- “Illinois Supreme Court Allows No-Injury Biometric Information Privacy Act Claims in Complete Victory for Plaintiffs’ Bar” [Locke Lord] Google’s “which museum portrait is your selfie like?” an early local casualty [Illinois Policy and generally on the law]
- “Class action reform isn’t dead. It’s just not coming from Congress” [Alison Frankel, Reuters]
- To get around Daimler v. Bauman line of cases, state statutes now provide that by registering to do business in the state an out-of-state business consents to general personal jurisdiction. Is that consistent with due process? [Anand Agneshwar and Paige Sharpe, WLF, and on Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway case in Pennsylvania; Beck with survey of state statutes]
- “As Pelvic Mesh Settlements Near $8 Billion, Women Question Lawyers’ Fees” [Matthew Goldstein, New York Times, earlier and more]
- More on Department of Justice crackdown on fraud and mismanagement in asbestos bankruptcy trusts [ABA Journal, AP, Alison Frankel/Reuters, Sen. Chuck Grassley statement, earlier]
- Judge: Port Authority not liable over George Washington Bridge jumpers [Julia Marsh, New York Post]
Filed under: asbestos, class actions, Google, Illinois, suicide, technology
3 Comments
Re: Daimler v. Bauman/Mallory, this looks like a case where corporations have more rights than individuals. Burnham means physical presence equals jurisdiction for individuals.
RE: BIPA.
I am confused. If it is unlawful for a company to do something and they do it, they are arguing that nothing can be done to make them stop? I have an idea. Follow the law in the first place and you won’t have to pay up. Note: I am not saying that the law is good, just that it is what it is. I would most certainly advocate against forcing companies to pay damages to someone who was not injured.
The corporate-service issue is simpler than that WLF article wants to make it. The corporation isn’t amenable to service because it registers, it’s amenable to service because it has (at least in some instances) a local agent authorized to accept service who is capable of being served in person while in the jurisdiction. SPO is on the right track.
Also, the WLF piece blithely skims over the issue of what constitutes “doing business” for purposes of those registration statutes. A lot of commercially advantageous activities don’t.