-
April 30, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by controversial social media influencers Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan seeking more than $50 million from Meta Platforms Inc. for terminating their social media accounts and allegedly defaming them in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws without leave to amend, opining that the Tates failed to allege facts overcoming Meta’s immunity as a digital publisher.
-
April 30, 2026
school shooting in British Columbia, families claim in a series of seven complaints filed April 29 alleging negligence, strict product liability and violation of the California unfair competition law (UCL).
-
April 29, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — Two consumers and a baby food company on April 27 filed a joint notice of settlement, informing a California court that they are finalizing an agreement to permanently resolve the consumers’ claims that the company improperly labeled baby food in violation of state laws that adopt federal labeling standards, which the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review in April 2025.
-
April 24, 2026
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal magistrate judge granted a request to proceed anonymously by a Jane Doe plaintiff seeking to represent “Jeffrey Epstein survivors” whose personally identifiable information was disclosed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in her putative class action against the United States and Google LLC for violating federal privacy laws and California’s unfair competition law (UCL).
-
April 24, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for conference a petition for a writ of certiorari by two John Does seeking review of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling finding that Twitter Inc. (now known as X Corp.) is immune pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to federal law claims and some product liability claims related to allegations that Twitter allowed child pornography to stay on the social media platform.
-
April 24, 2026
LOS ANGELES — The California Fair Plan Association (CFP) said it is appealing a California court’s grant of summary adjudication in favor of an insured as to his sole remaining claim for declaratory relief in his lawsuit alleging that CFP issued property insurance policies with fire coverage that is unlawfully restrictive as to smoke damage claims.
-
April 20, 2026
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 20 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., which argued that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in granting certification to a class action and that the high court must rule on whether experts must be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for class certification motions.
-
April 20, 2026
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 17 reversed the dismissal of a putative class action against Target Corp. for allegedly falsely advertising the thread count of store-brand bedsheets in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), rejecting Target’s defense that the consumer could not be deceived by “physically impossible” statements about the thread count of cotton sheets,
-
April 17, 2026
FRESNO, Calif. — A California federal magistrate judge recommended granting the California Attorney General’s Office’s motion for summary judgment against a flavored-vape retailer and its CEO for violating federal and state tobacco laws and California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by selling disposable flavored vape products without a license or youth restrictions but denying a request for more than $1 million in civil penalties due to a factual dispute about the amount owed.
-
April 17, 2026
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on April 16 granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice a putative class action accusing the maker of portable audio players for children of violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws by concealing a defect that would cause the devices’ batteries to overheat, noting that the company voluntarily recalled and replaced customers’ batteries.
-
April 17, 2026
PASADENA, Calif. — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on April 16 affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against a water filter maker for allegedly misrepresenting their filter’s ability to purify water when it cannot remove per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), writing that “reasonable” consumers would not expect this ability and that the company was not required to disclose this as an “unreasonable safety hazard.”
-
April 17, 2026
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A California federal judge vacated all pending deadlines in a putative class action against a pet food company for allegedly falsely labeling its pet food products as containing no preservatives in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) after the parties filed a joint notice that they had reached a confidential settlement and that the plaintiff would dismiss her claims, approximately one month after the court granted in part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss.
-
April 16, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The developer of “Bloxflip,” a website that allegedly allowed minors to gamble using “Robux” digital currency their parents had bought for them to use on Roblox Corp.’s gaming platform, filed an appellant brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals arguing that a federal judge improperly denied his motion to compel arbitration of parents’ claims against him for violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws.
-
April 16, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge granted final approval to an $8.9 million settlement resolving claims brought against the manufacturer of a soda product for violating California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws by deceptively labeling its soda as “Prebiotic” and “gut healthy,” but withheld implementation of the settlement pending a final decision on attorney fees.
-
April 16, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — Walmart Inc. urges the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold a $623,000 attorney fee sanction against two attorneys in its answer to their petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the sanctions, writing that the lawyers “recklessly” used a false allegation to pursue months of litigation against Walmart for allegedly mislabeling its avocado oil.
-
April 16, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal suit involving California unfair competition law (UCL), negligence and wrongful death claims against OpenAI entities after a murder-suicide will proceed after a federal judge in California concluded that a similar state court suit does not involve the type of parallel litigation required for abstention.
-
April 16, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The court-appointed lead class counsel in a more than decade-long lawsuit accusing Sutter Health of monopolizing northern California hospital markets to raise prices and decrease competition had the authority to allocate attorney fees to multiple firms following a $228.5 million settlement approved in November and did so in a “reasonable and fair” manner, a federal magistrate judge in California ruled, denying a motion by one of the firms to enforce the order awarding fees.
-
April 15, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A putative class has filed a second amended complaint in California federal court against Apple Inc., alleging that its smartwatch bands contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), adding proposed subclasses and striking some claims.
-
April 15, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge will allow a woman one more chance to amend her putative class complaint alleging that companies violated various California consumer protection laws by manufacturing and selling products containing benzene.
-
April 15, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California granted a preliminary injunction in a trade secrets misappropriation case involving two companies that provide data labeling and other services to artificial intelligence (AI) companies and enjoined the defendants from using, disclosing or destroying any confidential information and data allegedly obtained from the plaintiff when it interviewed and eventually hired one of its employees.
-
April 14, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — The representative of a putative class of drivers suing Tesla Inc. and its affiliates on April 13 filed a brief urging the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to affirm the certification of a class action against Tesla for unfairly marketing cars as having “self-driving” technology in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), asserting that the evidence supported “an inference of class exposure and materiality to a reasonable consumer.”
-
April 09, 2026
SAN DIEGO — A California appellate panel on April 9 partly reversed a jury’s verdict in favor of a California mortuary accused of breach of contract and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) after it returned the wrong body to a grieving family while the body of their loved one was accidentally cremated in Texas, remanding part of the mortuary’s defense for a new bench trial.
-
April 09, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — E-cigarette consumers whose putative class lawsuit in California federal court against e-cigarette companies for “greenwashing” their products by calling them “carbon-neutral” in violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws was dismissed after the judge found that the defendants’ environmental claims were legally proper are appealing that ruling to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
April 08, 2026
OAKLAND, Calif. — A federal magistrate judge in California denied an insurer and claims administrator’s motion to dismiss an insured’s breach of contract and bad faith claims in her lawsuit seeking flood coverage for damage to her San Anselmo, Calif., home caused by a rainstorm, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the insured’s claims for unfair competition, intentional misrepresentation, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive relief.
-
April 08, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel vacated a judgment on the pleadings in favor of two companies accused in a long-running putative class suit of selling homeowners defective anchors and said the case should have been dismissed for lack of standing. The panel split in affirming $85,000 in attorney fees as sanction against the plaintiffs for filing a “baseless” complaint.