A California District Court has dismissed with prejudice a class action lawsuit filed against LinkedIn on behalf of its registered users, finding the allegations too speculative to sustain a lawsuit. An earlier Complaint filed by one of the representative Plaintiffs was dismissed by the Court without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiff to amend the Complaint and bring the lawsuit again. In this recent decision, the Court dismissed all of the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint with prejudice, and without leave to amend either because the claims were legally defective or because the Plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies raised in LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss the original Complaint or raised in the Court’s order dismissing the original Complaint.

In March of this year, Taco Bell Corp. joined the ranks of companies that have been sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), not for sending an unsolicited text message to a consumer in the first instance, but for sending a confirmatory message when a consumer chose to opt out of receiving future messages. Recently, the federal district court in Ibey v. Taco Bell Corp., 12-cv-0583 (HVG) (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2012) concluded “that the TCPA does not impose liability for a single, confirmatory text message.”

On July 3, 2012, Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock issued a ruling dismissing a California “Shine the Light” consumer protection law case without leave to amend, making it the first “Shine the Light” case to come to a final decision in a trial court. Judge Stock dismissed the case against XO Group Inc. by filing a ruling sustaining demurrers to both of the plaintiff’s two causes of action in the initial Complaint without leave to amend. The ruling holds that, based on the facts that the plaintiff admitted in her Complaint and that her attorney confirmed at oral argument, there is no possibility of showing that XO Group violated the Shine the Light law.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) entered into a settlement with the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) for $1.7 million as well as a corrective action plan (CAP) for alleged security violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). This represents the first HHS action against a state agency.

On June 7, 2012, the Article 29 Working Party, an independent advisory body composed of representatives from the national data protection authorities of the EU Member States, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Commission, issued Opinion 04/2012 regarding which types of cookies are exempted from the informed user-consent requirement under Directive 2002/58 of the European Parliament (the E-Privacy Directive).

 

Article 5.3 of the E-Privacy Directive requires that websites must obtain informed consent from users prior to storing cookies on users’ equipment.  The E-Privacy Directive provides for two exemptions to this rule: (a) when the cookie is used for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network; and (b) when the cookie is strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the user to provide the service.