Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 8, 2022

In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-06529
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Sanchez Johnson v. Insider, Inc., Judge Torres consolidated two VPPA cases and appointed interim class counsel.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs in the two proposed class actions, the proposed classes, Insider, Inc., and the law firms appointed to manage the consolidated litigation.

What happened

In In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation, plaintiffs in two proposed class actions alleged that Insider, Inc. used a Meta Pixel to disclose their personal information and video-viewing history to Meta, Inc. Both cases alleged violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act.

The court found that the cases shared legal and likely factual questions, and that consolidation would reduce cost, delay, and repetition. The plaintiffs jointly requested appointment of Bursor & Fisher, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, Girard Sharp, and Lowey as interim class counsel.

Judge Analisa Torres consolidated the cases for all purposes, appointed Bursor, Milberg, and Girard as co-lead interim class counsel and Lowey as liaison counsel, and set deadlines for a consolidated complaint, the defendant’s response, and a joint case-management plan.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-06529
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Nov. 8, 2022

Background

The order addressed two proposed class actions:

- Sanchez Johnson v. Insider Inc., No. 22 Civ. 6529 (AT); and - Darmel Roby, Jennifer Juenke, Jamie Spritzer, and Timothy Stokes v. Insider, Inc., No. 22 Civ. 6834 (AT).

In both cases, the plaintiffs sued the same defendant under the Video Privacy Protection Act. The complaints alleged that Insider, Inc.’s use of a “Meta Pixel” disclosed plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information and video-viewing history to Meta, Inc.

The court had notified the parties that it intended to consolidate the cases and invited requests to appoint interim counsel and objections to consolidation. No party opposed consolidation. The parties jointly submitted a proposed consolidation order stating that they had conferred and agreed that consolidation was appropriate.

Consolidation

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) allows related cases involving common legal or factual questions to be consolidated. The court concluded that consolidation was appropriate because the two actions involved common legal questions and likely would involve some common factual questions. The court also found that consolidation would avoid unnecessary cost, delay, and repetition.

The court therefore consolidated the two actions for all purposes under Rule 42(a), with No. 22 Civ. 6529 as the lead case. The Clerk of Court was directed to amend the caption to “In re Insider, Inc. Pixel-VPPA Litigation.”

Appointment of Interim Class Counsel

The plaintiffs asked the court to appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, and Girard Sharp LLP as co-lead interim class counsel, and Lowey Dannenberg P.C. as liaison counsel. Interim class counsel represents the proposed class before the court decides whether to certify a class and helps manage matters such as motions, discovery, class-certification proceedings, and settlement negotiations.

The court considered the factors used to evaluate proposed class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), including:

  1. the work counsel had done identifying or investigating potential claims;
  2. counsel’s experience with class actions, complex litigation, and the asserted claims;
  3. counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
  4. the resources counsel would commit to the case.

The court found that the firms had investigated the Meta Pixel and Insider’s website code, plaintiffs’ video-viewing activity, Facebook’s records, the potential legal claims, Insider’s corporate structure, the challenged conduct, and the adequacy of the named plaintiffs. The firms had also interviewed potential clients, consulted potential technical experts, and drafted and filed the complaints.

The court further found that the firms had substantial experience with complex consumer litigation, class actions, data-privacy actions, and VPPA actions; were familiar with the factual and legal issues likely to arise; and had sufficient personnel and resources to pursue the consolidated action. The court appointed Bursor, Milberg, and Girard as co-lead interim class counsel, with Lowey as liaison counsel.

Disposition and Deadlines

The court consolidated the cases and appointed the interim counsel described above. It also ordered that:

- the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint within 30 days of the order; - the defendant respond within 30 days after the consolidated complaint is filed; and - the parties file a jointly proposed case-management plan within 45 days of the order.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the counsel-appointment motion in No. 22 Civ. 6529, ECF No. 14, and consolidate the actions.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.