18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

618 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition that heavy burden. The JPML opined that in the circumstances presented, the ability to have informal coordination among the small number of parties was feasible such that coordination would not be necessary. In Re Digital Advertising Antitrust Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150350 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 10, 2021. Plaintiffs in 19 class actions in 16 districts alleged that Google’s ad exchange used unlawful acts to suppress competition, which caused injuries to advertisers and publishers that participated in its exchange by imposing supracompetitive pricing and depriving them of revenue. Id . at *1-2. Plaintiffs in all actions sought declaratory and equitable relief under federal or state antitrust laws to stop the alleged conduct and damages. Id . at *2. Defendants Google LLC, Alphabet Inc., and YouTube, LLC moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs either opposed centralization, or had numerous requests for where it should occur, including the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Texas, and the District of Columbia . The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation determined that consolidation in the Southern District of New York was appropriate. The Panel determined that all of the action presented “common factual questions" on Google’s role in the online display advertising services market, and thus the discovery would be greatly serviced by consolidation. Id. at *4. The Panel noted the common factual questions included: (i) defining the relevant market for online display advertising services; (ii) identifying the competitors in the market and their market shares; (iii) the design and operation of Google’s ad tech products and services, including alleged barriers to interoperability with competitors’ products; (iv) assessing the alleged anticompetitive effects of Google’s conduct on market participants; and (v) Google’s response to a competitive threat to its ad exchange, which allegedly enabled publishers to use non-Google exchanges more effectively. Id . at *5. The Panel opined that the decision to centralize the actions was based on the common factual core, which was present in all allegations across the actions. The Panel also determined that all the actions also requested overlapping relief in the form of damages and a prohibition on "the alleged unlawful practices by Google and Facebook" as well as structural relief. Id . at *11. The Panel ordered centralization of the proceedings for the pretrial stage only, and stated that the determination of transfer for trial would be better made after the issues in the actions were more fully developed. For these reasons, the Panel centralized the actions in the Southern District of New York. In Re Folgers Coffee Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63657 (J.P.M.L. April 1, 2021). Plaintiffs filed five class actions in four judicial districts alleging that Folgers engaged in deceptive advertising and marketing practices with respect to the labeling of its coffee products. Plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and the Northern District of Illinois move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the Central District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“the Panel”) granted the motion to centralize the litigation, but chose the Western District of Missouri as the transferee district. The Panel held that the actions all involved common questions of fact and that centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs in each action alleged that Folgers’ labeling misrepresented the number of servings contained in coffee canisters, and brought claims for misrepresentation, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and/or violation of state consumer protection laws. The Panel determined that centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Id . Further, the Panel reasoned that Plaintiffs in all actions likely will seek to obtain the same documents from Defendants and depose the same Folgers’ witnesses. Id . at *3. The Panel concluded that the Western District of Missouri was an appropriate transferee forum, as it was a geographically central district that would provide a readily accessible and convenient transferee forum for the nationwide litigation. Accordingly, the Panel transferred the actions to the Western District of Missouri for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. In Re GEICO Customer Data Security Breach Litigation , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194534 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs filed five class actions arising from an alleged data security breach of Defendant GEICO’s online sales system. Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or, alternatively, in the District of Maryland. Three actions were pending in the Eastern District of New York, one pending in the District of Maryland, and one pending in the Southern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“the Panel”) denied the motion to centralize the actions. The Panel concluded that centralization was not necessary for the convenience of the parties or witnesses and