HeyJaredOlga Koroleva
- Indexed articles, last 90 days
- 9
- Latest publication
- Sep 25, 2026
- Outlet visibility, for natlawreview.com
- Top 1M sites
- Earliest in this view
- Jul 10, 2026
Latest articles
CAUGHT BETWEEN DEALER AND CUSTOMER: Court Finds Insurance Administrator Plausibly Initiated Texts And Rejects Established Business Relationship Exemption (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In Miller v. S. Brown & Associates, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01480-MWC-SSC, 2026 WL 2855518 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2026), the Court denied S. Brown & Associates’ (“SBA”) motion to dismiss in its entirety. Defendant raised the Seventh Circuit’s new text message decision that says “texts are not calls,” direct and vicarious liability, the established business relationship exemption, injunctive relief, and treble damages. Every argument failed, and the putative class action moves forward. SBA is an insuranc
SOLICITATION REQUIRES A SALE: Court Dismisses Dobronski’s Claim Because His Allegations Were Insufficient To Establish Marketing (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In Dobronski v. Credit Swag Ventures, Inc., No. 25-11777, 2026 WL 2804605 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2026), the Court granted in part and denied in part Credit & Debt’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Orozco’s motion to dismiss. What survives is Count I, the prerecorded voice claim, along with its proposed Robocall Class. The rest does not survive: the National DNC Registry claim, the caller ID claim, the two class definitions attached to them, the request for treble damages, the request for injunctive
FROM CALIFORNIA TO NEW JERSEY: Northern District of California Sends CIPA Website Tracking Class Action to New Jersey (opens the original)
Read excerpt
Riddle me this: the plaintiffs all live in California, the proposed class is California only, and the claims arise under California statutes. So why is the case now pending in New Jersey? In Brown v. WebMD LLC, No. 26-cv-02920-AMO, 2026 WL 2678210 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2026), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted WebMD’s motion to transfer venue and sent a website tracking class action to the District of New Jersey. The Court declined to rule on WebMD’s
HOW TO PLEAD CONSENT: Court Says “Plaintiffs Must Do More Than Merely Assert That They Did Not Consent To The Tracking Devices.” (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In In re Adobe Data Tracking Litigation, No. 25-cv-03032-NW, 2026 WL 2606992 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2026), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all nine claims in a putative privacy class action against Adobe. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot plead that he did not give consent by simply saying that he never gave it. Consent is an element of a CIPA claim and a complete defense to the common law privacy, California constitutional, and CDAFA claims,
CONSENT OR NO CONSENT?: Court Holds Ulta’s Privacy Policy Alone Is Not Enough For CIPA Consent (opens the original)
Read excerpt
In Arny Asercion v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings on California Invasion of Privacy Act claims. The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that its website privacy policy gave the plaintiff consent to install tracking technology. Arny Asercion v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., No. 26-CV-02442-RFL, 2026 WL 2453175 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2026). For businesses tha
Publishing over time
Last 90 days. Choose a month to open its work.
Recurring subjects
Named in the text we hold. One piece can cover several.
Audience
Top 1M sites
For natlawreview.com, the outlet · Measured Aug 1, 2026
Website popularity band, not a count of readers or article views.
About this data
Counts cover the work we have indexed. Tone needs enough text and a confident classification. Excerpts and episode notes are not full articles or transcripts.
Identity or attribution wrong? Suggest a correction.