Key Developments in Antitrust Class Action Litigation: Recent Developments, Key Class Action Trends, Significant Rulings, and Major Settlements Shaping the Future of Antitrust

February 11th, 2025|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, New Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Gain an understanding of the latest developments in antitrust class action litigation, including evolving class certification standards, key rulings on multi-district litigation, and major settlements shaping the field on a CLE webinar featuring experienced antitrust attorneys Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Sean P. McConnell. Explore significant court decisions on pricing algorithms, the right-to-repair movement, and baseball’s antitrust exemption while staying informed on critical trends in competition law. Register now!

Trends and Strategies in Wage & Hour Class and Collective Actions

February 8th, 2025|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Employment, New Webinars|Tags: , , , , |

Gain a better understanding of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and wage and hour collective actions, get up to date on significant trends and recent key settlements in this area of law, and grasp the main considerations for conditional class certification and decertification and the key collective action rulings handed down in 2023 on a CLE webinar featuring experienced class action defense litigators Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Greg Tsonis. Sign up today!

Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected [...]

Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin LLP

July 19th, 2022|Categories: Emerging Issues Webinars, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Featured On-Demand, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, New Webinars, News|Tags: , , , , , |

Featured Speaker Jonathan focuses his practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. As a litigator, he has led trial teams in major antitrust cases in courts throughout the country. As a thought-leader in competition law, he has published in influential academic journals and has spoken to numerous professional groups, including the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, the University of Wisconsin, and the American Antitrust Institute. Jonathan has also made several appearances before congressional committees. More About Rubin For more information please email Tom Hagy Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard Essential Patents Get Back on Track by Jonathan Rubin Webinar: Class Certification After Olean v. Bumble Bee with Jonathan Rubin, James Bogan lll, Jonathan Cohn, Bradley Hamburger. Journal: FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 [...]

Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification

April 14th, 2022|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Authors Co-founding partner at MoginRubin LLP, Jonathan Rubin focuses his legal practice exclusively on antitrust and competition law and policy. Based in Washington, DC, he has litigated and led trial teams in major antitrust cases throughout the country. He has published in influential academic journals and has spoken to numerous professional groups, including the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission, the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association, and the American Antitrust Institute. Dan Mogin, founding and managing partner of MoginRubin LLP, concentrates his practice on antitrust, unfair competition and complex business litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous large antitrust cases, chaired the Antitrust Section of the California Bar, taught antitrust law and was editor-in-chief of a leading competition law treatise. Explore more from MoginRubin LLP! Blog: Emboldened by New Resources and Expanded Authority, Feds Continue 10-Year Look Back at Chinese Investment. By Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, and Timothy LaComb. List OnDemand CLE Webinar: The Antitrust Case Against Google. Dan Mogin, Jonathan Rubin, Jennifer Oliver, Timothy LaComb, John Newman, Dr. Alan Grant Blog: FTC’s Case Against Facebook Will Test the Flexibility of U.S. Antitrust Law.Authors: Jonathan Rubin and Jennifer Oliver, MoginRubin LLP Blog: Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification. Jonathan Rubin, Dan Mogin. Journal: Policy Derailed: Can U.S. Antitrust Policy Toward Standard [...]

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

January 13th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Employment, HB Risk Notes, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should [...]

Digital Payments in Class Administration

September 9th, 2021|Categories: Business Litigation, Class Actions, HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Epiq presents DIGITAL PAYMENTS Best Practices for Efficiency in Class Actions Recorded: Sept. 23, 2020 75 minutes CLE credit: 1+ Registration includes recording, materials, and answers to your questions. TAKE IT NOW! Epiq presents a CLE-eligible webinar Digital Payments Best Practices for Efficiency in Class Actions Recorded Live | Sept. 23, 2020 produced by HB Litigation Conferences Modern life increasingly relies on digital solutions. Nothing has made that more apparent than the novel coronavirus pandemic. In terms of class action settlement payments, the impetus has never been greater to transition to the e-payment realm for security, convenience, cost-reduction, and improved fund disbursement. Class counsel and claims administrators have experimented for years with pre-paid debit cards, automated clearing house (ACH) deposits, and wire transfers, while others have tested judicial appetites for registered-user payment systems like PayPal and Venmo. However, digital payment schemes with multiple options -- the primary of which is direct deposit -- seem to be emerging as the favored solution. Though class action notice is increasingly being digitized, aided by the 2018 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 23(c)(2)(B), which permits notice by electronic means like emails and digital and social media, payment itself has lagged behind. Even with these challenges, electronic payment distribution is now a viable option. Courts are [...]

James Beck on the Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions)

September 21st, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, News|Tags: , , , , |

Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst Reed Smith LLP Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions) We’ll be very clear – as we have before:  We don’t like most class actions.  Indeed, if given our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class actions for damages, altogether.  But that’s not in the offing anytime soon.  Today, we offer a class action decision that we think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the problem. In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court came up with one possible solution to the class action “objector problem.” What’s that? Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often “objectors” come out of the woodwork.  While these objectors purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they want is money to make them go away.  Or, as described in Pearson: We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation known colloquially as “objector blackmail.”  The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense.  A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for approval by the district court.  A few class members object to the settlement but [...]

Suits Allege Apple Concealed Knowledge of iPhone 7 Defect

May 10th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Apple Inc. has been sued in federal courts in Illinois and California for allegedly knowingly selling iPhone 7 and 7 plus models with an audio chip defect, called the “Audio IC Defect” or “Loop Disease” by consumers, which causes an array of operational issues. The bug gums up handset audio functions, grays out speaker buttons during calls, and degrades microphone fidelity.  And if that's not enough it can kill Siri's voice command capabilities. The plaintiffs accuse Apple of actively concealing the Audio IC Defect while advertising the iPhone 7 as “the best iPhone we ever made.” The plaintiffs claim that when they first experienced operational problems Apple didn't offer complimentary repairs. The suits allege breach of warranty and violation of California and Illinois consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. In Illinois, the plaintiffs may also try to force Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace current defective iPhone 7s in the United States and notify all purchasers of the Loop Disease. Evidence shows “Apple’s internal acknowledgement and subsequent discontinuation of their out-of-warranty repairs without public announcement of the Audio IC Defect amounts to misrepresentation and concealment of the Audio IC Defect,”  the California complaint in Casillas v. Apple reads.  Complaints available on Scribd.com. Casillas v. Apple, N.D. Calif., No. 3:19-cv-2455 Castelli v. Apple, N.D. Ill., [...]

Go to Top