Photo of Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy specializes in defending clients in complex, high-stakes disputes including class action and antitrust cases. Her practice includes privacy, antitrust, and consumer protection matters in the technology, entertainment, financial services, and food, drug, and cosmetic industries, among others, and she has significant experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws.

In putative privacy class action Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, involving  Comcast’s privacy and data-collection practices, Comcast moved to compel arbitration based on its subscriber agreement.  The district court denied the motion based on California’s McGill rule, which may invalidate arbitration agreements that purport to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Narrowly Defines “Public Injunctive Relief” in Privacy Case, Limiting Plaintiffs’ Ability to Circumvent Arbitration Agreements.

An Illinois state appellate court recently issued a ruling that could reduce defendants’ litigation exposure on certain types of Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) claims.  On September 17, the panel clarified in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (1st Dist. Sept. 17, 2021), that the statutes of limitation applicable to BIPA claims vary depending on the nature of the claim.  Claims for failing to provide a written retention policy, give notice, or obtain consent prior to collecting an individual’s biometric information may be brought within five years.  But claims for violating BIPA’s selling, disclosing, or disseminating information provisions must be brought within one year.

Continue Reading Illinois Court Splits Time on BIPA Statute of Limitations

Last year, Apple’s iOS14 incorporated a new feature notifying users when an app copied from the iPhone’s clipboard.  The feature resulted in media scrutiny for a number of well-known apps, some of which faced putative class action lawsuits as a result.  A court in the Eastern District of California recently dismissed one such suit, Mastel v. Miniclip SA, No. 2:21-cv-00124 (E.D. Cal.).  In that decision, the court rejected a broad interpretation of telephone “instrument” under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), concluding that non-telephonic smartphone functionality does not constitute a telephone instrument.
Continue Reading California Federal Court Adopts Narrow Reading of Telephone “Instrument” Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act