{"id":3302,"date":"2026-10-01T08:25:48","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T12:25:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=3302"},"modified":"2026-10-01T08:25:49","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T12:25:49","slug":"cutting-edge-class-action-issues-debated-at-perfect-law-conference-at-nyu-school-of-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2026\/10\/01\/cutting-edge-class-action-issues-debated-at-perfect-law-conference-at-nyu-school-of-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Cutting-Edge Class Action Issues Debated At Perfect Law Conference at NYU School Of Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:<\/em><\/strong> I had the privilege and honor of presenting on September 30 at the Perfect Law Class Action Conference at New York University School of Law. Practitioners and law professors from Europe, Canada, and the United States convened at NYU to debate cutting-edge class action issues involving privacy, securities fraud, products liability, and antitrust laws. The \u201cdebate\u201d between the plaintiffs\u2019 bar, defense lawyers, and academics made for an engaging and enlightening day. The full agenda is here – https:\/\/perfectlaw.co.uk\/<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dean Troy McKenzie of NYU School of Law gave the keynote address that identified the array of unanswered and evolving legal issues in the class action space. Along with Professor Samuel Issacharoff, Den McKenzie set the stage for discussion about the quickly and ever-evolving law in this area. At the same time, artificial intelligence is fueling change and accelerating developments on all continents. \u201cAI\u201d became a consensus concept during all the conference presentations in terms of its potential to transform class action litigation issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparative Jurisdictions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a follow up panel that included jurists from Europe and the United States, Judge Robert Dow \u2013 presently chief counsel for Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court and formerly a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois \u2013 asserted that tools to manage complex litigation are functioning well, despite their genesis some 60 years ago. Both Supreme Court decisional law and Congressional enactments \u2013 such as the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 \u2013 created heightened pleading requirements for litigating class actions and a preference for most of such cases being docketed in federal courts. As a result, class action litigation is growing, and federal courts are increasingly encountering cutting-edge class action issues as their caseloads expand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice Benjamin Glustein of the Ontario Superior Court of Ontario observed that class actions likewise are increasing in Canada, and unlike U.S. practice, claims are more apt to be certified, especially dealing with civil rights claims. Canadian class actions, as a result, are thriving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of Europe, law professor Miguel Ferror of the University of Lisbon and plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers Marc Grossman of Milberg and Luke Streatfield of Hausfeld talked about the rise of magnet jurisdictions in Europe, especially for antitrust claims in the United Kingdom. They opined that selection of jurisdiction is a high-stakes decision point for plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers in Europe. In this respect, certain jurisdictions are not optimal forums for collective redress lawsuits. For example, while Romania follows a regime of 20% presumed damages, they observed, in essence, that \u201cno one litigates in Romania\u201d because they do not trust the courts and legal outcomes there. Litigation funders, they opined, also take a close look at selections of venue and pertinent ethical rules in those jurisdictions in terms of mass or group-wide claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Privacy Class Actions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On a panel with three plaintiffs\u2019 privacy lawyers, I spoke on the rise and pervasiveness of privacy violations as a new frontier of class actions. In general terms, I opined that Article III standing requirements are critically important in this space. The case law is not necessarily consistent, the legal state of play is in flux, and many decisions turn on specific factual situations. I offered three distinct takeaways using a recent case from New York as an exemplar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First – <\/em><\/strong>There was an important decision from the Southern District of New York issued in August of last year that goes into great depth into the issues raised by these questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Re Zeta Global Privacy Litig<\/em>., No. 25 Civ. 5780, 2026 WL 2254612 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2025) (granting motion to dismiss a putative class action under ECPA and state consumer protection laws for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of injury in fact).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Zeta is a company that uses artificial intelligence to develop personalized marketing techniques aimed at helping brands acquire and retain customers. Id<\/em>. at *1. The named plaintiffs alleged that when they visited storefronts of business that use Zeta for this purpose, those businesses tracked them across the Internet; and that Zeta, and its clients, profited from collecting their PII. Id<\/em>.  Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged \u201cZeta uses this AI Engine to generate \u2018insights\u2019 which its clients can use to identify consumers who \u201ccan be targeted for specific lines of business.\u201d Id.<\/em> at 2. They alleged this creates significant monetary value as measured by how much clients pay to access the dataset. Id.<\/em> They sought damages under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (\u201cECPA\u201d), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2510, et seq.<\/em>, and various state consumer protection laws. Id<\/em>. at 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs argued that they pled two privacy-related harms traditionally recognized as adequate to confer standing: (1) invasion of privacy \u2013 at common law referred to as public disclosure of \u201cprivate facts,\u201d and (2) \u201cintrusion upon seclusion. Id<\/em>. at 4.  They also argued: (3) because defendants profited from monetizing their PII data and harmed \u201cplaintiffs\u2019 electronic device \u2018resources,\u2019 and caused a loss of control of their data.\u201d Id<\/em>. at *4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the first claim \u2013 disclosure of private information \u2013 the court explained that in the Second Circuit, the Article III standing analysis requires either \u201c\u2019actual injuries\u2019\u201d resulting from the disclosure or \u2018a substantial risk of harm\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. See FritzCo LLC v. Verizon Commc’ns Inc.<\/em>, No. 21 Civ. 10432, 2026 WL 734776, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2026). Id<\/em>. at 5.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    A \u201csubstantial risk of harm\u2019 is determined by \u201cwhether the type of data that has been exposed is sensitive such that there is a high risk of identity theft or fraud.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n