The third class-action fraud complaint in a little more than a week alleging Samsung failed to protect the sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information (PII) of millions of consumers was filed Monday (docket 3:22-cv-05723) in U.S. District Court in Trenton, New Jersey. All three complaints stem from Samsung’s Sept. 2 disclosure that hackers breached its network security and gained access to first and last names, dates of birth, postal addresses, geolocation data, email addresses and phone numbers. Hillsborough, New Jersey, resident Andrew Becker bought numerous Samsung devices and was notified in a Samsung email that his PII was compromised in the data breach, said his complaint. His bank notified Becker in early August that it had identified unusual activity on his account, and he was issued a new bank card, it said. “As a direct and proximate result of the breach,” Becker made “reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact” of the hack, it said. He’s “very concerned about identity theft as well as the consequences of such identity theft and fraud resulting from the data breach,” it said. As with the other lawsuits, Becker’s complaint asks the court to require Samsung to hire third-party auditors to better monitor the security of its networks. Samsung didn’t comment.

A U.S. District Court decision to deny SmartSky Networks a preliminary injunction for Gogo's soon-to-launch 5G air-to-ground network "supports our frequently stated position that Gogo is not infringing any valid SmartSky patent," said Gogo CEO Oakleigh Thorne Tuesday. SmartSky's patent infringement claims are "meritless," he said. SmartSky said Thorne "is attempting to misappropriate and twist the court’s opinion" to imply there has been no patent infringement, even though the court's preliminary ruling allows SmartSky's case to proceed. Judge Gregory Williams of Wilmington, Delaware, in the docket 1:22-cv-00266 order denied SmartSky's preliminary injunction and also Gogo's motion to strike improper reply arguments.

Dish Network failed to “properly pay” its New York installers their biweekly wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned, and took “unlawful deductions” from their paychecks in violation of the state’s labor law, alleged a class action Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08151) in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Installers Chris Calderon, Nick Patsonikolis and Amresh Boodoo also allege Dish wrongfully terminated them last month in retaliation for their safety complaints. A “large percentage” of the vans Dish provided its installers for work were “unsafe,” said the complaint. Many of the vans had issues with torn windshield wipers and broken side mirrors, plus tires with low tread and low coolant, causing vans to overheat and break down in the field, it said. Dish didn’t comment Monday.

The Judicial Conference extended the temporary, COVID-19 exception to its broadcasting policy for another 120 days, it said Tuesday. The policy, adopted in 2020, allows the use of teleconferencing to let the public and media members listen to civil and bankruptcy court proceedings remotely. The Judicial Conference said there's increasing use of in-person proceedings as the pandemic emergency conditions have abated, but nearly all courts still do civil and bankruptcy proceedings remotely in at least some circumstances. It said the 120-day extension will help courts maintain flexibility as they transition to post-pandemic operations.

Film production companies that sued Verizon earlier this month for vicarious copyright infringement regarding alleged piracy by the carrier's internet subscribers using BitTorrent have voluntarily dismissed the claim, per a notice (docket 1:22-cv-07586) Monday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The U.S. Court of International Trade granted three importers their motion for leave to enter into the record of the Section 301 litigation their previously unexpected amicus brief in the Section 301 litigation (see 2209160010), in a Thursday order. Verifone, Drone Nerds and Specialized Bicycle Components argued in the brief for the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs to be vacated for Administrative Procedure Act violations at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that they said remain uncorrected. The three importers are “interested parties” to the litigation as “individual claimants” among the thousands of Section 301 lawsuits filed, and because they “do business in and with China,” said their motion.

Amazon “stifled competition and caused increased prices” in California through “anticompetitive contracting practices” that violate state law, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) alleged in a lawsuit announced Wednesday. To avoid competing with other e-commerce platforms, Amazon “requires merchants to enter into agreements that severely penalize them if their products are offered for a lower price off-Amazon,” resulting in higher prices for consumers, Bonta’s office said. The case is “exactly backwards’ much like a similar case from Washington, D.C., AG Karl Racine (D), the company said in a statement: “Sellers set their own prices for the products they offer in our store. Amazon takes pride in the fact that we offer low prices across the broadest selection, and like any store we reserve the right not to highlight offers to customers that are not priced competitively.” The relief Bonta seeks “would force Amazon to feature higher prices to customers, oddly going against core objectives of antitrust law,” Amazon said.

Seventeen states can proceed with their lawsuit claiming Google monopolized digital advertising through an agreement with Facebook, the U.S. District Court in Manhattan ruled Tuesday in 1:21-md-03010 (see 2203220062). The state attorneys general, from states and territories including Texas, Nevada, Puerto Rico and Utah, “have plausibly alleged that Google has monopoly power in and willfully engaged in anticompetitive conduct,” the court said. Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) said his office looks forward to a “jury hearing how this Big Tech giant abused its monopoly power by harming consumers to reap billions in monopoly profits.” His office noted the court allowed the states to proceed on all counts related to Sherman Act Section 2. The decision shows the states’ case is “deeply flawed,” Google said in a statement, noting the court dismissed allegations regarding Google’s open bidding agreement with Meta, the “centerpiece” of the case. “Advertising technology is a fiercely competitive industry -- and our products increase choice for publishers, advertisers and consumers while enabling small businesses to affordably find new customers,” the company said.

The European Commission rightly decided that Google breached antitrust law by placing illegal restrictions on makers of Android mobile devices and mobile network operators to consolidate its dominant position in the search market, the European Court of Justice General Court ruled Wednesday. However, it reduced the fine set in the 2018 decision (see 1807180003) from 4.34 billion euros ($5.1 billion then) to 4.125 billion euros ($4.1 billion today). The EC found Google breached competition rules by imposing several contract restrictions: (1) It required mobile device manufacturers to pre-install its general search app (Google Search) and browser app (Chrome) in order to obtain a license to use its app store. (2) It barred manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling devices running versions of Android not approved by Google. (3) It granted mobile device makers and MNOs a percentage of its advertising revenue only if they agreed not to pre-install a competing search service on any device within an agreed portfolio. The company contested the decision. The high court, however, upheld most of the EC judgment, annulling only the part that found the portfolio-based revenue share agreements themselves amounted to an antitrust abuse. It lowered the fine based on its own assessment of how intentional Google's actions were and the value of relevant sales the search giant made in the last years it fully participated in the infringement. Google emailed it's "disappointed that the Court did not annul the decision in full. Android has created more choice for everyone, not less, and supports thousands of successful businesses in Europe and around the world." The EC emailed that it "takes note of" the judgment and will decide on possible next steps. The ruling won cheers from consumers and Google competitors. It confirmed that European consumers must have a meaningful choice among search engines and browsers on their devices, said European Consumer Organisation Director General Monique Goyens. The decision vindicates the EC and the 2013 FairSearch complaint that started the case, FairSearch counsel Thomas Vinje emailed: "This victory will embolden the Commission in enforcing its new regulation in Big Tech, the Digital Markets Act."

A federal judge set a Nov. 29 oral argument in Maryland digital ad tax litigation (case 1:21-cv-00410-LKG). The 2 p.m. virtual hearing will be on defendant Maryland and plaintiff U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s supplemental cross-motions for summary judgment, said Judge Lydia Griggsby of the U.S. District Court in Baltimore. Maryland argued last month there's significant state interest in precluding businesses from passing on the tax’s cost to consumers, but the chamber said the pass-through ban is unconstitutional (see 2208120053).