinton Wells Killingsworth, No. 12-15411, 11th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18562).
NEW YORK - Apple Inc. must modify its existing agreements with publishers and submit to an external monitor pursuant to the final order entered Sept. 5 by the federal judge in New York who ruled against Apple on claims by the United States and 33 states that Apple conspired with five publishers to fix prices of electronic books (United States of America v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 2826, S.D. N.Y.; State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group $(USA$) Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 3394, S.D. N.Y.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Sept. 3 declined to rehear a case in which it decertified newspaper workers' California unfair competition law (UCL) class claims, withdrew its previous opinion and issued a new one remanding for reconsideration of commonality and predominance questions in light of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes (Lynn Wang, et al. v. Chinese Daily News Inc., No. 08-55483, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Aug. 27 filed a brief and a proposed scheduling order in its antitrust lawsuit seeking to prevent the planned merger of American Airlines Inc. and US Airways Inc., arguing that "given what is at stake," the district court hearing the case should allow both sides "a full opportunity" to develop evidence in discovery in preparation for a trial (United States of America v. US Airways Inc., et al., No. 13-01236, D. D.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Rules governing bar members' conduct cannot form the basis of California unfair competition law (UCL) claims for unlawful conduct, and an insurer fails to tether the challenged conduct to any constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision for its unfair-prong claim, a federal judge held in dismissing the claims with prejudice on Aug. 26 (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Centex Homes, et al., Nos. 13-0088, 12-0371 & 11-3638, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121401).
NEWARK, N.J. - Consumers who claim that they paid a premium based on representations about the benefits of probiotics in formula and baby cereals adequately allege injury, but sufficiently alleged causation only in regard to product labeling, not the advertising campaign as a whole, a New Jersey federal judge held Aug. 23 in dismissing California unfair competition law (UCL) and other states' consumer protection law claims (In re: Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121192).
NEW YORK - The federal judge in New York overseeing the London InterBank Offered Rate (Libor) antitrust litigation on Aug. 23 denied motions by over-the-counter (OTC), bondholder and exchange-based plaintiffs for leave to amend their amended complaints to add allegations of antitrust injury related to their claims that 16 banks manipulated the Libor interest rate benchmark (In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, No. 11 MD 2262, S.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120674).
SAN FRANCISCO - The commission responsible for accrediting community colleges ignored the conflict of interest created by lobbying to end the "open access policy" of the City College of San Francisco while simultaneously evaluating the school's accreditation, resulting in a "politically motivated decision" to end its accreditation, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera alleges in an Aug. 22 action seeking an injunction under the California unfair competition law (UCL) (People of the State of California, ex. Rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, No. 533693, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
INDIANAPOLIS - A student-athlete who brought a putative class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association alleging that NCAA bylaws prohibiting multiyear scholarships and capping the amount of allowable scholarships violated federal antitrust law defined a relevant market sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss, a federal judge in Indiana ruled Aug. 16 (John Rock v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 1:12-cv-1019, S.D. Ind.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116133).
CHICAGO - A company that is alleging that its competitor violated federal antitrust laws filed a petition for hearing and rehearing en banc on Aug. 16 of a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision interpreting the venue provisions of Section 12 of the Clayton Act and the general venue statute (KM Enterprises, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-3406, 7th Cir.).
BALTIMORE - Direct purchasers of titanium dioxide alleged parallel conduct and "plus factors" sufficient to proceed with their price-fixing claims against two manufacturers, a federal judge in Maryland ruled Aug. 14 in denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment (In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation $(All Actions$), No. 10-0318, D. Md.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114927).
SAN FRANCISCO - A chain of hardware stores may continue with its claim that Home Depot USA Inc. violated federal antitrust law under the rule of reason by entering into exclusive agreements with two power tool suppliers but not its federal antitrust claims against the suppliers, a federal judge in California said Aug. 13 in a tentative order "issued solely to prepare counsel for oral argument" (Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-06361, N.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. - Litigation privilege does not prevent a district attorney's California unfair competition law (UCL) action challenging collection practices specifically prohibited by state and federal statute, a state appeals court panel held Aug. 15 (The People v. Persolve LLC, et al., No. F064571, Calif. App., 5th Dist.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A previous ruling granting summary judgment in the "hot fuels" case applies equally to California consumers' unfair competition law (UCL) claims against the remaining defendants, a federal judge held Aug. 14 (In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 1840, 07-1840, D. Kan.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114654).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 9 vacated class certification to direct purchasers who allege that railroad freight haulers violated antitrust laws by conspiring to charge excessive fuel surcharges, and the court remanded for reconsideration in light of Comcast v. Behrend (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation $(BNSF Railway Company, et al., Petitioners$), No. 12-7085, D.C. Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16500).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Justice on Aug. 13 filed a lawsuit against US Airways Group Inc. and AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., seeking a full injunction to prevent the proposed merger of the two airlines on grounds that it violates federal antitrust law and that "consumers will get the shaft" (United States of America, et al. v. US Airways Group, et al., No. 13-01236, D. D.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A razor manufacturer's claim that one of its products provides "incredible comfort" is puffery and does not suggest superiority over another of its products, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Aug. 9 in affirming dismissal of California unfair competition law (UCL) claims (Ryan Edmundson, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 11-56664, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK - A group of airline customers on Aug. 6 filed an adversary complaint against bankrupt AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the proposed $11 billion merger of American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. would be a violation of federal antitrust laws (Carolyn Fjord, et al. v. AMR Corporation $(In Re: AMR Corporation$), No. 11-15463, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal magistrate judge in Florida on Aug. 5 found that SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae) and other defendants have not established that the choice-of-law provisions in promissory notes bar claims at the pleading stage of a putative class action alleging that Sallie Mae's late fees violate California's consumer protection law, allowing the case to continue (Tina M. Ubaldi, et al. v. SLM Corporation, et al., No. 11-1320, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109877).
NEW YORK - The United States and the 33 states that prevailed in federal district court in New York on their claims that Apple Inc. conspired with five publishers to fix prices of electronic books submitted their proposed remedy on Aug.2 (United States of America v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 2826, S.D. N.Y.; State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group $(USA$) Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 3394, S.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey federal judge overseeing the insurance brokerage antitrust multidistrict litigation on Aug. 1 approved a $10.5 million settlement between insurance companies and policyholders who accused the insurers of conspiring with insurance brokers in a price-fixing scheme to inflate commercial insurance prices (In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, No. 04-5184, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108042).