Insights

Los Angeles – May 9, 2024: Inner City Law Center recognized Crowell & Moring with the 2024 Humanitarian Award in recognition of the firm’s exemplary pro bono efforts to address the homeless crisis in Los Angeles. The Humanitarian Award is awarded annually to an individual or entity who has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to the underprivileged men, women, and children of Los Angeles. The award was presented at Inner City Law Center’s 24 Annual Awards Luncheon on May 8 in Los Angeles.

Washington – January 4, 2018: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that it has elected seven lawyers to the firm’s partnership, effective January 1, 2018. The firm has also promoted 23 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm’s Washington, New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles offices, and underscore the firm’s commitment to its Government Contracts, Litigation, Corporate, Environment & Natural Resources, International Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property, and Labor & Employment practices.

Washington, D.C. – January 11, 2011: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce it has elected three attorneys to the firm's partnership effective January 1, 2011. The firm has also promoted 18 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners and counsel have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm's Washington, D.C., New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Cairo offices.

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, which affirmed a class action award of approximately $40 million in statutory and punitive damages to a class of 8,185 individuals against TransUnion for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). In TransUnion, the Court affirmed and strengthened its recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a case which also involved an alleged violation of the FCRA, in which the Court held that mere procedural violations of a statute do not confer Article III standing.  Applying those principles, the Court held that 6,332 of the putative class members did not have standing to bring a suit for damages against TransUnion because they failed to demonstrate that they suffered a concrete harm as a result of TransUnion’s decision to place an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Alert on their credit files indicating that the plaintiffs’ names were a potential match to OFAC’s list of terrorists, drug traffickers, and other serious criminals. Given that the plaintiffs’ claims were largely based on a specific provision of the FCRA requiring consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” in consumer reports, this decision not only creates an additional obstacle for class action plaintiffs attempting to enforce federal statutes, but it also calls into question Congress’s ability to establish causes of action for procedural violations.

On Thursday, February 4, the 11th Circuit held that a plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing to sue based on an increased risk of identity theft. The 11th Circuit joins the 2d, 3d, 4th, and 8th Circuit’s in rejecting standing based on such allegations. However, the 6th, 7th, 9th, and D.C. Circuit have all held to the contrary that a plaintiff can establish Article III standing when the defendant’s conduct has increased the risk of identity theft. The circuit split augurs U.S. Supreme Court intervention on this question in the coming years, if not sooner.

On Tuesday, an Arizona state court denied a temporary restraining order sought by two Phoenix-area gyms to enjoin enforcement of Governor Ducey’s “re-closing” order. The lawsuit, brought by plaintiffs Mountainside Fitness and EOS Fitness who together operate 40 gyms, claimed violations of constitutional due process and equal protection rights.

From privacy class actions to federal and state investigations, liability for data-related activities continue to pose threats to companies in all sectors of the economy. This presentation will discuss emerging trends in data privacy and security breach litigation, and the strategies that companies can use when drafting contracts and agreements to anticipate disputes, and reduce exposure and protect assets, and, if needed, position to win on the merits. We will review some of the emerging threats and emphasize practical strategies to mitigate them, with drafting and negotiation tips and examples.

From privacy class actions to federal and state investigations, liability for data-related activities continue to pose threats to companies in all sectors of the economy. This presentation will discuss emerging trends in data privacy and security breach litigation, and the strategies that companies can use when drafting contracts and agreements to anticipate disputes, and reduce exposure and protect assets, and, if needed, position to win on the merits. We will review some of the emerging threats and emphasize practical strategies to mitigate them, with drafting and negotiation tips and examples.