MDL

Subscribe to MDL via RSS

Introduction

On Thursday, March 20, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to a settlement agreement under which Clearview AI (Clearview) agreed to pay an estimated $51.75 million to a nationwide class if one of several contingencies takes place. This approved settlement agreement resolves In Re: Clearview AI, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00135 (N.D. Ill.), a multidistrict suit alleging that the company’s automatic collection, storage, and use of biometric data violated various privacy laws, including Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The unorthodox settlement not only preserves Clearview’s business model, but may also insulate Clearview from subsequent or parallel regulatory investigations without requiring the company to jeopardize the liquidity necessary for continued growth. Ultimately, this settlement seems to represent a good outcome for the company, especially in light of the fact that that it was achieved over the objections from 23 state attorneys general (AG). U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman stated that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

On January 15, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Minnesota, and Illinois filed a lawsuit against Deere & Company (Deere). The complaint, which Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona have since joined, accuses Deere of creating and maintaining a repair services monopoly and engaging in anticompetitive business practices that interfere with farmers’ rights to repair their Deere agricultural equipment in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

Anticompetitive conduct remains a priority for state attorneys general (AGs), as evidenced by a preliminary settlement between the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and an 11-state coalition of AGs, including Virginia, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia recently entered. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice also signed the proposed settlement agreement. Filed in the Northern District of West Virginia, the antitrust lawsuit challenged the NCAA’s transfer eligibility rule. The proposed settlement agreement is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Bailey, who previously granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the transfer rule during the spring sports season.

On June 5, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in Texas v. Google, LLC ruled that the State Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2021 applies to pending state antitrust enforcement actions, including to actions the JPML previously centralized. Specifically, the JPML ordered that a 16-state multistate attorneys’ general antitrust litigation against Google should be remanded to federal court in Texas.