In Cambridge Analytica Privacy Suit, Facebook Asks for Early Appeal
"The question whether alleged data privacy violations give rise to Article III standing is an evolving issue of increasing importance that already has drawn considerable attention from the nation's appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court," wrote Facebook's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
October 09, 2019 at 01:36 PM
3 minute read
Facebook Inc. is seeking to take up an early appeal in the privacy litigation stemming from the social media platform's Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
The company's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on Tuesday filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, who is overseeing the multidistrict litigation, to allow the company to appeal his ruling denying Facebook's motion to dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Facebook's lawyers contend that plaintiffs' claims of a privacy injury alone aren't enough to establish the concrete harm necessary to establish standing to sue in federal court.
"The question whether alleged data privacy violations give rise to Article III standing is an evolving issue of increasing importance that already has drawn considerable attention from the nation's appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court," wrote Facebook's lawyers. In particular, Facebook's lawyers cited a recent Supreme Court decision to remand a settlement in a case accusing Google of disclosing search terms without user consent to consider the plaintiffs' standing.
"Because there is a serious threshold question about Plaintiffs' standing to sue, the Ninth Circuit should have an opportunity to address that question before the parties undertake 'protracted and expensive' litigation over the Plaintiffs' claims in this nationwide MDL," wrote Facebook's lawyers.
Chabbria largely denied the company's motion to dismiss the multidistrict litigation in September and found that the plaintiffs privacy claims had established standing to sue in federal court.
"To say that a 'mere' privacy invasion is not capable of inflicting an 'actual injury' serious enough to warrant the attention of the federal courts is to disregard the importance of privacy in our society, not to mention the historic role of the federal judiciary in protecting it," Chhabria wrote. "The alleged injury is 'concrete' largely for the reasons already discussed—if you use a company's social media platform to share sensitive information with only your friends, then you suffer a concrete injury when the company disseminates that information widely," he wrote.
A Facebook representative didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
Lesley Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld and Derek Loeser of Keller Rohrback, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the case, had no comment on the filing.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSchools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
5 minute readElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
'The Front Line of Regulating AI': Manatt's Brandon Reilly on CPPA's Move to Adopt New Data Broker and AI Rules
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250