During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

Firm Profile

Privacy

Subscribe to Consumer Finance

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Consumer Finance Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

CFPB Announces FFIEC’s Information Technology Examination Privacy and Cybersecurity Handbook for Financial Institutions on “Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations” 

by Genevieve R. Walser-Jolly |

Today, the CFPB Announced that the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council ("FFIEC") issued a new booklet in the FFIEC Information Technology Examination Handbook series, titled “Architecture, Infrastructure, and Operations.”  The CFPB noted that the booklet provides expanded guidance to help financial institution examiners assess the risk profile and adequacy of an entity’s information technology architecture, infrastructure, and operations.  Implied in… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Applies Arbitration Clause Only to Product Purchasers in Data Sharing Case; Non-Purchasers Whose Data Was Gathered or Shared Need Not Arbitrate

by Scott J. Hyman |

In In re Ring LLC Privacy Litig., No. CV 19-10899-MWF (RAOx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118461, at *8 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2021), Judge Fitzgerald ordered the purchasers' claims to arbitration, but not so for the non-purchasers whose data allegedly was improperly gathered and/or shared.  The allegations were that The FAC alleges that Ring's security systems were defectively designed without… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Allows UCL Claim to Proceed against Google Arising from Alleged Improper Collection of Data

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Calhoun v. Google, LLC, Judge Koh allowed part of a claim against Google to proceed based Google Chrome's sharing of data with Google. Plaintiffs are users of Google’s Chrome browser who allege that they “chose not to ‘Sync’ their [Chrome] browsers with their Google accounts while browsing the web . . . from July 27, 2016 to the present.”… Read More

District Court (Cal.) Confirms CCPA’s Private Right of Action Is Not Retroactive

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Gardiner v. Walmart Judge Koh held that the CCPA was not retroactive. The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, and it does not contain an express retroactivity provision. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.198 (providing the CCPA “shall be operative January 1, 2020); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 3 (“[n]o part of [this Code] is retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”). Moreover,… Read More

District Court (Md.) Limits Discovery of Class Representative’s Cyber-Security Habits in Data Breach Case

by Scott J. Hyman |

In In re Marriott Int'l Customer Sec. Breach Litig., No. 19-MD-2879, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48477, at *57-68 (D. Md. Mar. 15, 2021), the Court recommended that although the class representative's device could be examined for other malware, the device could not be examined for whether the representative had good cyber-security habits. Marriott's protocol seeks inadmissible evidence and that even… Read More

11th Cir. Declines Standing to Data Theft Victim

by Scott J. Hyman |

In Tsao v. Captiva MVP Rest. Partnres, Ltd. Liab. Co., No. 18-14959, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3055 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2021), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that a data theft victim had no Articile III standing. We begin with Tsao's theory that he has Article III standing because he faces a "substantial risk of identity… Read More

Ambiguity in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Undermine Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Based on Article III Standing. Without Sensitive Information at Issue, Plaintiff Cannot Move Forward With an Intrusion on Seclusion Claim.

by Genevieve R. Walser-Jolly |

On February 2, 2021, Judge Susan Van Keulen, in the Northern District of California, denied in part and granted in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  Flores-Mendez et al v. Zoosk, Inc. et al. (N.D. CA; 3:20-cv-04929-WHA). Evaluating Article III standing based on Plaintiff's consent to Defendant's online privacy policy and terms of use, the Court held that: [i]f “the contract language… Read More

District Court (Cal.) says Plaintiffs are Entitled to Discovery on German Defendant’s Claim re Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Under a Negligence Claim, the Sensitive Nature of Data Held By A Dating App Carried Plaintiffs over the Pleading Threshold for a Duty of Care and the Fact that the Breach Occurred was Sufficient to Plead the Element of Breach.

by Genevieve R. Walser-Jolly |

On January 28, 2021, Judge Alsup, in the Northern District of California, denied in part and granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  Flores-Mendez et al v. Zoosk, Inc. et al. (N.D. CA; 3:20-cv-04929-WHA). Zoosk, a dating app, is a subsidiary of Spark.  Spark's principal place of business is in Berlin.  Spark filed a 12(b)(2) motion challenging the Court's personal… Read More

1 2 3 … 8