Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. – Class Action Defense

November 11, 2025November 11, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Greetings From Texas: Annual ABA Conference On Class Action Litigation

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Duane Morris Takeaways: Recently we had the privilege of attending this year’s annual ABA conference on class action litigation. Cutting-edge issues under Rule 23 were the focus of discussion among session leaders and attendees. The consistent theme is that case law precedents are in a state of constant flux – and the “new normal” is “change…”

Key cutting-edge issues are summarized below in terms of top-class action issues for 2025.

Data Breach Class Actions

The focal point in class actions over data breaches is discovery of consultant work in the aftermath of a breach and whether the work product is privileged or not. Plaintiffs’ advocates asserted that discovery of facts is always allowed and that companies have complete control over the technology environment when remediation efforts are undertaken in the wake of a data breach. Defense proponents contended that such consulting expert work is a prime example of protected work product. Case law, however, is somewhat all over the lot and data breach litigation is increasing in scope and complexity.

This issue underscores what class action practitioners agreed upon – data breach class actions are exceedingly complex, raises vexing choice-of-law issues under state law, and are challenging in terms of managing the litigation process.

Trials In Class Actions

Once a rarity, trials in class actions are beginning to become more mainstream. A panel session on trying a class actions discussed how challenging such a trial is given the stakes and financial exposures in “big” lawsuits.

As an adjunct professor of law at Northwestern, I teach trial advocacy. The skillsets taught in my law school class resonated in this session – have an “elevator” presentation for the jury that boils down the complexities of the case into an easily understood explanation of the plaintiffs’ theories and the defendant’s defenses. Both plaintiffs and defense lawyers agreed that the ability to craft an effective “elevator” speech pays dividends in the successful prosecution and/or defense of a class action in a trial setting.

As a federal judge on the panel advised, “less is more” in terms of trying a complex dispute in a manner that engages the attention of a jury (and a judge).

Unresolved Rule 23 Issues

While many areas of class-wide ligation are in flux, the number one issue prompted agreement from all practitioners – the unresolved issue from Lab. Corp. v. Davis on the impact of uninjured class members on class certification and damages models prepared by experts in class cases. The “uninjured class member” issue continues to drive diverse outcomes and uncertainty relative to the concepts of Article III standing and predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).

Attendees agreed that the issue is ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review after the dismissal of the certiorari grant for jurisdictional issue in Lab. Corp.

Collective Action Certification Standards

The standard for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act is in flux. In essence, there are four distinct standards depending on what circuit law applies. The majority standard is based on Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 99 F.R.D. 89 (D.N.J. 1983).

For decades, many federal courts have relied on the two-step Lusardi approach for collective action certification. Under the Lusardi standard for conditional certification, plaintiffs only had to make a “modest factual showing” that they were victims of a common illegal policy or plan. Most courts applying this standard refused to weigh evidence or consider opposing evidence presented by the defendant. Such lenient notice standards allow plaintiffs to expand the size of a wage & hour lawsuit, significantly increasing pressure to settle, regardless of the action’s actual merits.

In the past four years, the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeal have found that Lusardi’s two step approach is inconsistent with the text of the FLSA. Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC, 985 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2021); Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Swales, 985 F.3d at 443, the Fifth Circuit rejected Lusardi’s two-step approach outright, and required its district courts to “rigorously enforce” the FLSA’s similarity requirement at the outset of the litigation in a one-step approach. Similarly, in Clark, 68 F.4th at 1011, the Sixth Circuit adopted a comparable, but slightly more lenient standard, requiring the employee to show a “strong likelihood” that others are similarly situated to him or her before the district court can send notice.

In contrast, the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits continue to either follow or allow the district court to adopt the two-step framework outlined in Lusardi. Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 142 F.4th 678 (9th Cir. 2025); Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2001); Myers v. Hertz Corp., 624 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010); Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2001).

The Seventh Circuit, in a recent opinion written by Judge Thomas Kirsch, rejected the Lusardi framework but declined to go as far as Clark or Swales. The Seventh Circuit observed that the notice process should be facilitated by three guiding principles: (1) the timing and accuracy of notice; (2) judicial neutrality; and (3) the prevention of abuses of joinder. Richards v. Eli Lilly, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19667, at *14 7(th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025). It reasoned that the Lusardi standard threatened the latter two principles by “incentivizing defendants to settle early rather than attempt to ‘decertify’ at step two . . . transforming what should be a neutral case management tool into a vehicle for strongarming settlements and soliciting claims.” Id. at * 17. Thus, the Seventh Circuit rejected Lusardi, but what to do in the alternative was a more difficult question.

The Seventh Circuit decided that rather than endorse the rigid standards of Clark or Swales, its approach would be guided by “flexibility” and an analysis that is not an “all-or-nothing determination.” Id. at *19. Indeed, a plaintiff must now “make a threshold showing that there is a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective is similarly situated.” Id. at *21. Or, in other words, a plaintiff must “produce some evidence suggesting that they and the members of the proposed collective are victims of a common unlawful employment practice or policy.” Id, at *21-22. To counter a plaintiff’s evidence, an employer “must be permitted to submit rebuttal evidence and, in assessing whether a material dispute exists, courts must consider the extent to which plaintiffs engage with opposing evidence.” Id. at *22. It is not clear, however, the burden a plaintiff must satisfy to refute the defendant’s evidence to move forward.

This brewing circuit split suggest that U.S. Supreme Court review is necessary to resolve this important issue.

November 7, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Ohio Federal Court Applies Sixth Circuit’s Heightened Standard To Deny Certification Of Overtime Claims For Alleged Unpaid Pre-Shift Work

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Kathryn Brown

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Arble v. East Ohio Gas Company, et al., No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2025), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio denied the plaintiffs’ motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs based on application of the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard for FLSA certification. As a result of the court’s ruling, the lawsuit will proceed based on the claims of only three plaintiffs. The decision is essential reading for defendants in the Sixth Circuit seeking to defeat a motion for certification of FLSA claims.

Case Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 26, 2024, on behalf of a putative class and collective action of call center employees against an energy company that provides services throughout Ohio and the United States.

Plaintiff contended that the defendant had an unlawful practice of failing to pay wages to call center employees for time spent logging on and booting up their computer systems. She alleged that as a result of “off the clock” work prior to the start time of the shift, she and other call center workers worked in excess of 40 per workweek without receiving overtime pay. Plaintiff asserted claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

Two other call center employees filed consent forms to become opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs for purposes of their collective action per the FLSA. Defendants responded in opposition on April 22, 2025. The Court denied the motion as moot after granting Plaintiff’s separate motion to amend the complaint to add a party.

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for court-facilitated notice to a putative nationwide collective action of call center workers. Defendants responded in opposition on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs did not file a reply in further support of the motion.

As Ohio law no longer permits plaintiffs to pursue class action (opt-out) claims for unpaid overtime under Ohio state law, the Plaintiffs’ motion addressed only the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. See Ohio Rev. Code 4111.10(C).

The Court’s Ruling

The Court explained the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims under the pivotal decision of the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Clark, the Sixth Circuit abandoned the familiar two-step framework for conditional certification under the FLSA. In its place, the Sixth Circuit announced a new standard for facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA. Under the new standard, plaintiffs must demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that they are similarly situated to others with a showing “greater than the one necessary to create a genuine issue of material fact, but less than the one necessary to show a preponderance.” See Clark, 68 F.4th at 1010.

Upon application of the Clark standard, the Court concluded Plaintiffs fell far short of meeting their evidentiary burden to receive court-facilitated notice of their claims to others. The Court highlighted three primary deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ motion.

First, the Court found the Plaintiffs’ sworn declarations insufficient to show similarity to any other call center workers. The declarations failed to identify any other call center workers by name, failed to state any dates when Plaintiffs allegedly saw others performing pre-shift work, failed to explain how Plaintiffs knew that others experienced violations of the FLSA, and failed to connect Plaintiffs’ observations to any broader set of call center workers employed by Defendants inside or outside Ohio.

Next, the Court roundly rejected Plaintiffs’ reading of an employee handbook policy applicable to call center workers. Plaintiffs contended that a policy stating that workers must be on time and available to start work at the beginning of their shift supported their claims of widespread “off the clock” work in violation of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that a mere requirement for employees to be on time for work did not run afoul of the FLSA. Therefore, nothing on the face of the policy warranted court-supervised notice, nor did Plaintiffs explain how the policy proves a violation as to all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Finally, the Court found no basis in the record to send notice to the membership of a nationwide collective action. Plaintiffs, who each worked in Ohio, presented no evidence of how Defendants staffed or managed any call center outside of Ohio.

The Court reasoned that absent evidence linking Plaintiffs’ allegations to other call center workers, facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs “would amount to claim solicitation that the Court declines to undertake.” Id. at 6.

Having concluded that no basis existed to expand the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs under the Clark standard, the Court ordered that the case would proceed based on the claims of three Plaintiffs alone.

Implications For Defendants

In FLSA collective action litigation, the disposition of a motion for notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs is a central inflection point. The Court’s ruling in Arble illustrates the opportunity afforded to defendants in the wake of Clark to shrink the scope of an FLSA lawsuit by dissecting the purported evidence of similarity between the named plaintiff and other employees. Where plaintiffs rely on vague and conclusory allegations of widespread unlawful pay practices, defendants have an opportunity to defeat the plaintiffs’ efforts to expand the universe of party plaintiffs in the case, and thereby gain significant leverage in the lawsuit. Corporate counsel defending similar FLSA claims of unpaid overtime on behalf of a putative collective action ought to take note of the Court’s reasoning in Arble when preparing their defense strategy.

As the Northern District of Ohio’s ruling in Arble reflects, the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard under Clark poses a formidable hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome to obtain court-sanctioned notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

November 4, 2025November 4, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Federal Court Dismisses Adtech Class Action For Failure To Specify Highly Offensive Invasion Of Privacy

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, Tyler Zmick, and Hayley Ryan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 30, 2025, in DellaSalla, et al. v. Samba TV, Inc., 2025 WL 3034069 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025), Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a complaint brought by TV viewers against a TV technology company alleging that the company’s provision of advertising technology in the plaintiffs’ smart TVs committed the common law tort of invasion of privacy and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), and California’s Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”). The ruling is significant as it shows that in the hundreds of adtech class actions across the nation alleging that adtech violates privacy laws, plaintiffs do not plausibly state a common law claim for invasion of privacy unless they specify in the complaint the information allegedly disclosed and explain how such a disclosure was highly offensive. The case is also significant in that it shows that the VPPA does not apply to video analytics companies, and that California privacy statutes do not apply extraterritorially to plaintiffs located outside California.

Background

This case is one of a legion of class actions that plaintiffs have filed nationwide alleging that third-party technology captured plaintiffs’ information and used it to facilitate targeted advertising.

This software, often called advertising technologies or “adtech,” is a common feature of millions of consumer products and websites in operation today. In adtech class actions, the key issue is often a claim brought under a federal or state wiretap act, a consumer fraud act, or the VPPA, because plaintiffs often seek millions (and sometimes even billions) of dollars, even from midsize companies, on the theory that hundreds of thousands of consumers or website visitors, times $2,500 per claimant in statutory damages under the VPPA, for example, equals a huge amount of damages. Plaintiffs have filed the bulk of these types of lawsuits to date against healthcare providers, but they have filed suits against companies that span nearly every industry including retailers, consumer products, universities, and the adtech companies themselves. Several of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements, several have been dismissed, and the vast majority remain undecided.

In DellaSalla, the plaintiffs brought suit against a TV technology company that embedded a chip with analytics software in plaintiffs’ smart TVs. Id. at *1, 5. According to the plaintiffs, the company intercepted the plaintiffs’ “private video-viewing data in real time, including what [t]he[y] watched on cable television and streaming services,” and tied this information to each plaintiff’s unique anonymized identifier in order to “facilitate targeted advertising,” all allegedly without the plaintiffs’ consent. Id. at *1. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs claimed that the TV technology company violated the CIPA, CDAFA, and VPPA, and committed the common-law tort of invasion of privacy.

The company moved to dismiss, arguing that the CIPA and CDAFA did not apply because the plaintiffs were located outside California, that the VPPA did not apply because the TV technology company was not a “video tape service provider,” and that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a highly offensive violation of a privacy interest.

The Court’s Decision

The Court agreed with the TV technology company and dismissed the complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend any existing claims but not to add any additional claims without further leave.

On the CIPA and CDAFA claims, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not allege that any unlawful conduct occurred in California. Instead, the plaintiffs alleged that the challenged conduct occurred in their home states of North Carolina and Oklahoma. Id. at *1, 3-4. For these reasons, the Court dismissed the CIPA and CDAFA claims, finding that these statutes do not apply extraterritorially. Id.

On the VPPA claim, the Court addressed the VPPA’s definition of “video tape service provider,” which is “any person, engaged in the business … of rental, sale, or delivery of prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” Id. at *5. The plaintiffs argued that the TV technology company was a video tape service provider “because its technology is incorporated in Smart TVs, which deliver prerecorded videos. [The defendant] advertises its technology precisely as providing a ‘better viewing experience’ ‘immersive on-screen experiences’ and a ‘more tailored ad experience’ through its technology.” Id. The Court rejected this argument. It held that “[t]his allegation does not plausibly support an inference, [the defendant]—an analytics software provider—facilitated the exchange of a video product. Rather, the allegations support an inference [the defendant] collected information about Plaintiffs’ use of a video product, but not that it provided the product itself.” Id. (emphasis added).

On the common law claim for invasion of privacy, the TV technology company argued that this claim failed because the plaintiffs “have no expectation of privacy in the information it collects and Plaintiffs have not alleged a highly offensive intrusion.” In examining this argument, the Court noted that Plaintiff had only provided “vague references” to the information supposedly intercepted. Id. at *4. This information included video-viewing data generally (none specified) tied to an anonymized identifier. Id. at *1, 5. Thus, the Court agreed with the defendant’s argument and found that plaintiffs identified “no embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected” and no explanation of how the tracking of video viewing history with an anonymized ID caused plaintiffs “to experience any kind of harm that is remotely similar to the ‘highly offensive’ inferences or disclosures that were actionable at common law.” Id. at *5. In sum, the Court concluded that “Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a highly offensive violation of a privacy interest.”

Implications For Companies

DellaSala provides powerful precedent for any company opposing adtech class action claims (1) brought under statutes enacted in states other than the plaintiffs’ place of residence; (2) brought under the federal VPPA where the company allegedly transmitted video usage information, as opposed to any videos themselves; and (3) alleging common-law invasion of privacy, where the plaintiffs have not specified the information disclosed and why such a disclosure is highly offensive.

The last point is a recurring theme in adtech class actions. Just as this plaintiff suing a TV technology company did not plausibly state a common-law claim for invasion of privacy without identifying the videos watched and any highly offensive harm in associating those videos with an anonymized ID, so did a plaintiff not plausibly state a claim for invasion of privacy by way of alleging adtech’s disclosure of protected health information (“PHI”), without specifying the PHI allegedly disclosed (as we blogged about here). These cases show that for adtech plaintiffs to plausibly plead claims for invasion of privacy, they at least need to identify what allegedly private information was disclosed and explain how the alleged disclosure was highly offensive.

November 4, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

New York State (Court) Of Mind: New York Federal Court Remands Allstate Data Breach Case To State Court For Lack Of Federal Question Jurisdiction

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Ryan T. Garippo, and Elizabeth G. Underwood

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 28, 2025, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the People of the State of New York’s (the “State”) motion to remand in New York v. Nat’l Gen. Holdings Corp., No. 25 Civ. 03608, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212731 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2025). The State alleged that National General Holdings Corporation violated various state laws related to data protection programs and notifications to affected individuals when data breaches in 2020 and 2021 exposed the corporation’s customer information. This case reinforces the concept that a plaintiff is indeed the master of the complaint and can strategically craft their complaint to ensure that a case is litigated in state court.

Case Background

The State sued Allstate Insurance Company when one of its units, National General Holdings Corporation (the “Defendants”), was involved in two data breaches in 2020 and 2021, exposing nearly 200,000 consumers’ drivers’ license numbers to hackers. The State alleged that the Defendants failed to protect customers’ sensitive information and did not inform customers that their data was stolen.

Importantly, the complaint did not assert any cause of action under federal law. Instead, the complaint alleged that the Defendants violated three federal statutes, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (“HITECH”). The State brought the action against the defendants pursuant to New York State General Business Law (“GBL”) §§ 349, 350, 899-aa, and 899-bb, and New York Executive Law § 63(12).

Based on the inclusion of allegations that they violated federal law, the Defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441, invoking the Court’s ability to decide a federal question. The State, however, moved to remand the case and for attorney’s fees incurred due to the removal.

Magistrate Judge Robert Lehrburger concluded in a report and recommendation that the Court lacked federal subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the causes of action (1) were not created by federal law and (2) did not satisfy the standard set forth in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), and Grable & Songs Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (the “Gunn-Grable” test). ECF 55. Under the Gunn-Grable test, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal issue is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258.

In his report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger determined that the third element as to whether a federal issue was “substantial” was not satisfied. This inquiry looks to “the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole,” not just the issues of one case. Id. at 260. In this case, the Defendants argued that the substantiality requirement was met because of the substantial federal interests in data privacy and national security; however, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger found these arguments were unpersuasive and recommended that the Court remand the case but not award attorney’s fees to the State.

The Court’s Opinion

In an opinion written by Judge Lewis Kaplan, the Court agreed with Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s reasoning and held that the case did not pass the Gunn-Grable test.

The Court determined that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger correctly rejected the Defendants’ argument that the State’s claims satisfy the Gunn-Grable test as to the “substantiality” element. First, the Court found that the Defendants’ argument as to whether the New York State Attorney General had the authority to enforce the federal GLBA was “entirely inapt” because the complaint did not allege any GLBA claims. Nat’l Gen. Holdings Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212731, at *3. Second, the Court held that the federal government’s interest in data privacy was insufficient to meet the Gunn-Grable test. Third, the Court determined that the federal law questions implicated by the state law claims, including whether defendants are insulated from liability under state law if the defendants’ data protection programs and data breach notification procedures were in compliance with federal law, “are inherently fact-intensive and therefore likely would not provide guidance in future cases.” Id. at *4.

Moreover, the Court also rejected the Defendants’ argument that whether the GLBA preempts the New York Attorney General from bringing the state law claims is a substantial federal question, reasoning that the question was not “necessarily raised” and that preemption is an affirmative defense that may not serve as the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 4–5. Finally, the Court held that none of the three exceptions to the well-pleaded complaint rule applied because the Defendants did not assert the first two exceptions, and the third exception would have had to pass the Gunn-Grable test, which it did not.

Implications For Companies

Nat’l Gen. Holdings Corp. serves as a cautionary reminder of the uphill battles that corporate defendants often face to remove to and then keep bet-the-company litigation in federal court.

Although it is not uncommon for a corporation to prefer “federal courts because it fears a corporate defendant . . . will not get a fair trial in state court,” the road to get there is not always guaranteed. See, e.g., Hosein v. CDL West 45th Street, LLC, No. 12 Civ. 06903, 2013 WL 4780051, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2013). As on display here, the Nat’l Gen. Holdings Corp. opinion shows that corporate defendants may not even get to litigate in a federal forum even when there are allegations that they violated federal law.

As a result, corporate counsel should be aware that relying on a state law claim involving an embedded federal issue, as the basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, may not be successful in 100% of cases, but it may be worth a chance to attempt to remove the case to federal court if it is the company’s only opportunity to obtain a fair trial.

October 29, 2025October 29, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Illinois Federal Court Allows Plaintiffs To Proceed In Data Breach Class Action Anonymously

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Brett Bohan, and Andrew Quay

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 22, 2025, in Doe, et al. v. Veradigm Inc., No. 25-CV-10147, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 22, 2025), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a class action alleging violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and negligence for improper disclosure of plaintiffs’ protected health information (“PHI”). The Court held that the potential harm to the plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment because revealing their identities would exacerbate the very harm plaintiffs sought to remedy.

The decision illustrates the delicate balancing that courts apply when deciding whether to allow plaintiffs to proceed anonymously, particularly when faced with allegations of improper disclosure of highly sensitive personal information including test results, doctor’s notes, and medical treatment information. When plaintiffs’ reasons for proceeding anonymously implicate the same reasons they brought the lawsuit, like in Veradigm, the scales are demonstrably tipped in favor of proceeding under a pseudonym.

Case Background

In August 2025, plaintiffs, proceeding under the pseudonyms “Jane Doe,” “Janet Doe,” and “John Doe,” filed a class action lawsuit against Veradigm alleging improper disclosure of their PHI to Google via Google’s online marketing systems. Id. at *1. Plaintiffs contended that the disclosure would make them particularly vulnerable if their true names were revealed, as the publication of their names together with improperly released PHI would make them a “prime target” for identity theft, fraud and financial loss, stigma, and similar threats. Id. at *2.

Plaintiffs’ initial motion to proceed under a pseudonym was denied without prejudice for failing to address recent Seventh Circuit precedent, Doe v. Loyola Univ. Chicago, 100 F.4th 910 (7th Cir. 2024), and Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wis., 112 F.3d 869, 872 (7th Cir. 1997). Id at *1. In Loyola, the expelled plaintiff sought to proceed anonymously where he was accused of engaging in non-consensual sexual activity with another student. 100 F.4th at 912. In Blue Cross, the plaintiff requested anonymity out of fear that the litigation might result in the disclosure of his psychiatric records. 112 F.3d at 872. The Seventh Circuit indicated that it was inappropriate to allow the plaintiffs to proceed under fictitious names. See id.; Loyola, 100 F.4th at 914.

In their renewed motion in the case at hand, plaintiffs argued that Loyola and Blue Cross could be distinguished because, rather than concealing embarrassing information flowing from their own conduct, plaintiffs seek to prevent additional intrusions into their own private affairs. Veradigm, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942at *2. Plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities to Veradigm pursuant to a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims. Id. at *4-5.

The Court’s Opinion

The Court agreed that the sensitive information in Loyola and Blue Cross was “tangential” to the respective Title IX and ERISA claims, whereas in the case at bar “the injury litigated against is the same interest Plaintiffs seek to protect through pseudonyms: disclosure of Plaintiffs’ PHI.” Id. at *4. Furthermore, there could be no prejudice to Veradigm where the plaintiffs agreed to reveal their true identities under a protective order to allow Veradigm to investigate their claims. Id. at *4-5. Therefore, although the use of fictitious names is generally disfavored in federal court, the harm to plaintiffs in revealing their identities exceeded the likely harm from concealment, and the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under a pseudonym.

An analogous decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig., No. 22-CV-03580, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45310 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2025), guided the opinion. There, as in Veradigm, the court considered whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under pseudonyms where data privacy was at issue. Id. at *12. It held that they should, reasoning that requiring the plaintiffs to proceed publicly would “arguably cause a further and greater privacy intrusion” and disclosure may dissuade plaintiffs from bringing privacy cases. Id. The court in Veradigm adopted this reasoning when granting plaintiffs’ motion for permission to proceed under a pseudonym. Veradigm, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207942 at *4-5.

Implications for Companies

Veradigm illustrates that, where the privacy of an individual is at issue in a lawsuit, courts may be more inclined to permit plaintiffs to proceed anonymously to avoid intruding further on their privacy.

Individuals who know that they may be able to avoid disclosing their identities during litigation may feel emboldened to pursue a data privacy lawsuit that they may not have otherwise.

Therefore, companies should be aware of the risk of additional litigation as the result of plaintiffs being permitted to litigate under pseudonyms.

October 27, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

New York Federal Court’s OpenAI Discovery Orders Provide Key Insights For Companies Navigating AI Preservation Standards

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, and Hayley Ryan

Duane Morris Takeaways: In a series of discovery rulings in the case of In Re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation, No. 23 Civ. 11195 (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a series of orders that signal how courts are likely to approach AI data, privacy, and discovery obligations. Judge Wang’s orders illustrate the growing tension between AI system transparency and data privacy compliance – and how courts are trying to balance them.

For companies that develop or use AI, these rulings highlight both the risk of expansive preservation demands and the opportunity to share proportional, privacy-conscious discovery frameworks. Below is an overview of these decisions and the takeaways for in-house counsel, privacy officers, and litigation teams.

Background

In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preservation order in a copyright action challenging the use of The New York Times’ content to train large language models. The order required OpenAI to preserve and segregate certain output log data that would otherwise be deleted. Days later, the Court denied OpenAI’s motion to reconsider or narrow that directive. By October 2025, however, the Court approved a negotiated modification that terminated OpenAI’s ongoing preservation obligations while requiring continued retention of the already-segregated data.

The Court’s Core Rulings

Forward-Looking Preservation Now, Arguments Later

On May 13, 2025, the Court entered an order requiring OpenAI to preserve and segregate output log data that would otherwise be deleted, including data subject to user deletion requests or statutory erasure rights. See id., ECF No. 551. The rationale: once litigation begins, even transient data can be critical to issues like bias and representativeness. The Court stressed that it was too early to weigh proportionality, so preservation would continue until a fuller record emerged.

Reconsideration Denied, Preservation Continues

A few days later, when OpenAI sought reconsideration or modification of preservation order, the Court denied the request without prejudice. Id., ECF No. 559. The Court noted that it was premature to decide proportionality and potential sampling bias until additional information was developed.

A Negotiated “Sunset” and Privacy Carve-Outs

By October 2025, the parties agreed to wind down the broad preservation obligation. On October 9, 2025, the Court approved a stipulated modification that ended OpenAI’s ongoing preservation duty as of September 26, 2025, limited retention to already-segregated logs, excluded requests originating from the European Economic Area, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom for privacy compliance, and added targeted, domain-based preservation for select accounts listed in an appendix. Id., ECF No. 922.

This evolution — from blanket to targeted, time-limited preservation — shows courts’ willingness to adapt when parties document technical feasibility, privacy conflicts, and litigation need.

Implications For Companies

Evidence vs. Privacy: Courts Expect You to Reconcile Both

These rulings show that courts will not accept “privacy law conflicts” as a stand-alone excuse to delete potentially relevant data. Instead, companies must show they can segregate, anonymize, or retain data while maintaining compliance. The OpenAI orders make clear: when evidence may be lost, segregation beats destruction.

Proportionality Still Matters

Even as courts push for preservation, they remain attentive to proportionality. While early preservation orders may seem sweeping, judges are open to refining them once the factual record matures. Companies that track the cost, burden, and privacy impact of compliance will be best positioned to negotiate tailored limits.

Preservation Is Not Forever

The October 2025 stipulation illustrates how to exit an indefinite obligation: offer targeted cohorts, geographic exclusions, and sunset provisions supported by a concrete record. Courts will listen if you bring data, not just arguments.

A Playbook for In-House Counsel

Map Your AI Data Universe

Inventory all AI-related data exhaust: prompts, outputs, embeddings, telemetry, and retention settings. Identify controllers, processors, and jurisdictions.

Build “Pause” Controls

Design systems capable of segregating or pausing deletion by user, region, or product line. This technical agility is key when a preservation order issues.

Update Litigation Hold Templates for AI

Traditional holds miss ephemeral or system-generated data. Draft holds that instruct teams how to pause automated deletion while complying with privacy statutes.

Propose Targeted Solutions

When facing broad discovery demands, offer alternatives: limit by time window, geography, or user cohort. Courts will accept reasonable, well-documented compromises.

Build Toward an Off-Ramp

Preservation obligations can sunset — but only if supported by metrics. Track preserved volumes, costs, and privacy burdens to justify targeted, defensible limits.

Conclusion

The OpenAI orders reflect a new judicial mindset: preserve broadly first, negotiate smartly later. AI developers and data-driven businesses should expect similar directives in future litigation. Those that engineer for preservation flexibility, document privacy compliance, and proactively negotiate scope will avoid the steep costs of one-size-fits-all discovery — and may even help set the industry standard for balanced AI litigation governance.

October 23, 2025October 23, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Webinar Replay: Year-End Review Of EEOC Enforcement Litigation & Strategy

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaway: Thank you to all the loyal blog readers and followers who joined us for our Year-End EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review webinar! In this 30-minute program, Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis analyzed the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025, and discussed how heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.

If you were unable to attend the webinar, it is now available on our podcast channel. Click to watch below and stay tuned for important EEOC trends and developments throughout the year.

October 21, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

California Federal Court Narrows CIPA “In-Transit” Liability for Common Website Advertising Technology and Urges Legislature to Modernize Privacy Law

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin Donoho, Hayley Ryan, and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 17, 2025, in Doe v. Eating Recovery Center LLC, No. 23-CV-05561, ECF 167 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025), Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to Eating Recovery Center, finding no violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) where the Meta Pixel collected website event data. Specifically, the Court held that Meta did not “read” those contents while the communications were “in transit.” In so holding, the Court applied the rule of lenity, construed CIPA narrowly, and urged the California Legislature “to step up” and modernize the statute for the digital age. Id. at 2.

This decision is significant because Judge Chhabria candidly described CIPA as “a total mess,” noting it is often “borderline impossible” to determine whether the law – enacted in 1967 to criminalize wiretapping and eavesdropping on confidential communications – applies to modern internet transmissions. Id. at 1. As the Court observed, CIPA “was a mess from the get-go, but the mess gets bigger and bigger as the world continues to change and as courts are called upon to apply CIPA’s already-obtuse language to new technologies.” Id. This is a “must read” decision for corporate counsel dealing with privacy issues and litigation.

Background

This class action arose after plaintiff, Jane Doe, visited Eating Recovery Center’s (ERC) website to research anorexia treatment and later received targeted advertisements. Plaintiff alleged that ERC’s use of the Meta Pixel caused Meta to receive sensitive URL and event data from her interactions with ERC’s site, resulting in targeted ads related to eating disorders.

ERC had installed the standard Meta Pixel on its website, which automatically collected page URLs, time on page, referrer paths, and certain click events to help ERC build custom audiences for advertising. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleged that ERC’s use of the Pixel allowed Meta to intercept her communications in violation of CIPA, Cal. Penal Code § 631(a). She also brought claims under the California Medical Information Act (CMIA), the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and for common law unjust enrichment. The UCL claim was dismissed at the pleading stage.

ERC later moved for summary judgment on the remaining CIPA, CMIA, and unjust enrichment claims. In a separate order, the Court granted summary judgment on the CMIA and unjust enrichment claims, finding that plaintiff was not a “patient” under the CMIA and that there was no evidence ERC had been unjustly enriched. See id., ECF 168 at 1-2.

The Court’s Decision

With respect to the CIPA claim, the parties disputed two elements under CIPA § 631(a): (1) whether the event data obtained by Meta constituted “contents” of plaintiff’s communication with ERC, and (2) whether Meta read, attempted to read, or attempted to learn those contents while they were “in transit.” ECF 167 at 6.

The Court first held that URLs and event data can constitute the “contents” of a communication because they can reveal substantive information about a user’s activities – such as researching medical treatment. Id. at 7. The court thus deviated from other courts that have held differently on this particular issue when considering additional facts or allegations not addressed by this court (such as encryption, and inability to reasonably identify the data among lines of code). However, the Court concluded that Meta did not read or attempt to learn any contents while the communications were “in transit.” Instead, Meta processed the data only after it had reached its intended recipient (i.e., ERC, the website operator).

In reaching that conclusion, Judge Chhabria relied on undisputed testimony about Meta’s internal filtering processes: “Meta’s corporate representative testified that, before logging the data that it obtains from websites, Meta filters URLs to remove information that it does not wish to store (including information that Meta views as privacy protected).” Id. at 8.

This evidence supported the finding that Meta’s conduct involved post-receipt filtering rather than contemporaneous “reading” or “learning.” Id. at 9. The Court emphasized that expanding “in transit” to include post-receipt processing would improperly criminalize routine website analytics practices. Because CIPA is both a criminal statute and a source of punitive civil penalties, the Court applied the rule of lenity to adopt a narrow interpretation. Id. at 11-12. The Court further cautioned that an overly broad reading would render CIPA’s related provision (§ 632, prohibiting eavesdropping and recording) largely redundant. Id. at 10.

Finding that Meta did not read, attempt to read, or attempt to learn the contents of Doe’s communications while they were in transit, the court granted summary judgment to ERC on the CIPA claim. Id. at 12.

The opinion concluded by reiterating that California’s decades-old wiretap law is “virtually impossible to apply [] to the online world,” urging the Legislature to “go back to the drawing board on CIPA,” and suggesting that it “would probably be best to erase the board entirely and start writing something new.” Id.

Implications For Companies

The Doe decision narrows one significant avenue for CIPA liability, particularly for routine use of website analytics and advertising pixels. The Northern District of California has now drawn a distinction between data “read” while in transit and data processed after receipt, significantly reducing immediate CIPA exposure for standard web advertising tools.

At the same time, the court’s reasoning underscores that pixel-captured data may be considered by some courts as “contents” of a communication under CIPA, although there is a split of authority on this issue. Companies could therefore face potential exposure under other California privacy statutes, including the CMIA, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), depending on the data involved and how it is used.

Organizations should continue to inventory the data they share through advertising technologies, minimize sensitive information in URLs, and ensure clear and accurate privacy disclosures. Because the court expressly invited legislative reform, companies should also monitor ongoing case law and potential statutory amendments.

Ultimately, Doe v. Eating Recovery Center reflects a pragmatic narrowing of CIPA’s “in transit” requirement while reaffirming that CIPA was not intended to cover common website advertising technologies or, in any event, should not be interpreted as such given the harsh statutory penalties involved and the rule of lenity — like the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts concluded regarding Massachusetts’ wiretap act, as we previously blogged about here. While this case is a big win for website operators, companies relying on third-party analytics should treat this decision as guidance—not immunity—and continue adopting privacy-by-design principles in their data collection and vendor management practices.

October 20, 2025October 20, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up The Transportation Worker Exemption Again

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On October 20, 2025, in Flower Foods, et al. v. Brock, No. 23-0936 (U.S.), the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to decide whether last-mile delivery drivers are considered transportation workers, and thus exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), when the driver’s route is purely intrastate.

The decision will have sweeping implications for logistics companies and any business employing delivery drivers across the country.

Case Background

Flower Foods, Inc. (“Flower Foods”) operates one of the largest bakery companies in the United States. Under Flower Foods’ business model, the company contracts with independent distributors who purchase the rights to distribute products in specific territories. The delivery-driver distributors “stock shelves, maintain special displays, and develop and preserve positive customer relations.” Brock v. Flower Foods, Inc., 121 F. 4th 753, 757 (10th Cir. 2024). Flower Foods “produces and markets the baked goods.” Id.

Flower Foods delivers the products it produces, via these delivery-driver distributors, who are classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”). These products are usually produced in out-of-state bakeries, but then shipped to a local warehouse, where the local delivery driver picks them up to sell retail stores. This process is more commonly known as “last-mile delivery.” Plaintiff Angelo Brock (“Plaintiff or “Brock”), through his company Brock, Inc., was one of those delivery drivers. When Brock started delivering Flower Foods’ products, he entered into a Distributor Agreement that contained a “Mandatory and Binding Arbitration” clause, which required nearly all disputes to be arbitrated under the FAA. Id. at 758.

Nonetheless, Brock filed a putative collective and class action under the FLSA, and Colorado labor law, claiming that Flower Foods misclassified him and other delivery-driver distributors as independent contractors. As a result, Flower Foods moved to compel arbitration, but the U.S. District Court for Colorado denied its request. The District Court concluded that Brock fell within the ‘‘transportation workers exemption” of the FAA, which exempts transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce from arbitration. The District Court reasoned that, although Brock did not cross state lines, he ‘‘actively engaged in the transportation of [the company’s] products across state lines into Colorado” and thus was covered by the exemption. Id. at 759. Flower Foods appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Lower Court Opinion

On appeal, and on November 12, 2024, Judge Gregory Phillips, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, affirmed the District Court’s decision that delivery-driver distributors were exempt from the FAA. Judge Phillips explained that, although Brock’s routes were entirely within Colorado, a transportation worker need not cross state lines to qualify for the exemption. Instead, individuals qualify as transportation workers if they play a direct and necessary role in the interstate flow of goods.

Relying on decisions from the First and Ninth Circuits, which also concluded “that last-mile delivery drivers . . . who make the last intrastate leg of an interstate delivery route . . . are directly engaged in interstate commerce,” the Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion. Id. at 762. The Tenth Circuit explained that “[b]oth [other] circuits focused on whether the goods moved in a continuous interstate journey or as part of multiple independent transactions.” Id. Thus, the flow of interstate commerce did not stop when “Brock start[ed] the interstate delivery process by placing orders for products produced in out-of-state bakeries” and Flower Foods “deliver[ed] the products to the agreed-upon warehouse,” only for Brock to “load the products at the warehouse onto his vehicle and deliver[] the goods to retail stores on his intrastate delivery route” within one day. Therefore, Brock and other delivery-driver distributors were exempt under the FAA even though they did not cross state lines. But, Flower Foods decided to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take a third look at the issue.

On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, without a making any other comment, in its two-word order holding “certiorari granted.”

In some ways, this decision is not surprising as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided two recent cases under the transportation worker exemption: Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024). The decision in Brock, however, is poised to be the most impactful of all three of the cases.

Implications For Employers

The importance of the ultimate decision in Brock cannot be overstated. In both Saxon and Bissonnette, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded the reach of the transportation worker exemption making it increasingly difficult for employers to move to compel arbitration in class and collective actions brought by workers in logistics-adjacent positions

If workers who engage in wholly intrastate commerce fall within the exemption’s reach, it may require a fundamental re-structuring of many employers’ arbitration programs. In contrast, if these workers and independent contractors are not exempt from the requirements of the FAA, then employers may finally be able to rest easy knowing that their arbitration defenses remain viable for at least a portion of their workforce.

Although only time will tell what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide, corporate counsel should follow this blog for updates because the authors will be watching this case closely. Oral arguments are likely to occur during Fall 2025 and a decision will follow in Spring 2026.

October 20, 2025October 20, 2025 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Third Circuit Green Lights “Hybrid” Class Action Settlements That Release Unasserted FLSA Claims

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Tyler Zmick

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Lundeen v. 10 West Ferry Street Operations, LLC, No. 24-3375 (3d Cir. Oct. 16, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the opt-in requirement set forth in Section 216(b) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) does not prohibit plaintiffs in a class action from settling prospective class members’ unasserted FLSA claims as part of an opt-out class settlement. In a precedential and unanimous opinion, the Third Circuit concluded that Section 216(b) establishes only the mechanism by which FLSA claims may be litigated, not the conditions under which they may be released. The decision is welcome news for both plaintiffs and defendants, as the case makes it easier for parties to settle “hybrid” cases asserting claims under both federal and state wage-and-hour laws.

Background

Plaintiff Graham Lundeen alleged that Defendant – his former employer, and the owner of a restaurant and bar – violated the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”) in connection with its tip-pooling practices. Plaintiff styled his case as a “hybrid” class/collective action, asserting that his FLSA claim should proceed as a collective action under Section 216(b) and that his PMWA claim should proceed as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

The parties reached a settlement under which class members would agree to release their claims, including those arising under the FLSA, even if class members did not submit claim forms, submit opt-in consent forms, or receive settlement payouts.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, ruling that the settlement “was ‘neither fair nor reasonable’ because it ‘require[d] class members who did not opt in to the FLSA collective to release their FLSA claims.’” Id. at 6.

The Third Circuit’s Decision

After accepting the parties’ interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s ruling and held that Section 216(b) does not bar approval of a Rule 23 settlement that includes the release of “unasserted FLSA claims.” Id. at 10-11. In reaching its conclusion, the Third Circuit began with the text of Section 216(b):

An action to recover the liability prescribed in the preceding sentences [for failure to pay statutorily required overtime or minimum wages under the FLSA] may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated. No employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.

Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).

Acknowledging that no other federal circuit has resolved the split among district courts regarding the propriety of “hybrid” settlements, the Third Circuit ultimately sided “with those courts that have held that § 216(b) of the FLSA provides only a mechanism for opting into collective litigation.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added). In other words, Section 216(b) “requires written consent to litigate FLSA claims, but it does not forbid the release of unasserted claims through a Rule 23(b)(3) opt-out settlement.” Id. at 16 (emphases added).

The Third Circuit concluded with an important caveat, however, emphasizing that while the FLSA does not prohibit settlements through which Rule 23 class members release unasserted FLSA claims, that does not mean such settlements are always permissible: “[W]hether judges can approve opt-out settlements that release FLSA claims is a different inquiry from whether judges should do so. The former question is an issue of statutory interpretation; the latter turns on whether the settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate,’ subject to the District Court’s considerable discretion.” Id. at 16-17 (internal citation omitted). Thus, “while § 216(b) does not forbid the release of unasserted FLSA claims in opt-out settlements, such releases remain relevant to the court’s overall Rule 23(e)(2) analysis.” Id. at 18.

Implications Of The Decision

The Lundeen decision provides clarity on the proper scope of “hybrid” settlements involving the simultaneous release of FLSA claims and Rule 23 class claims premised on state wage-and-hour laws. Moving forward, defendants settling such claims will likely rely on Lundeen to broaden their settlements to cover the FLSA claims of all individuals within the Rule 23 settlement class, even if such individuals do not affirmatively opt into the case. This will give defendant-employers closure and alleviate potential risks as to whether settlement class members who did not opt into the case retain their rights to bring FLSA claims.

Parties should take heed of the caveat noted by the Third Circuit, however – namely, that a class settlement involving the release of unasserted FLSA claims will not automatically pass muster. Rather, district courts must still consider whether a class settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” To increase the likelihood that courts will approve “hybrid” class settlements, parties should ensure their proposed settlements satisfy the Rule 23(e)(2) “fairness” factors, including by: providing clear notice to class members of the scope of the release and a meaningful opportunity to opt out; and ensuring that the relief provided to the class is adequate when accounting for the costs and risks of litigation, the method of distributing relief to the class, and the terms of any proposed award of attorney’s fees.