On Tuesday, May 19, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed against the College Entrance Examination Board ("College Board") in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of high school students who took Advanced Placement ("AP") testing online as a result of the shift to distance learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Deloitte Consulting LLP has been sued by a group of Ohio residents in two proposed class actions after their personal information was compromised on state websites the company built to administer coronavirus-related unemployment benefits. Officials in Ohio, Colorado, and Illinois announced that applicant information including home addresses and social security numbers had been exposed to the public on these sites. The lawsuits have been filed in federal court in New York, as well as state court in Ohio.


Ubisoft argues that the American tech giants should have removed a mobile game from their digital marketplaces that infringed on the popular Rainbow Six Siege game.


On Tuesday, May 12, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the United States District Court for the District of Oregon's decision in Soul'd Out Productions, LLC v. Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. (Case No. 19-35301). The district court previously dismissed Soul'd Out Productions, LLC's ("Soul'd Out") claims of tortious interference and unlawful competition against Anschutz Entertainment Group, Inc. ("AEG") for lack of standing. The three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit found that "[n]o plaintiff is better suited to assert the tort claims alleged here, and there is therefore no prudential reason to deny Soul'd Out standing."


Electric car maker Tesla has filed a lawsuit against Alameda County, California, where its Fremont production plant is located, in light of County restrictions prohibiting the Tesla factory from fully reopening pursuant to the County's current shelter in place order. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the County from enforcing its order against the company, and a declaratory judgment that the order is unconstitutional as applied to Tesla.


Posted in: Constitutional Law

Thousands of female Oracle employees have alleged that the tech company paid them less than male employees with substantially similar jobs.


On Monday, April 27, 2020, in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., the United States Supreme Court ruled that annotations accompanying the Official Code of Georgia Annotated were not protected under copyright law. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Public.Resource.Org, a nonprofit company devoted to public access to government records and legal materials.


Posted in: Uncategorized

A class action lawsuit has been filed in Illinois federal court naming defendants including President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin by a US citizen who alleges that he was unlawfully denied a stimulus payment because he is married to an immigrant. The plaintiff claims that the federal government's restriction allowing only married couples who both have valid Social Security numbers to receive payments is a form of discrimination and violates the US Constitution.


A lawsuit between competing tobacco companies involves the tobacco heating technology used in their devices, which are alternatives to traditional cigarettes.


On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, Judge John Padova, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled mostly in favor of Epic Games, Inc. in a lawsuit involving the Fortnite dance emote "Phone It In." Judge Padova granted Epic Games, Inc.'s motion to dismiss concerning plaintiff Leo Pellegrino's causes of action concerning the following claims: (1) unauthorized use of name or likeness; (2) misappropriation of publicity; (3) invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) unfair competition; (6) trademark infringement under Pennsylvania common law; and (7) trademark dilution under the Lanham Act. However, Judge Padova ruled that plaintiff's claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act could proceed.