Aug 18, 2025 2 News Nevada Digital Team Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford has filed a lawsuit against MediaLab.AI and its social messaging app Kik. The suit cites harm the company has caused to Nevada's youth, according to a release from the Attorney General's Office. The legal action follows lawsuits from the AG's office against TikTok, Snapchat, and three Meta-owned platforms, Instagram, Facebook, and Messenger, filed in 2024, as well as a lawsuit against YouTube filed earlier this year. The suit was filed late Friday in the Eighth Judicial District business court. “Kik’s anonymity feature and low barrier to entry, among other things, harm Nevada’s youth,” said Ford. "The company’s actions and false claims of safety also put Nevada’s children in danger. I will not allow companies to neglect their responsibilities to Nevada’s youth, and I will bring any offender that does so to court.” Ford’s lawsuit accuses Kik of violating the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and brings claims of negligence, products liability, and unjust enrichment. It claims the app's "easily created anonymous accounts" have created a haven for child predators and facilitated the dissemination of child sexual assault material.

DECEMBER 7, 20223:31 AM ET  By Ayana Archie Two women are suing Apple over its AirTags, claiming the trackers made it easier for them to be stalked and harassed. The women filed a class-action lawsuit Monday in the U.S. Northern District Court of California and said Apple has not done enough to protect the product from being used illicitly. Apple introduced AirTags in 2021. They retail for $29 and work by connecting to iPhones and iPads via Bluetooth. They have been billed as a close-range alternative to the company's built-in Find My technology, which provides an approximate location. "What separates the AirTag from any competitor product is its unparalleled accuracy, ease of use (it fits seamlessly into Apple's existing suite of products), and affordability," the lawsuit says. "With a price point of just $29, it has become the weapon of choice of stalkers and abusers."One plaintiff alleges after divorcing her ex-husband, he left an AirTag in her child's backpack. She attempted to disable it, but found another one soon after, she said in the lawsuit. The other plaintiff, identified as Lauren Hughes, said after ending a three-month relationship with a man, he began calling her from blocked numbers, created fake profiles to follow her social media accounts and left threatening voicemails. Hughes says she was living in a hotel while planning to move from her apartment for her safety. When she arrived at her hotel, she received an alert that an AirTag was near her. She later located it in the wheel well of one of her back tires. Once Hughes moved to her new neighborhood, the man posted a picture of a taco truck in her vicinity with "#airt2.0," the complaint says. Apple does send users an alert if an unfamiliar AirTag is located near them. But the notification is not immediate and is only available on devices with iOS software version 14.5 or later, which excludes some older Apple devices. The consequences could be fatal, the complaint alleges. Soon after the AirTag launched, domestic abuse advocates and technology specialists warned Apple the product could easily be compromised, according to the complaint. "AirTag was designed to help people locate their personal belongings, not to track people or another person's property, and we condemn in the strongest possible terms any malicious use of our products," Apple said in February. The women are seeking a trial with a jury and no monetary damages.

January 31, 2024 5:59am EST By Lawrence Richard Former Facebook engineering director Arturo Bejar argues the government should force social media platforms, like Instagram, to protect children from abuse because they won't do it themselves. The state of Nevada is suing some of the most popular social media companies, alleging that their apps are intentionally addictive and have contributed to a decline inmental health for its users, especially teens and young adults. Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford filed civil lawsuits Tuesday against the parent companies of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, Snapchat and TikTok apps, claiming they are a "hazard to public health" and that they use "false, deceptive and unfair marketing" to directly appeal to youth. The lawsuit also says the respective apps’ algorithms are "designed deliberately to addict young minds and prey on teenagers’ well-understood vulnerabilities." "All of these platforms use features like endless scrolling, dopamine-inducing rewards,disappearing content, likes, shares, push notifications, and other elements to maximizeyouth use, manipulate young emotions, and exploit children’s developing minds — all formassive financial gain," the attorney general’s office alleged in a news release,announcing the lawsuits. "Each of these platforms has also been linked to seriousdangers to kids, including auto accidents, increases in drug overdoses, suicides, eatingdisorders, sexual exploitation and more." "My commitment to protecting consumers, particularly those that are as vulnerable asour youth, is unwavering. Bringing this litigation is an important step toward ensuringsocial media platforms put our children’s safety before their profits," Ford, a Democrat,said Tuesday. Ford alleges in the filing that these apps can potentially be more hazardous to mentalhealth than even some drugs as the apps lack a natural breakpoint where the content runs out. Ford, alongside private law firms, filed the civil suit in Clark County District Court. At the root of the filing is what is commonly known about these social media apps:companies make money by advertising on the apps, so they utilize aggressive algorithms to capture and keep users on the apps longer, so the companies can make more revenue via the ads. One result of addictive content is "doom-scrolling," or when users spend more time than intended to see what new content the algorithm provides. These apps often prioritize engaging content, such as short videos, that have produced lots of reactions. This keeps the users in a pattern of gaining quick satisfaction before moving into the next one, and the next one. Ford alleges in the filing that these apps can potentially be more hazardous to mental health than even some drugs as the apps are ceaseless. While physical drugs have a natural break point to their usage, the social media apps do not. A user "can spend an infinite amount of their time" on the apps and can become trapped in "a bottomless pit" as the content flows endlessly onto their devices, the lawsuit alleges. This endlessness exacerbates the addiction and its subsequent effectssuch as problematic internet usage, mental health, body image, physical health and online security. And, children are disproportionately impacted. While the apps each feature age-limits, requiring users to be at least 13 years old orolder, children can easily navigate the apps and create accounts to access the content. "In effect, the Defendants are conducting a potentially society-altering experiment on a generation of Young Users’ developing brains," the lawsuit alleges. "While this experiment’s full impact may not be realized for decades, the early returns are alarming." While these popular social media apps each feature age-limits, requiring users to be at least 13 years old or older, children can easily create new accounts. In a statement to FOX Business, a Meta spokesperson said the lawsuit"mischaracterizes" the work that the company does to ensure users' safety, especially teens. "The complaint mischaracterizes our work using selective quotes and cherry-picked documents," the statement read. "We want teens to have safe, age-appropriate experiences online, and we have over 30 tools to support them and their parents. We’ve spent a decade working on these issues and hiring people who have dedicated their careers to keeping young people safe and supported online." Earlier this month, Meta announced it would be implementing new protections "that are focused on the types of content teens see on Instagram and Facebook." These changes include "hiding more types of content for teens on Instagram and Facebook, in line with expert guidance," the Facebook-parent company said. "We regularly consult with experts in adolescent development, psychology and mental health to help make our platforms safe and age-appropriate for young people, including improving our understanding of which types of content may be less appropriate for teens." it added. Snap told FOX Business in a statement that its platform differs from other social media apps in that it does not have a feed that users can scroll. "Snapchat was intentionally designed to be different from traditional social media, with a focus on helping Snapchatters communicate with their close friends," a spokesperson said. "Snapchat opens directly to a camera – rather than a feed of content that encourages passive scrolling – and has no traditional public likes or comments. While we will always have more work to do, we feel good about the role Snapchat plays in helping close friends feel connected, happy and prepared as they face the many challenges of adolescence."

By Joyce Hanson Law360 (June 2, 2025, 10:28 PM EDT) -- A Delaware judge has declined to send to arbitration a proposed class action accusing a French yacht maker's American subsidiary of violating U.S. consumer protection law by requiring buyers to have their boats periodically serviced at the company's dealerships. Delaware Superior Court Judge Sheldon K. Rennie on Friday denied Beneteau Group America Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a suit alleging violations by the subsidiary and its parent, Beneteau SA, of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a federal consumer protection statute. In a 41-page opinion, Judge Rennie said he had decided to take a "head-on" look at the issue of the Federal Trade Commission's prohibition against binding arbitration under the act. The judge noted that consumers Phil and Melodee Bartel asserted the arbitration clause in their warranty is prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, arguing the FTC has determined that an informal dispute settlement procedure provided in a warranty under the act cannot be legally binding. However, Beneteau Group America had countered that the arbitration clause is enforceable, according to the judge. The subsidiary pointed to case law rejecting the FTC's interpretation based on a pro-arbitration presumption created by the Federal Arbitration Act, and BGA cited the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon to support its argument. With that in mind, Judge Rennie said the high court, since McMahon, has been "reluctant" to find that a statute contains sufficiently clear congressional intent to preclude enforcement of arbitration agreements. "But the U.S. Supreme Court has not applied this test to assay the FTC's prohibition against binding arbitration under the MMWA, nor have any Delaware courts taken up the challenge directly," the judge said. " Decisions by lower federal courts and other state courts that addressed this issue are split. Thus, this court will address the issue head-on." Judge Rennie found that Congress' intent in the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is clear, and the arbitration clause in question is precluded under a so-called McMahon test. Congress intended an informal dispute settlement mechanism to be nonbinding under the act, the judge ruled. He found that the MMWA's legislative history bolsters his belief because a House report on the act stated that an adverse decision in any informal dispute settlement procedure would not be a bar to civil action. The judge's opinion also considered how some courts have concluded that the FTC's prohibition of binding informal dispute settlement mechanisms is based on "hostility" or "skepticism" toward arbitration that contravenes federal policy favoring arbitration. But Judge Rennie disagreed. "Notably, the FTC's rule does not contemplate a blanket ban of arbitration. Indeed, both the statute and the FTC's rules encourage the use of IDSMs, including arbitration proceedings, as long as they meet the minimum requirements promulgated by the FTC and are not legally binding," the judge said. The FTC's rules say parties are free to enter into an agreement to arbitrate a claim under the act after a dispute arises, according to Judge Rennie. "The FTC's rule only prohibits binding arbitration where it is incorporated into the terms of a written warranty, which puts it under the reign of the IDSM provision," he said. In the Beneteau case, Judge Rennie granted the defendants motion to dismiss the proposed class plaintiffs claims against the parent company. He found the parent company is not a warrantor for the Bartels' boat purchase. He also granted American subsidiary BGA's motion to dismiss consumer Brian Lovett's claims, finding the warranty wasn't covered because Lovett obtained it in a transaction abroad. BGA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In the putative class action, the plaintiffs allege the warranties of the boat manufacturer and its subsidiary violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the companies say the warranties are valid only if customers use authorized service centers and pay for mandatory inspections. This requirement constitutes an illegal "tying" provision, according to the plaintiffs, who claim they suffered economic damages and loss of enjoyment due to excessive delays, hidden fees and diminished resale value of their warranted boats. Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. Lovett and the Bartels are represented by Dashiell "Dash" R. Radosti of Equal Justice Solutions, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., James M. LaMarca and Raymond Collins Kilgore of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. The Beneteau defendants are represented by Matthew B. Goeller, Michael J. Vail and David Osipovich of K&L Gates LLP, and Jeffrey D. Smith, Raechel T.X. Conyers and Anna C. Transit of Honigman LLP. The case is Brian Lovett et al. v. Beneteau Group America Inc. , case number n24c-09-266, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.  --Editing by Drashti Mehta. All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc.

By Bonnie Eslinger Law360 (August 27, 2024, 10:40 PM EDT) -- A San Francisco federal judge mulling tracking device manufacturer Tile Inc.'s bid to arbitrate some claims that its Bluetooth trackers are dangerous because they empower stalkers asked the parties at a hearing Tuesday to brief her on the effect of a recent California appellate court decision regarding arbitrability. U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin made the request at the end of a hearing in San Francisco over Tile's motion to send to arbitration claims from two of the putative class action's four plaintiffs, arguing the women signed terms of service agreements that dictate that's how disputes related to the product would be handled, with even questions about arbitrability sent to the arbitrator. The suit claims that Tile and its partnership with Amazon has resulted in a "dangerous" product, with the companies failing to enact safeguards to prevent stalkers from using the quarter-size tracker to prey on victims. Tile's lawyer, Jeffrey M. Gutkin of Cooley LLP, argued that there was a "clear and unmistakable" delegation of arbitrability in the agreements presented to the two plaintiffs. Judge Lin asked how that fit with the U.S. Supreme Court's directive in its 2010 decision in Rent-A-Center v. Jackson that the "clear and unmistakable" requirement is to be interpreted based on the party's expectations. That "would seem to incorporate a component of looking at the party's sophistication," the judge said, seemingly referring to the plaintiffs' assertion that the agreement to arbitrate is unconscionably broad and confusing. Gutkin said that shouldn't be a concern in the case before Judge Lin. "It doesn't matter if the parties have a different expectation, if the contract makes a clear and unmistakable delegation," Gutkin said. The contract also incorporated American Arbitration Association rules, which also delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, he added. Gutkin also underscored that in 2017 a different California federal judge overseeing McLellan v. Fitbit sent that dispute to arbitration after finding the consumers couldn't claim they lacked the sophistication to understand the contract. Judge Lin agreed that the McLellan case articulates why "the clear and unmistakable analysis shouldn't depend on the sophistication of the parties," but said she was struggling with whether the plaintiffs understood that arbitrability would be delegated to the arbitrator. The judge also asked whether she needed to consider California contract law principles in determining arbitrability. Gutkin said the same conclusion would be reached under state law principles. Judge Lin also asked the lawyer about a 2023 California Court of Appeal decision in Gostev v. Skillz Platform, a consumer case finding questions of arbitrability shouldn't have gone to an arbitrator. In that case, a consumer dispute against a mobile app company, the court looked at whether the incorporation of AAA rules can be seen as evidence of the party's intent to arbitrate, she said. "It seems like they're the first ones to confront this issue in the consumer context," Judge Lin said. Gutkin said he was unfamiliar with the case, but the weight of case law says the arbitration agreement would be binding. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Lucy Holifield of Wade Kilpela Slade, said the agreements also leave open the door for a court to determine the validity of the arbitration provision. The agreement "says that the exclusive jurisdiction for all disputes relating to terms is with the state and federal courts in this district," Holifield said. Further, the incorporation "by reference" of the AAA rules is problematic, she said. "Under California law, an extrinsic document may only be incorporated by reference if the reference itself is clear and unequivocal and if the terms are known and easily available," Holifield said. At the end of Tuesday's hearing, Judge Lin didn't reach a decision but asked the parties for supplemental briefing on Gostev, specifically whether state law applies in terms of evaluating whether a contract meets the "clear and unmistakable" bar. Tile's motion to compel arbitration applies to two plaintiffs, Melissa Broad and a woman identified only as "Jane Doe." The company also seeks to stay claims against two other women, Stephanie Ireland-Gordy and Shannon Ireland-Gordy. In their written filing of opposition, the plaintiffs also argue that Broad and Doe's claims are outside the scope of any arbitration clause because they relate to third-party use of the Tile products. Tile's trackers have been around since 2013 and the company joined forces with Amazon in 2021. Under the partnership, Tile has taken advantage of Amazon's nationwide location-tracking program, Sidewalk, by tapping into Bluetooth networks created by Amazon's home device, Echo. First filed in August 2023, the complaint asserts claims of negligence, design defects, unjust enrichment, intrusion, and violations of California's constitutional right to privacy and Invasion of Privacy Act. Tile allows its customers to sync the tracker to a smartphone app where they can easily locate its whereabouts. While Tile introduced an anti-stalking feature in 2022, victims are still exposed, the suit said. For example, the plaintiffs claim that only users with the Tile app installed on their phones can scan for trackers, and the user must manually trigger the detection feature. And then, in February 2023, Tile started allowing users to turn off the anti-stalking feature if they provided a government ID, the plaintiffs said. The plaintiffs are represented by Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila and Marc A. Castaneda of Milstein Jackson Fairchild & Wade LLP, Brandon Haubert and Jessica Hall of WHLaw and David Slade and Lucy L. Holifield of Wade Kilpela Slade. Tile is represented by Travis LeBlanc, Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Max A. Bernstein and Amanda A. Main of Cooley LLP. Amazon.com is represented by Charles Christian Sipos of Perkins Coie LLP. The case is Shannon Ireland-Gordy et al. v. Tile Inc. et al. , case number 3:23-cv-04119, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. --Editing by Jay Jackson Jr. All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc.

By Rae Ann Varona Law360 (June 25, 2024, 10:44 PM EDT) -- App-based online shopping platform Temu is in reality "dangerous malware" that can override phone privacy settings and collect sensitive user information, according to a "first-of-its-kind" state lawsuit by Arkansas alleging deceptive trade practices and privacy violations. In a 51-page complaint filed in state court, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin says the Temu app is purposely designed to sneak into its users' phone operating systems, gaining access to users' cameras, microphones, contacts and real-time location with an accuracy of at least 10 feet. Even those who don't sign up for the platform risk having their data collected just by emailing or texting Temu users, Griffin said. "Temu not only seeks a breathtaking array of sensitive data — well beyond what would be necessary or even justifiable for a shopping app — but it does so in a way that is purposely secretive and intentionally designed to avoid detection," Griffin said in the complaint. The lawsuit targets Boston-based WhaleCo Inc., which according to the complaint does business as Temu, and its Ireland-based owner, PDD Holdings Inc. Griffin said in a statement that his lawsuit is the "first-of-its-kind" state suit against the companies alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Arkansas Personal Information Protection Act. Temu, he said, "is not an online marketplace like Amazon or Walmart" but a "data-theft business that sells goods online as a means to an end." In the complaint, Griffin said that PDD Holdings, formerly known as Pinduoduo Inc., was founded in 2015 in China by a former Google employee but moved its principal executive offices from Shanghai to Dublin in February 2023. He said that ever since PDD Holdings and WhaleCo launched Temu in 2022, the shopping application and website's popularity has skyrocketed in the U.S., partly due to an "aggressive" multibillion-dollar marketing campaign, which included advertisements aired during the 2024 Super Bowl. Temu was also the most downloaded app in the U.S. in 2023 and had users spending nearly double the amount of time browsing its products than on Amazon, Griffin said. But the shopping platform is "more than an e-commerce juggernaut," the lawsuit asserts, noting that Apple temporarily suspended Temu from its app store last year for misrepresentations concerning the type of data the platform accesses or collects from users. The state of Montana also recently banned Temu and other apps tied to China in the name of national security, the suit states. There was also a letter the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent to WhaleCo in December seeking information concerning Temu's data collection practices. The lawsuit said the Temu app was designed to get unrestricted access to users' phones, including by checking a user's device for "root" access, or a device's highest level of access. Griffin said that with root access, the Temu app can "theoretically control or even disable" a device and have "file writing permissions without the user's knowledge or consent." Griffin alleged that the Temu app tries to hide its behaviors so that it can secretively access sensitive personally identifiable information, or PII. The app sometimes, for instance, nudges users to provide their "precise" location versus their approximate location without explaining why it needs the data, he said. "Location data, either standing alone, or combined with other information, exposes deeply private and personal information about Temu users' health, religion, politics, and intimate relationships," Griffin said. When it comes to allegations that Temu utilizes deceptive trade practices, Griffin said the platform uses "wildly successful" tactics to induce users to sign up, like pop-ups with wheels to spin for discounts, tokens and countdown clocks. He says Temu also offers credits and free items to users who get their friends to sign up. It also uses online influencers to lure in new users "on an even larger scale," he said. Temu's representations as to the quality of the products it sells are also deceptive, Griffin alleges, noting that the Better Business Bureau alone has received hundreds of complaints in the past year, resulting in Temu getting a 2.1 out of 5-star rating. The lawsuit, which seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties, also asks the court to declare the companies were unjustly enriched, stating that the companies have realized billions of dollars in revenues and profits through harvesting, using and monetizing the personally identifiable information of Arkansas residents. A Temu spokesperson told Law360 on Wednesday that they are "surprised and disappointed" that Griffin's office filed the lawsuit "without any independent fact-finding." "The allegations in the lawsuit are based on misinformation circulated online, primarily from a short-seller, and are totally unfounded," the spokesperson said. "We categorically deny the allegations and will vigorously defend ourselves." The spokesperson said that they are also "committed to the long-term and believe that scrutiny will ultimately benefit our development." PDD Holdings did not respond to a request for comment. Arkansas is represented by Tim Griffin, Charles J. Harder, Matthew M. Ford and Brittany Edwards of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office, Philip D. Carlson, Brian E. McMath and Brian L. Moore of Nachawati Law Group, and David F. Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade. Counsel information for PDD Holdings and WhaleCo was not immediately available. The case is State of Arkansas v. PDD Holdings Inc. et al. , in the Cleburne County Circuit Court. --Additional reporting by Allison Grande. Editing by Michael Watanabe. Update: This story has been updated to add a comment from Temu. All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc

By Rae Ann Varona Law360 (April 22, 2025, 4:44 PM EDT) -- A New Jersey federal judge on Monday gave final approval to a settlement between Subaru and a class of nearly 2 million customers in a suit that accused the automaker of selling vehicles with windshields vulnerable to cracks and other breakage, and granted class counsel $7.25 million in attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Christine P. O'Hearn's final approval of the settlement closes litigation lodged more than five years ago against Subaru of America Inc. over windshields placed on several of its vehicle models, including its Forester and Outback SUVs. Judge O'Hearn wrote in a final judgment and order that the deal is "in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate" and in the "best interests" of the settlement class. In a separate order, Judge O'Hearn also gave a nod to $7.25 million in attorney fees to the settlement class's three attorneys. She said that the award to class counsel Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP is "fair and reasonable and, in a matter of this level of complexity, consistent with the range of attorneys' fees awarded in this district and in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals." Expenses reported to the court were also "necessary, reasonable, and proper," she wrote. New Jersey-based Subaru of America Inc., the U.S. arm of Japanese conglomerate Subaru Corp., was first hit with the suit in October 2019, brought by one driver who alleged that the windshield of her new 2018 Subaru Forester suddenly cracked within just a few months of her purchase. More drivers joined the suit, claiming in a consolidated complaint that they wouldn't have bought their Subaru vehicles, or would have paid less for them, had they known about the faulty glass, which they said also interfered with Subaru's "EyeSight" driver assist system. According to the latest consolidated complaint filed in December 2020, one plaintiff, Jeffrey Barr, was driving a leased 2019 Subaru Forester on the highway with his wife when its windshield "suddenly and inexplicably cracked" despite there not being any vehicles near them or "any roadway obstructions or anomalies" at the time of the crack. The complaint alleged that another driver, Arnold Milstein, had noticed a crack running through the windshield of his new 2020 Subaru Outback "just weeks" after purchasing it. Subaru allegedly didn't cover a replacement windshield despite his Outback having fewer than 36,000 miles and being within the warranty period, according to the complaint. The drivers asserted in the complaint that even replacement windows Subaru provided, which the drivers allegedly paid for, suffered from the "same defect" and were thus "equally defective and dangerous." U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill gave an initial OK on the settlement in October, citing multiple in-person mediation sessions and substantial discovery, including more than 16,000 pages of documents, written interrogatory responses, subpoenas to third parties, and depositions of the parties' representatives. The settlement, which the parties reached in April 2024, covers 2019 through 2022 models of Subaru's Ascent and Forester vehicles, and 2020 through 2022 models of its Legacy and Outback vehicles. Under the settlement, Subaru, without admitting liability or wrongdoing, agreed to cover 100% or more of out-of-pocket losses. According to a redacted version of the settlement, the deal allows settlement class members who provide sufficient proof of repair and a photograph of a "qualifying crack" on the windshield before it was repaired to collect 125% of the cost of one prior repair, 150% of the costs if the vehicle required two prior repairs, and 200% of the costs if the vehicle required three or more repairs. Settlement class members who have proof of repair but don't have photographic proof of a windshield crack may still get monetary recovery through the completion of a photo questionnaire, the settlement states. Representative plaintiffs Barr, Milstein, Allan Zaback, and Brittany Funk will also receive $5,000 as service awards. Paul of Berger Montague told Law360 on Tuesday that they are "pleased that the court approved the settlement and praised its innovative elements and the excellent recovery achieved for the 1.9 million class members." Counsel for Subaru did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday. The class is represented by Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, Russell D. Paul of Berger Montague PC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. Subaru of America Inc. and Subaru Corp. are represented by Neal D. Walters of Ballard Spahr LLP. The case is Christine Powell et al. v. Subaru of America Inc. et al. , case number 1:19-cv-19114, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  --Additional reporting by Gina Kim and George Woolston. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr. All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc.

By Allison Grande Law360 (June 12, 2025, 10:29 PM EDT) — Chinese bargain-shopping app Temu is allegedly unlawfully gathering sensitive information from minors and other users through secretly installed malware and allowing intellectual property infringement to thrive on its platform, Nebraska’s attorney general claimed in a sweeping new lawsuit. In a 92-page complaint filed in Nebraska state court Wednesday, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers accused Temu and its parent company PDD Holdings Inc. of deceiving state residents and harming brands, businesses, and creators in multiple ways, including unlawfully harvesting data from children and other users, using misleading marketing and design practices to encourage purchases, and failing to stop rampant counterfeits on the platform. “Temu has flooded the United States with cheap products, but those products come with a one-two punch to Americans,” Hilgers said in the complaint, which alleges violations of Nebraska’s Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Temu responded by categorically denying the allegations and pledging to vigorously defend itself. “The allegations in the Nebraska attorney general's lawsuit are without merit and appear to be a rehash of misinformation circulated online, much of it originating from a short-seller,” a Temu spokesperson said. The company said it aims to help consumers access affordable products while providing growth opportunities for U.S. small businesses. The complaint alleges that once a consumer downloads the Temu app, malware is secretly installed that bypasses device security protocols and grants the app unrestricted access to essentially all data on the phone, including photos, private messages, and information to track user movements. Even non-users may have their data collected merely by emailing or texting Temu users. The app reportedly uses sophisticated evasion techniques to make detection of this malware “almost impossible.” The attorney general further alleges that Temu’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party increase the risk that personal data could be accessed by the Chinese government, due to Chinese laws requiring companies within the country to provide user data upon request. PDD Holdings, founded in China as Pinduoduo Inc., moved its principal executive offices to Dublin, Ireland, in February 2023 but continues significant operations in China. Beyond data privacy concerns, the complaint claims Temu’s platform enables widespread IP theft, false advertising, misleading labeling, and counterfeit products. Nebraska brands like Union Pacific, Cabela’s, and Creighton Bluejays are allegedly misrepresented as authentic without proper recourse for rights holders. The complaint also points to low-quality or counterfeit goods, some allegedly produced via forced labor, manipulative pricing and incentivized reviews, inadequate return processes, deceptive “local” labeling, and misleading eco-friendly claims. “Temu is putting Nebraskans’ privacy at risk and running a platform rife with deceptive listings, unlawful promotional practices, and products that rip off Nebraska brands and creations,” Hilgers said. The state seeks a court declaration that these practices are illegal, an injunction preventing further violations, and civil penalties, restitution, and damages to Nebraska residents. This complaint echoes similar lawsuits filed by Arkansas and New York, targeting Temu for alleged data theft and violations of privacy laws. Nebraska is represented by Anna M. Anderson, Benjamin Swanson, and Beatrice O. Strnad of the Attorney General’s Office; Brian E. McMath, Brian L. Moore, and Michaela Hohwieler of Nachawati Law Group; and David F. Slade of Wade Kilpela Slade. Counsel information for Temu was not immediately available. The case is State of Nebraska ex rel. Michael T. Hilgers v. PDD Holdings Inc. f/k/a Pinduoduo Inc. et al., case number D02CI250002002, in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska.  --Additional reporting by Rae Ann Varona and Joyce Hanson. Editing by Emily Kokoll. All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc.

By Gina Kim Law360 (May 21, 2025, 6:23 PM EDT) Monster Beverage cannot escape a proposed class action alleging it allowed its employee 401(k) plan to be saddled with unreasonable recordkeeping costs and took excessive amounts from the plan to pad an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefit account, a California federal judge has ruled. In a brief order Friday, U.S. District Judge John W. Holcomb of the Central District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Monster Beverage Corp. and the administrative committee of Monster Energy Co.'s retirement plan against a lawsuit accusing them of violating ERISA and wasting millions of dollars from the fund. The three named plaintiffs, led by Richard Hollien, filed their first amended complaint in November, alleging the defendants imprudently picked and retained unduly high-cost, low-performing share classes of funds for the retirement plan, harming its participants and beneficiaries. The Monster employees also accuse the company of charging excessive fees to participants to maintain "an unreasonably large ERISA Benefit Account," which they claim the defendants treated as a "slush fund." The plaintiffs further take issue with recordkeeping and plan administrative services fees paid to recordkeeper Transamerica Retirement Solutions, which was paid a required share of revenue from the plan's funds and the plan participants' accounts, according to the suit. The plaintiffs argued the required revenue-sharing arrangement is asset-based and calculated on the dollar amount of accounts rather than on a per capita basis. In other words, the more funds invested in the plan, the more recordkeeping fees are paid to Transamerica, even if its services don’t change and no additional work is done to justify the rising costs. The Monster employees claim the average recordkeeping payment per participant per year was $100, three times larger than what comparable plans pay. Other recordkeepers like Fidelity, Vanguard, and Great-West can provide a high level of service, and in this instance, no unique services were provided to the Monster plan that would warrant higher fees, the plaintiffs claim. Under Monster's plan, each participant paid an average of $104.52 for recordkeeping, compared with DropBox at $37.77, Pinterest at $21.97, Granite Retirement Savings at $32.97, Verint Systems at $13.36, Destination XL Group at $44.97, and AWG Inc. at $37.99, the suit says. The plaintiffs seek to represent a proposed class of all participants and beneficiaries of Monster's retirement plan anytime between June 26, 2018, and the date the court enters judgment. Causes of action include violation of ERISA for duty of prudence and failure to monitor other fiduciaries. In December, Monster moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, saying it made reasonable decisions related to the plan and that plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not allege with specificity that they personally paid excessive fees. Monster argued that a retirement plan does not breach ERISA simply for paying more than average for recordkeeping. Nor is it an ERISA violation if an entity chooses to pay a portion of a plan’s expenses through a revenue-sharing arrangement, which can reduce overall plan expenses. Plaintiffs bring no details regarding specific services provided to the plan, services offered in comparable plans, or what other recordkeeping options were available, the motion said. Nor do they provide factual details showing that Transamerica’s services were the same as those provided in allegedly comparable plans, or that those plans also used Transamerica, Monster argued. “We appreciate Judge Holcomb's careful analysis of the issues and we look forward to vigorously pursuing the plaintiffs' claims through the remaining stages of litigation,” Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, one of the attorneys for the proposed class, told Law360 in an emailed statement Wednesday afternoon. Representatives for Monster did not immediately return inquiries seeking comment Wednesday. The proposed class is represented by James A. Clark and Renee P. Ortega of Tower Legal Group PC, Peter A. Muhic of Muhic Law LLC, and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP. The defendants are represented by Ryan M. Sandrock and Marc P. Miles of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. The case is Richard Hollien et al. v. Monster Beverage Corp. et al. , case number 8:24-cv-01467, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. --Editing by Amy French All Content © 2003-2025, Portfolio Media, Inc.