Alexander L. Orr

A group of Cigna health plan participants who claimed that the company failed to protect their data when it tracked their website activities asked a Pennsylvania federal judge not to throw out the suit, arguing that the proposed class had standing to sue over the alleged violations of state and federal privacy laws. The proposed class's filing on Monday came in response to a Nov. 12 order from Chief U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone directing the plaintiffs to explain why the litigation should continue. The judge said in the order that the proposed class's briefing at that time was inadequate in showing that the plaintiffs had standing. Jerry M. Adair and several other named plaintiffs said in their Monday brief that they had made valid claims they were injured by Cigna's alleged breach of the privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Adair argued that Cigna's alleged use of cookies on its website to capture members' visit activities and information allowed plaintiffs' data to be viewed by companies like Meta. Because it was done without the class members' consent, they had standing, the brief said. "Because plaintiffs allege that defendant disclosed their private health information to third parties without authorization, plaintiffs have alleged an injury in fact, and therefore have standing to bring their claims," the brief said. The brief continued, "Here, because courts universally recognize that a defendant's unauthorized disclosure of private information causes an 'injury in fact,' because the information alleged to have been disclosed by defendants is private health information, and because there is no dispute that second and third prongs of the Article III standing test are satisfied, Article III standing is present." Adair argued that the plaintiffs had Article III standing to pursue the FWA claim specifically. "Plaintiffs' FWA claim alleges a concrete injury sufficient to confer Article III standing: the unauthorized interception and disclosure of plaintiffs' private communications containing private health-related information. A violation of the FWA occurs when any person 'intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication,'" the brief said. Adair said that the class's WESCA claims were also solid. "Here, plaintiffs allege that they suffered the same concrete injury from defendants' WESCA violation as from defendants' FWA violation: the unauthorized interception and disclosure to third parties of plaintiffs' private health-related information," the brief said. Cigna was hit with the putative class action in May. The insurer had argued in a July dismissal motion that the class claims didn't rise to the level of a privacy violation and relied on nonspecific statements that fell short of stating how the data was allegedly compromised. The company also argued that when users agreed to the terms and conditions of the website, they consented to having marketers present ads to them. However, Cigna noted that the plaintiffs did not make claims of receiving targeted ads. Plaintiff's attorney Andrew J. Schlichter declined to comment Tuesday, and a representative for Cigna did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew J. Schlichter, Alexander L. Braitberg, Chen Kasher, Jerome J. Schlichter, Sean M. Milford and Nathan D. Stump of Schlichter Bogard LLC. Cigna is represented by Elisabeth Hutchinson, Katherine Driscoll and Tiffany Cheung of Morrison Foerster LLP, and Bridget C. Giroud and Joe Nguyen of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP. The case is Adair et al. v. Cigna Corporate Services LLC et al., case number 2:25-cv-02384, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Dec 2

3 min

Law360 (October 28, 2025, 10:24 PM EDT) -- Attorneys for Meta Platforms, YouTube, Snap and TikTok on Tuesday urged a Los Angeles judge to toss claims against them from an upcoming bellwether trial over the platforms' alleged harm to youth mental health, arguing that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should prevent many of the claims from reaching a jury. During a daylong hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl heard arguments on motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication filed by the companies ahead of a scheduled January bellwether trial focused on three cases in what could be the first of dozens of trials related to over 1,000 consolidated complaints. The judge previously tossed claims alleging that specific content on the platforms caused harm, finding that Section 230 and the First Amendment barred them, but allowed claims that certain design features of the platforms are harmful to move forward. Attorneys for the companies frequently argued on Tuesday that many of the plaintiffs' claims as alleged still fall within the protections of Section 230. Ashley Simonsen of Covington & Burling LLP, who represents Meta, showed the judge deposition testimony of a plaintiff identified as K.G.M., where she said content she viewed on some of the platforms caused her eating disorder, and where she agreed with an attorney's question that the disorder came from "the content you received on those sites." "She attributes her harm in terms of the orthorexia and body dysmorphia to specific content," Simonsen said, adding that a child psychologist serving as an expert for the plaintiffs, Dr. Kara Bagot, said "the same thing." Simonsen then showed the judge more deposition testimony where K.G.M. attributed her suicidal thoughts and self-harm to content she saw on Instagram and YouTube. "So we know that of the numerous features this plaintiff is challenging, she cannot bring a claim for content recommendation algorithms," adding that such claims are barred under Section 230. K.G.M. also said she suffered harm by engaging in an "endless scroll" on Instagram, but Simonsen argued that one cannot attribute her harm simply to scrolling, but to the content she was viewing while scrolling, because you "can't have an endless scroll without content." Simonsen also argued the judge previously held that Section 230 may not apply to "endless scroll"' if that feature operated to addict and harm minor users of the platform, but that K.G.M. "does not claim any harm from endless scroll independent of the content, and neither does Dr. Bagot. So endless school ... cannot go to a jury in terms of being a basis for K.G.M.'s claims." While the defendants made other arguments on Tuesday against the claims, including that some were filed after the statute of limitations, Section 230 was repeatedly cited by some of the defendants' attorneys. Josh Autry of Morgan & Morgan, who represents the plaintiffs, told the judge that the defendants' arguments in the K.G.M. case "is that if user content is a partial cause of a harm, then that harm cannot be recovered for. That's a reworking of the but-for test." He went on to argue that the defendants' desired test is if harm is partially caused by user content. "And if so, they believe that Section 230 is an absolute bar," he said. "This provision would give defendants a unique position under the law. It is a position that police officers don't have, prosecutors don't have. They want a type of immunity, absolute immunity, that does not exist in really any other context." The three cases scheduled for the first bellwether trial are among over 1,000 that have been coordinated in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging that the social media companies purposely induce young people to compulsively use their products, according to the personal injury master complaint filed in 2023. Judge Kuhl tossed some claims from the master complaint, but allowed failure-to-warn claims to proceed alongside negligence and concealment allegations. Similar multidistrict litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph G. VanZandt and Davis Vaughn of the Beasley Allen Law Firm, Mariana A. McConnell, Paul R. Kiesel and Cherisse H. Cleofe of Kiesel Law LLP, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, Josh Autry of Morgan & Morgan and Rahul Ravipudi, Brian J. Panish, Ian Samson and Jesse Creed of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP. Meta is represented by Alexander L Schultz, Paul W. Schmidt, Ashley Simonsen and Michael Imboscio of Covington & Burling LLP. Snap is represented by Jonathan H. Blavin, Rose Leda Ehler, Victoria A. Degtyareva and Ariel Teshuva of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP. TikTok is represented by David M. Mattern and Geoffrey M. Drake of King & Spalding LLP. YouTube is represented by Christopher C. Chiou, Matthew K. Donohue, Samantha Machock, Lauren Gallo White and Brian M. Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC, Joseph G. Petrosinelli and Ashley W. Hardin of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Yardena R. Zwang-Weissman, Brian Ercole and Stephanie Schuster of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. The state case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

Oct 28

4 min

Law360 (October 30, 2025, 5:45 PM EDT) -- A North Carolina federal judge refused to further sanction a Chinese manufacturer on Wednesday after an American rival accused it of sidestepping court orders that seek information in fulfillment of a judgment exceeding $17 million. In a one-sentence text-only order, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina said, "As stated in the hearing on the motion, the court will not impose additional sanctions at this time." The decision follows an April request from U.S. pool parts supplier Hayward Industries Inc. to sanction Ningbo C.F. Electronic Tech Co. Ltd. and related parties, with suggestions including the arrest of part owner Richard Chen. Ningbo is the parent company of co-defendant Blueworks Corp., which was first sued by Hayward, a North Carolina manufacturer of saltwater pool chlorination systems, at the end of 2020. Hayward alleged that Blueworks misled customers about replacement salt cell generators, which produce chlorine in swimming pools by converting dissolved salts, that were sold on Amazon. Specifically, Hayward said Blueworks made it appear as though Hayward recommended Blueworks' products as good substitutes for its own. After a February 2024 trial, Blueworks was found liable for false advertising and violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The resulting $4.9 million verdict eventually tripled under the law to $17.8 million with interest. Blueworks sought protection under Chapter 11, saying the lawsuit crippled it into insolvency. Judge Cogburn later held Blueworks, Ningbo and Chen in civil contempt for "frustrating" collection efforts on that judgment, and barred the companies from importing and selling in the U.S. until the judgment was fulfilled. In July, Judge Cogburn permitted Blueworks to sell off around $216,000 in excess Amazon inventory. In the most recent motion for sanctions, Hayward cast Ningbo's litigation tactics as "delay and obstruction" to avoid paying up. Hayward said the import ban clearly wasn't enough, arguing that its Chinese competitor didn't produce information on its assets and bank accounts. Hayward had suggested Chen's arrest as a tool to "persuade" the defendants that they can't ignore court orders. Counsel for neither party immediately responded Thursday to a comment request. Hayward is represented by Erik P. Belt, James H. Donoian, Anne E. Shannon and Alexander L. Ried of McCarter & English LLP, and by Patrick G. Spaugh and B. Chad Ewing of Womble Bond Dickinson. Blueworks is represented by Matthew L. Tomsic, Natalie E. Kutcher and Ashley B. Oldfield of Rayburn Cooper & Durham PA. The case is Hayward Industries Inc. v. Blueworks Corp. et al., case number 3:20-cv-00710, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. –Additional reporting by Hayley Fowler and Ryan Harroff. Editing by Karin Roberts. For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

Oct 30

2 min

Law360 (October 30, 2025, 5:45 PM EDT) -- A North Carolina federal judge refused to further sanction a Chinese manufacturer on Wednesday after an American rival accused it of sidestepping court orders that seek information in fulfillment of a judgment exceeding $17 million. In a one-sentence text-only order, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. of the Western District of North Carolina said, "As stated in the hearing on the motion, the court will not impose additional sanctions at this time." The decision follows an April request from U.S. pool parts supplier Hayward Industries Inc. to sanction Ningbo C.F. Electronic Tech Co. Ltd. and related parties, with suggestions including the arrest of part owner Richard Chen. Ningbo is the parent company of co-defendant Blueworks Corp., which was first sued by Hayward, a North Carolina manufacturer of saltwater pool chlorination systems, at the end of 2020. Hayward alleged that Blueworks misled customers about replacement salt cell generators, which produce chlorine in swimming pools by converting dissolved salts, that were sold on Amazon. Specifically, Hayward said Blueworks made it appear as though Hayward recommended Blueworks' products as good substitutes for its own. After a February 2024 trial, Blueworks was found liable for false advertising and violations of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The resulting $4.9 million verdict eventually tripled under the law to $17.8 million with interest. Blueworks sought protection under Chapter 11, saying the lawsuit crippled it into insolvency. Judge Cogburn later held Blueworks, Ningbo and Chen in civil contempt for "frustrating" collection efforts on that judgment, and barred the companies from importing and selling in the U.S. until the judgment was fulfilled. In July, Judge Cogburn permitted Blueworks to sell off around $216,000 in excess Amazon inventory. In the most recent motion for sanctions, Hayward cast Ningbo's litigation tactics as "delay and obstruction" to avoid paying up. Hayward said the import ban clearly wasn't enough, arguing that its Chinese competitor didn't produce information on its assets and bank accounts. Hayward had suggested Chen's arrest as a tool to "persuade" the defendants that they can't ignore court orders. Counsel for neither party immediately responded Thursday to a comment request. Hayward is represented by Erik P. Belt, James H. Donoian, Anne E. Shannon and Alexander L. Ried of McCarter & English LLP, and by Patrick G. Spaugh and B. Chad Ewing of Womble Bond Dickinson. Blueworks is represented by Matthew L. Tomsic, Natalie E. Kutcher and Ashley B. Oldfield of Rayburn Cooper & Durham PA. The case is Hayward Industries Inc. v. Blueworks Corp. et al., case number 3:20-cv-00710, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. –Additional reporting by Hayley Fowler and Ryan Harroff. Editing by Karin Roberts. For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

Oct 30

2 min

A fund of Paramount Global Inc. investor Mario Gabelli notified Delaware's Court of Chancery on Thursday that no other stockholders have sought to lead a suit challenging Paramount Global's $8.4 billion acquisition by David Ellison's Skydance Media, with the fund seeking lead plaintiff status and Entwistle & Cappucci and Farnan LLP to be lead counsel. Gabelli's complaint, filed Aug. 19, names Skydance, Harbor Lights Entertainment — formerly National Amusements Inc. — Shari Redstone and others and seeks damages for "unfair and inequitable merger consideration" received by Paramount controller NAI and its affiliates compared with Class A shareholders. In a brief supporting the lead plaintiff appointment, Gabelli Value 25 Fund alleged that the Shari Redstone-led NAI parties facilitated the merger through a "corrupted sale process" that allowed them to garner a 165% premium for their shares compared with Class A stockholders. The NAI parties held 77.4% of Paramount's Class A shares going into the deal, the complaint said, and allegedly relied on both voting control and a purportedly conflicted Paramount board to steer the deal to Skydance without a "majority of the minority" unconflicted shareholder approval. "The NAI defendants' outrageous non-ratable premium agreed to by the Skydance defendants cost the Class A minority at least $270 million in improperly diverted merger consideration," Gabelli said in its brief. Neglected along the way, according to the complaint, was an obligation to secure terms that maximized value to Class A shareholders "or, at the very least, was equitable." NAI "crammed through" the deal, Gabelli alleged, using what the fund described as a rigged voting system favoring Skydance. As a result, the lead plaintiff brief said, the NAI parties named in the suit "forwent proposals that would have paid the Class A minority 21.7% to 24.2% more per share, in favor of the Skydance proposal that directed hundreds of millions more to the NAI defendants at the expense of the Class A minority." The case is assigned to Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick. Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Gabelli's complaint named five members of Paramount's board special committee as well as NAI, Shari Redstone, Skydance Media and RB Tentpole LP, or "Redbird," a Skydance investor that participated in merger negotiations. Redbird will nominate two of Paramount's 13 board members and own 10% of Paramount's nonvoting Class B stock. As part of the merger, Skydance paid NAI $1.75 billion in cash and assumed $650 million in NAI debt, with NAI receiving the equivalent of $60.95 for its Class A shares and $15 per share for its nonvoting Class B shares. Gabelli owned 52% of the Class A shares held by non-NAI-aligned shareholders and reported investigating the deal for a year beginning in early 2024, supported by a documents inspection, according to the complaint. Including affiliated funds and advisers publicly opposed to the deal, Gabelli said in its complaint that the dissident group's holdings would have determined the outcome if a majority of the minority vote had been required. In addition, Gabelli argued that the Class A-shareholding minority opponents were offered only nonvoting Class B shares in New Paramount if they chose to roll over their Class A shares into the new company. Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. is represented by Sue L. Robinson, Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP and Vincent R. Cappucci, Andrew J. Entwistle, Joshua K. Porter, Jessica A. Margulis and Andrew M. Sher of Entwistle & Cappucci LLP. Skydance Media LLC is represented by David E. Ross and S. Michael Sirkin of Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP and Blair Connelly, Zachary L. Rowen, Alexander L. Mills, Yan Birzu Chu, Jack M. McNeily, Matthew L. Strand, J. Christian Word and Stephen T. Nasco of Latham & Watkins LLP. Barbara Byrne, Linda M. Griego, Judith McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr. and Susan Schuman are represented by Blake Rohrbacher, Daniel E. Kaprow, Christine J. Chen, Elizabeth J. Freud and Benjamin O. Allen of Richards Layton & Finger PA and Gary A. Bornstein, Michael P. Addis, Helam Gebremariam and Katherine DuBois of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP. RB Tentpole LP is represented by Daniel B. Rath, Rebecca L. Butcher, Howard W. Robertson IV and Cheol W. Park of Landis Rath & Cobb LLP. The case is Gabelli Value 25 Fund Inc. v. Harbor Lights Entertainment Inc. (fka National Amusements Inc.) et al., case number 2025-0921, in the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware.

Oct 16

3 min