HB Litigation News

Author: Tom Hagy

“Years of Deception” Behind Consumer Privacy Violations Alleged
Mental Health Platform’s Data Sharing Practices Challenged.
- BetterHelp allegedly shared personal identifiable info with third parties.
- FTC files administrative complaint asserting “years of deception.”
- Days later, two class actions were filed in the Northern District of California.
Photo by Nik Shuliahin 💛💙 on Unsplash

Online mental health company BetterHelp, Inc. is facing allegations on two fronts for allegedly sharing personal identifiable information with third parties and breaching consumer privacy.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) initiated an administrative complaint against the California-based online mental health company on March 2, 2023, after what they call years of deceptive practices and blatant denial of a media report published by Jezebel in February 2020. The article cited evidence that BetterHelp shares sensitive patient information and email account information with third parties such as Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest.

Days after the FTC filed its complaint, consumers filed two class actions in the Northern District of California’s San Jose Division (C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc., March 7, 2023, 5:23-cv-01033 and Jane Doe v. BetterHelp, Inc., March 11, 2023, 5:23-cv-01096). Both consumer privacy lawsuits state that their facts are largely supported by experts in the field of data privacy.

BetterHelp is a Delaware corporation with its principal office or place of business in Mountain View, Calif. On its website the company claims it is the “world’s largest therapy platform” with more than 25,000 licensed therapists available. BetterHelp operates generalized mental health therapy services and operates specialized therapy services for members of the LGBTQ community, members of the Christian Faith, Spanish-speaking clients, and teen counseling with parental consent. BetterHelp founder Alon Matas stated in a Medium article published Oct. 8, 2018, that, “One of our core missions is to destigmatize mental health. We firmly believe that nobody should ever feel ashamed or embarrassed to reach out for help.”

Explosive Growth

The FTC complaint states that BetterHelp’s website and app “has seen explosive growth over the last few years,” adding more than 118,000 U.S. users in 2018, 158,000 in 2019, and 641,000 in 2020. BetterHelp required new users between August 2017 to December 2020 to fill out mandatory questionnaires. These intake questionnaires reportedly ask a user’s age, marital status, whether they’ve been in therapy before, how they rate their sleeping and eating habits, employment status, and whether they are experiencing overwhelming emotions such as sadness, grief, and depression, and whether they have suicidal ideation.

BetterHelp repeatedly assured users filling out these questionnaires that their email addresses and information would be “kept strictly private” and “never shared, sold or disclosed to anyone.” However, FTC said its investigation revealed that the company used clandestine tactics to share health information of more than 7 million users with Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest.

The FTC has filed a proposed order that would require BetterHelp to pay $7.8 million as compensation to users who signed up for BetterHelp’s services between Aug. 1, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2020. The compensation is intended to recoup costs patients paid to BetterHelp. The average patient paid an average $60 – $90 per week for these counseling services. The proposed order would also prohibit BetterHelp from sharing consumers’ health data for advertising, sharing their personal information for re-targeting, or serving ads to consumers who had visited the company’s website or app. The FTC is pushing for BetterHelp to accept a settlement where the company agrees to limit their data sharing in the future and the company would be directed to contact affected consumers about the case and must also direct third parties such as Facebook or Pinterest to delete consumers’ health and other personal data shared with them.

Consumer Privacy Investigative Report

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Jezebel gathered information on how BetterHelp handles its users’ data by having Jezebel employees sign up for therapeutic services and monitoring the kinds of information BetterHelp was collecting and sending to third parties. When presented with the findings, BetterHelp said their methods were “standard and that they far exceed all applicable, regulatory, ethical and legal requirements.” Jezebel reported that BetterHelp slipped data to dozens of third parties, monitored their behavior online, and signaled to companies like Facebook, Google, Snapchat, and Pinterest that the applicants were considering BetterHelp services.

The FTC’s investigation followed the investigative report. The Commission states that in December 2020 BetterHelp changed its privacy statement to say, “Rest assured – your health information will stay private between you and your counselor” which was in use until September 2021. Upon notice of the FTC’s investigation and public pressure from consumers, the company changed its privacy statement again in October 2021 to say that it does disclose visitors’ IP addresses and other personal identifiers for advertising, and offered visitors an opportunity to out of these disclosures. Users did not have the option to opt out prior to October 2021.

The FTC describes two methods that BetterHelp used to send information to Facebook.
- In the first, the company compiled visitors’ and users’ email addresses which they then uploaded to Facebook to match the individuals with their Facebook user accounts for the purposes of targeting them and others like them with advertisements.
- Secondly, between 2013 and December 2020, Better Help shared visitors’ and users’ email address, their IP address, and records known as “events” to Facebook. These events automatically tracked when each visitor or user on the main website or affiliate websites answered certain questions on the intake questionnaire or when they enrolled in a certain service. BetterHelp automatically disclosed these events to Facebook through what are known as web beacons that were placed on every website they operated.
With two consumer privacy class actions looming and the FTC’s administrative complaint, BetterHelp faces significant pressure to make serious changes.

By Hunter SchmitzGuest Writer

Hunter Schmitz is a freelance legal writer and paralegal with Focus on Property Law and Civil Litigation.
May 2, 2023
Litigation Funding Battle Over Litigation Control
Sysco and Burford Capital Butting Heads Over Litigation Control.
- Food giant claims funder is interfering with antitrust litigation.
- Funder says its client is settling for too little.
- Public dustups over litigation funding are rare.
Photo by Richard Lee on Unsplash

Leading litigation funder Burford Capital LLC and food distribution giant Sysco Corp. are locking horns over the control and use of litigation funds. Burford says Sysco is settling Burford-funded antitrust litigation for amounts that deny the financial company optimal return on its investment. Sysco says the funder has overstepped its bounds and interfered with Sysco’s litigation oversight.

Sysco received $140 million from Burford in part to fund price-fixing lawsuits against poultry, pork and beef producers – complex multidistrict litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs, dozens of defendants, and related criminal suits brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ). So far, settlements of private antitrust litigation have reached into the hundreds of millions, and DOJ has levied more than $100 million in fines.

Burford, which gets a share of any settlements in the antitrust litigation, says Sysco is settling for too little.

Sysco has sued companies associated with Burford – Glaz LLC, Posen Investments LP, and Kenosha Investments LP – claiming they are meddling in Sysco’s settlement efforts. Glaz, Posen, and Kenosha are all companies which have Burford Capital Limited as the only direct or indirect partner. All three are controlled by Burford and Burford operates as the sole funder of their respective litigation efforts.

Sysco also criticized its attorneys at Boies Schiller Flexner, whom, they say, allegedly spoke with Burford representatives without Sysco’s knowledge.

Sysco says the firm gave into Burford’s demands, an accusation the firm vehemently denies. Meanwhile, Burford has obtained an arbitration ruling blocking Sysco from finalizing any of the price-fixing settlements against the meat producers. Sysco has moved to overturn that order, saying it “violates several of the most fundamental public policies underlying our judicial system, including party control over litigation.” Burford claims Sysco gave it veto power over settlements, but only after the food distributor violated the terms of the investment deal.

This high-stakes kerfuffle raises issues around the role litigation funders play in the cases they fund – a subject critics have hammered on since the inception of the industry. While ethics rules forbid interference by lenders, Sysco and Burford clearly disagree on whether the funder veered out of its lane. Whatever the result, it’s unusual to see disputes between funders, litigants, and counsel fought in broad daylight like this.

According to Custom Market Insights, the global litigation funding market was $12.2 billion in 2021 and is expected to reach $25.8 billion by 2030. In addition to London-based Burford, it lists key market players as Parabellum Capital, Bentham Capital, Juridica Investments, Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd., and others.

Legal News

Email the Editor

How AI Is Transforming the Practice of Law with Cristin Traylor

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing legal practice, but where does it deliver real value—and where is human judgment still essential? Cristin Traylor of Relativity joins Tom Hagy to discuss generative AI in legal workflows, discovery, defensibility, validation, and what lawyers should consider before relying on AI-generated results.

The Texas Two-Step: Testing Bankruptcy Law and Jury Rights with Adam Silverstein

Can financially healthy companies use bankruptcy to resolve billions of dollars in mass tort claims? Plaintiff lawyer Adam Silverstein of Otterbourg examines the Texas two-step, Johnson & Johnson’s unsuccessful talc bankruptcy attempts, the impact of the Supreme Court’s Purdue decision, and the tension between Chapter 11 and plaintiffs’ jury trial rights.

The Hidden Danger of Carbon Monoxide: Proving Exposure, Brain Injury & Liability with Sam Cannon

Carbon monoxide poisoning can cause devastating injuries while leaving victims and attorneys with difficult questions about exposure, causation, and liability. Attorney Sam Cannon of Cannon Law discusses how carbon monoxide cases are investigated, how brain injuries are proven, and why deferred maintenance, expert testimony, and multiple responsible parties can become critical to the litigation.

War Risk Insurance and Exclusion | Webinar for CLE Credit

War risk exclusions can determine whether a multimillion-dollar loss is covered or excluded. This CLE webinar examines the legal principles governing war risk insurance, political risk coverage, terrorism exclusions, cyber war claims, and the landmark cases that continue to shape insurance recovery. Featuring Robert M. Horkovich of Anderson Kill and Rich Boone of Wilson Elser, the program provides practical guidance for evaluating policy language, analyzing exclusion defenses, and developing effective recovery strategies in an evolving geopolitical and cyber risk environment.

AI and the Law: A Year-End Retrospective 2025 and Beyond | Webinar for CLE Credit

Artificial intelligence continues to reshape the legal landscape, bringing new litigation risks, evolving regulatory obligations, and complex governance challenges. In this CLE webinar, Abigail Damsky, Jamie O’Neill, and Seán McCabe of Anderson Kill examine the legal developments that continue to influence AI-related litigation and compliance, including privacy and biometric claims, copyright disputes, AI washing, algorithmic discrimination, product liability, antitrust concerns, and the expanding global regulatory framework. Gain practical insights into the cases, trends, and governance considerations that remain highly relevant for legal professionals advising clients on AI risk.
April 26, 2023
Alleged Hair Product Injuries Impact Women of Color
L’Oréal Among Defendants in Litigation Over Hair Products.
- Dozens of hair straightener cases allege higher incidence of cancers and other diseases.
- Plaintiffs in dry shampoo litigation say products contain benzene.
- Seven companies control the U.S. hair product industry.
Photo by Giorgio Trovato on Unsplash

L’Oréal has been hit hard in recent hair care litigation related to straighteners, relaxants, and dry shampoos. L’Oréal was named a defendant in nearly sixty complaints alleging that straightening products manufactured by the beauty giant have caused cancer in its consumers. L’Oréal has also been named a defendant in a proposed class-action for its Redken dry shampoo that allegedly contains the carcinogen benzene. Other large industry players such as Johnson and Johnson and Unilever have also been accused of selling dry shampoos with dangerous levels of benzene.

Straighteners and Relaxers Litigation

Dozens of cases have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation against L’Oréal for its potentially cancerous hair straighteners and relaxers. Mitchell v. L’Oréal USA Inc. is a typical case. It was filed by Missourian Jennifer Mitchell, a black woman, after her diagnosis of uterine cancer which she claims was caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in L’Oréal’s hair straighteners and relaxers. Jennifer Mitchell was diagnosed with her cancer on August 10, 2018.

“Ms. Mitchell was first exposed to EDCs and/or phthalate-based products around 2000, at or around the age of 10, when she began using Defendants’ Product.” She used the products as instructed for 22 years, leaving the chemicals in her hair for long periods of time. At the age of 28, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer despite the cancer not being in her family history. As a result of her cancer diagnosis, Ms. Mitchell had to undergo a full hysterectomy, causing her emotional and physical pain, and rendering her unable to have children.

The complaint details a long history of marketing harmful hair relaxers and straighteners to black women to combat their natural hair texture and meet a Eurocentric white beauty standard.

The filed complaint consisted of fifteen counts ranging from strict liability failure to warn and negligence to medical monitoring. The products included in the complaint were Motions, Dark & Lovely, Olive Oil Relaxer, and Organic Root Stimulator.

Ms. Mitchell’s evidence supports her claims that the products allegedly caused her cancer due to EDCs. Health issues linked to EDCs include uterine cancer, breast cancer, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and preterm delivery, amongst others. “On October 17, 2022, a study led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported findings that women who frequently used chemical hair straightening or hair relaxer products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer as women who did not use such products.

Ms. Mitchell’s case was consolidated with dozens of other cases against L’Oréal and other defendants in Chicago federal court as In re: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. The consolidation was opposed on December 7, 2022, by L’Oréal USA, Inc., L’Oréal USA Products, Inc., SoftSheen-Carson LLC, and SoftSheen-Carson (W.I.), Inc., collectively known as “the L’Oréal defendants.”

In the L’Oréal defendants’ response to the motion for consolidation, the company first outlined its issues with the frequently referenced NIH study that catalyzed the filing of many of the plaintiffs’ lawsuits. For example, L’Oréal stated that the study “did not collect information on specific brands or ingredients used by the participants,” and that “all of the women in the NIH Study had sisters who had been diagnosed with breast cancer.” L’Oréal also argued that none of the plaintiffs’ cases were similar enough to consolidate. The plaintiffs’ cases differed in products used, timespans, named defendants, and injuries.

Further, L’Oréal argued that if consolidation had to happen, then the case should use the Southern District of New York as a forum, where fifteen of the matters were pending, and where the company has its headquarters. The defendant also disagreed with the Chicago judge that the case would be assigned to—The Honorable Mary M. Rowland—claiming she lacked multidistrict litigation (MDL) experience.

Despite L’Oréal’s best efforts, its motion was fruitless. Cases in “Schedule A” of the MDL (MDL No. 3060) were consolidated on February 6, 2023. Cases from California, New York, Georgia, and Illinois, including Ms. Mitchell’s case, were assigned to The Honorable Mary M. Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois. Since the original transfer, many other actions have been added to the MDL.

Dry Shampoo Litigation

In addition to allegations that its relaxing and straightening hair products cause cancer, L’Oréal is also currently facing accusations of using benzene, a well-known carcinogen, in its dry shampoo products. Other big-names that have been appearing in dry-shampoo complaints include Johnson and Johnson (J&J)’s OGX brand and Unilever’s Dove, Nexxus, Suave, Tigi and Tresemmé brands.

What Is Benzene?

Benzene is a chemical compound that can be both naturally and man-produced. Its harm to human health has been at the heart of many instances of litigation. Benzene, “a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke,” has been determined to be unsafe for human exposure in any quantity greater than zero. Government bodies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the World Health Organization have spoken out against the dangers of benzene, and have attempted to limit its exposure to the public.

Valisure’s Report

On October 31, 2022, Valisure released a Citizen Petition on Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products, which prompted the wave of dry shampoo litigation hitting the U.S. court system. The company claims to have tested 148 batches of dry shampoo from 34 different brands and found that 70% of its samples contained benzene in varying amounts.

Pictured Above: Valisure Table 6. Overview of first spray analyses by brand. In some cases, two bottles from the same lot were analyzed and these duplicate lots are grouped by a black outline around the two values.

The petition itself requested a recall of the products Valisure found to be contaminated with benzene, that the Commissioner of the FDA establish better procedures for informing the public of their exposure to dangerous substances in cosmetics, amongst other requests.

Hirsch v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.: The Complaint

In a complaint filed on November 22, 2022, Plaintiff Eileen Hirsch and others similarly situated brought suit against L’Oréal USA, Inc. for its Redken brand dry shampoo products. The class action lawsuit alleges that the product line contains benzene, a carcinogen with evidence linking it to causing cancers such as leukemia, amongst other illnesses. Benzene was not a listed ingredient in the products. Yet, the independent study performed by Valisure found that the product contained as much as 7.55 parts per million (“ppm”) of benzene.

Ms. Hirsch, a Chicago resident, purchased multiple canisters of the Redken dry shampoo from a salon in the area. The complaint alleges that she was harmed in two separate ways: “First, Ms. Hirsch purchased adulterated and misbranded products that were illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. Second, Ms. Hirsch was deceived by Defendant’s representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.” Other class members are also individuals who have purchased Redken dry shampoo.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Defendant L’Oréal did its best to get the case dismissed in a motion filed on February 7, 2023. In its Motion to Dismiss, L’Oréal gave several reasons for the complaint’s deficiency, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the claim and that the claims are preempted. Further, L’Oréal argues that the independent Valisure study relied upon by the plaintiff is insufficient to support the claims, stating that “Valisure . . . [is an] untrustworthy laboratory that has been censured by the [FDA] and federal judges alike.”

Plaintiffs responded to L’Oréal’s Motion to Dismiss, stating that the case was simple, standing had been correctly established, and the defendant’s allegations of insufficient Valisure testing were premature. L’Oréal has replied to the plaintiffs’ motion, but the court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss, determining the fate of the case.

Looking Forward

Those following the concert of haircare litigation should watch closely to see which product lines are tapped next and why. L’Oréal may be one of the more popular defendants, but that does not mean there aren’t other offenders.

Most beauty products known to average consumers are owned by one of seven large companies—J&J, L’Oréal, Eéste Lauder, Unilever, Procter and Gamble, Shiseido, and Coty. For better or for worse, these corporate identities pioneer most of the research and manufacturing that goes into the creation of the world’s fashion, beauty, and hygiene products. That means when these companies use carcinogens, they can likely be found in a mind-boggling number of items behind your own bathroom mirror, leading to mass injury and extremely complex litigation.

By Victoria Kline

Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day.
April 26, 2023
Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin

Electronic Fund Transfer Fraud with Brad Rustin

Grifters, scammers, con artists

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who championed the creation of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), calls the Zelle digital payments network a “preferred tool for grifters like romance scammers, cryptocurrency con artists, and those who prowl social media sites advertising concert tickets and purebred puppies — only to disappear with buyers’ cash after they pay.”

18 million Americans defrauded

Scams and fraud committed via the Zelle platform and other peer-to-peer services are surging. According to one lawsuit 18 million Americans were defrauded by schemes perpetrated via apps like Zelle in 2020. Some 1,500 member banks and credit unions participate in the Zelle service. People sent $490 billion via the app in 2021.

But Zelle owner, Early Warning, and its consortium comprising Bank of America, Truist, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo, have refused to refund customers for most of their losses. Sen. Warren issued a report that the claims for fraud received by just four banks will likely exceed $255 million by the end of 2022 – a $165 million increase over 2020. The senator and consumers say Zelle is violating federal consumer protection law.

What is fraud?

The heart of the problem is this: banks and consumers do not agree on the definition of “fraud.”

For clarity on issues surrounding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation—Regulation E—listen to my interview with fintech attorney Brad Rustin of Nelson Mullins.

In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. Brad is also the FinTech advisor on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

*******

This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm. The podcast itself is a joint effort between HB and our friends at Law Street Media. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

(actual size)

Tom Hagy
Litigation Enthusiast and
Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Home Page
LinkedIn

Brad RustinNelson Mullins

Brad Rustin chairs the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice.

He began his career as a litigator focusing on consumer financial services litigation and defense of regulatory claims against chartered and non-chartered financial institutions, finance entities, and money services business. In the wake of the fiscal crisis, he began working with financial institutions, state-licensed lenders money transmitters, non-traditional lenders, check cashers, and mortgage brokers on issues of regulatory compliance.

Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) by ACAMS and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) by the American Bankers Association. He also serves as an expert witness of matters relating to financial regulations and compliance.

He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. Brad is also the FinTech advisor on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation.

April 26, 2023
Pixel Litigation the Latest Craze in Privacy Law

Meta, Google Face Barrage of Pixel Lawsuits in Digital Privacy War

Photo by Amal S on Unsplash

META PLATFORMS INC. AND GOOGLE are currently facing nearly 70 lawsuits involving large companies and some hospital systems or individual health care providers utilizing Pixel tracking tools embedded on their websites and applications. Sensitive private data such as financial information gathered from filing tax returns online or patient healthcare information stored on patient portals is being actively tracked and sent to Meta and Google for both analytical and advertising purposes.

Tracking pixels are a 1×1 Pixel graphic that serves as a snippet of code used for tracking user behavior, site conversions, web traffic, and other metrics generated from a site’s server. In 2018, Meta told Congress that there were more than 2 million Pixels across the web, which at the time, was one of the largest data-harvesting operations most internet users had ever seen. Meta makes their Pixel code freely available to anyone and any business – thus the amount of Pixel tracking has exponentially grown since Meta testified before Congress. The analytical information that companies gleam from Pixel tracking is paying off and is featured on everything from fast food companies such as Chick-Fil-A, media companies like iHeart Radio, and even tax-filing websites such as Tax Slayer or TaxAct.

Pixel Tax Data

On November 22, 2022, theverge.com co-published a report with The Markup, revealing that Pixel tracking tools located on several renown American tax-filing websites were sending individual tax filers’ contact and financial information to Meta and Google. From January to July 2022, The Markup tracked websites’ use of the Pixel as part of the Pixel Hunt in partnership with Mozilla Rally. Participants of the Pixel Hunt installed a browser extension that provided The Markup with a copy of all data shared with Meta through the Pixel. H&R Block, Tax Slayer, and Tax Act utilized Pixels on their websites and applications that sent financial data to Meta according to the data-driven report.

TaxAct’s Pixel sent some of their users’ tax data to Facebook, including their filing status, adjusted gross income, and the amount of their tax return, if applicable. TaxAct says it has about “three million consumer and professional users”. The Pixel Hunt also revealed that TaxAct’s embedded Pixels were sending data to Google Analytics as well. The Pixel Hunt also revealed that Tax Slayer, H&R Block, and Intuit were also sending specific types of data to Meta and Google.

The audit on Tax Slayer revealed that their embedded Pixel was gathering and sharing information such as phone numbers, the name of the user filling out the tax forms, and names of any dependent added to the return.

An audit on Intuit, America’s largest online filing software, revealed that the company did employ a Pixel but did not send financial information to Meta, but instead sent usernames and information about the last time a device signed into the Intuit account. Whereas the audit into H&R Block revealed that information was being gathered and shared on filers’ health savings account usage as well as dependents’ college tuition grants and expenses.

Tax filing is estimated to be an $11 billion industry in the United States with nearly 150 million individual returns filed electronically in 2021 according to this article. Free tax filing preparation and filing options do exist, but it’s limited to people making $73,000 or less and tends to be difficult to use.

Utilizing the Pixel during their tracking, The Markup found that the Internal Revenue Service directs taxpayers attempting to file for free to some of these tax filing websites with embedded Pixels. TaxAct and Tax Slayer are part of an agreement known as the Free File Alliance. TurboTax (“Intuit”) and H&R Block had participated in this program in the past. Several days after this report was published, a class action lawsuit was filed against Meta in the Northern District of California, John Doe and Jane Doe v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., 3:22-cv-07557.

Pixel Healthcare and Patient Data

Pixels are also utilized by some healthcare systems and individual medical providers in the United States. In another lawsuit regarding Pixel litigation against Meta in the Northern District of California, Jane Doe v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., 3:22-cv-04293-AGT, the plaintiff alleges that at least 664 hospital systems or medical provider websites have sent data to Meta via its Pixel tracking tools. The plaintiff argues that this tracking of her private health information is in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”)

HIPAA protects the privacy of individually identifiable health information by allowing only certain uses and disclosures of health data, such as for research purposes – but only if this data can’t be linked back to a particular patient. Currently under HIPAA, releasing data that is not properly de-identified could be considered a breach of HIPAA.

Recently on January 30, 2023, a class-action lawsuit was filed in the Tenth Judicial District of Louisiana regarding a local health care provider, Willis-Knighton Medical Center using Pixel tracking tools to send sensitive patient health data to Meta. The plaintiff in Jacqueline Horton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center, 93767-B, brought action against Willis-Knighton Medical Center for ‘exposing highly sensitive personal information to third parties without their knowledge or consent.’ The Louisiana case differs from California’s because California is one of the handful of states that has passed a statute related to video privacy and consumer protection.

In Jane Doe v. Meta Platforms Inc., the website allegedly shared information related to scheduling appointments with a doctor and reviewing test results. The California suit is seeking damages paid to consumers under the Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) 18 U.S.C. § 2710. This case was also brought under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, that allows for damages of $1,000.00 per violation. In addition, the California court could potentially force hospital systems named in the suit to clearly disclose that their website uses Pixels to share data with Meta. The Plaintiff is also asking the judge to order that Meta delete sensitive health information that could be used to generate specific ads. This case will highlight misunderstandings of how HIPAA protects health information that’s in the hands of health care providers, insurers or any other entity currently subject to existing HIPAA provisions.

Origins of Pixel Litigation Lawsuits

The VPPA regulates the disclosure of information about consumers’ consumption of video content and imposes prescriptive requirements to obtain consumers’ consent to such disclosure(s). The law was originally enacted in 1988, a year after a journalist published Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Bork’s video rental history during his nominee process in 1987. The rental history contained no salacious details however and Congress quickly acted to pass the VPPA. The act reads:

The VPPA prohibits a person or business that rents, sells, or delivers prerecorded “video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials” from “knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider . . . .,” absent informed, written consent as defined by the VPPA. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(a)(3). If liability is found, the VPPA allows consumers to seek the following remedies – (1) statutory damages in the amount of $2,500 per violation, (2) punitive damages, and (3) recovery of attorneys’ fees. 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c).

The VPPA was originally enacted to address the concept of a video tape service provider (“VTSP”). This was associated with traditional video rental stories and was rarely invoked as of lately. As online video services became more prevalent, the VPPA began to create legal barriers to major businesses and marketing opportunities for them. Prior to Congress amending the VPPA in 2013, the law created a strange legal paradigm: An organization’s business model involving the provisions to consumers, either on a standalone basis or as part of its broader online platform of online video content (such as a social media company), makes the organization qualify as a VTSP.

Congress amended the VPPA in 2013 to provide that disclosure of consumer data to third parties is not wrongful if the consumer elects to give ‘informed, written consent in a form that is distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of the consumer at the time the disclosure is sought, or in advance for set period of up to two years.

Under the amendment, the VPPA does provide a number exceptions that permit information being disclosed to third parties. Remarkably, one of those exceptions allows the sharing of information about the user ‘to any person if the disclosure is solely of the names and addresses of consumers and if: (i) the VTSP has provided the consumer with the opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit such disclosure; and (ii) the disclosure does not identify the title, description, or subject matter of any videos or other audio-visual material; however, the subject matter of such materials may be disclosed if the disclosure is for the exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer.’

These exceptions allow the VPPA to permit the disclosure of the name and address of the user together with the identify of the VTSP and subject matter of the video content so long as the intended purpose is for direct marketing. The VPPA has since been challenged in several distinguishable cases decided in 2015 primarily on the grounds of violation of privacy.

Recent Developments in Pixel Litigation

The VPPA has come under consumer and legal scrutiny in recent years. Several important legal rulings have largely curtailed individual and collective efforts to declare violations under the VPPA. In Ellis v. Cartoon Network Inc., 803 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2015), it was opinioned that, Consumers who use free mobile applications do not quality as ‘subscribers’ under the VPPA. The Ninth Circuit Court also opinioned two cases in 2015 regarding exceptions to the VPPA.

In Rodriguez v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 801 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015), an intra-corporate disclosure of personal information does not violate the VPPA. Then it was also decided by the 9th Circuit Court in another 2015 opinion Mollett v. Netflix Inc. 795 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2015) that VTSPs cannot be held liable under the VPPA for circumstances where subscribers’ personal information was displayed on devices, such as televisions, that could potentially be viewed by third parties. This Court said that ‘viewing of such devices was beyond the companies’ control.’

These recent rulings narrowed the scope of the VPPA and helped provide definitions for the outdated video-store era law. Civil lawsuits across the nation related to Pixel litigation continues to barrage the integrity of the VPPA.

IHEARTMEDIA, Inc. is facing a lawsuit for allegations of violations of the VPPA in the Middle District of Florida Gloria Talley, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. IHEARTMEDIA, Inc., 8:32-cv-00215. Similarly the popular chicken chain, Chick-Fil-A is facing a similar class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California in Keith Carroll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc., 3:23-cv-00314.

As lawsuits continue to mount against Meta and Google, the integrity of the VPPA is thrown into question. It is likely that one of the pending actions across the nation will eventually land the law itself into further judicial review, or if Congress acts, could create an entirely new blanket law altogether to help address the rapid interference and sharing of consumer data.

By Hunter SchmitzGuest Writer

Hunter Schmitz is a freelance writer and paralegal with Focus on Property Law and Civil Litigation.

April 7, 2023
Toxic Train Wreck Sparks Litigation

Legal News: Ohio AG Sues Norfolk Southern Over East Palestine Train Spill.

Photo by Raymond Eichelberger on Unsplash

Legal News

On March 14, 2023, Ohio filed a lawsuit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company, a multi-billion dollar entity, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit stems from the East Palestine train derailment (the “Derailment”), which took place on February 3, 2023. The lawsuit seeks to “recover response costs, redress damages to natural resources, and receive an order for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and damages.”

The Derailment

The Derailment of train 32N occurred at approximately 9 PM in East Palestine, Ohio—roughly fifty miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The accident is believed to have been caused by the overheating and failure of at least one wheel bearing. Twenty of the derailed cars contained hazardous materials, including vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl, acrylate, and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether.

Chief among the substance concerns was vinyl chloride, which emits toxic substances when it burns. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that it was notified of the Derailment about two hours after it occurred, and personnel were on site five hours after the accident. The surrounding downwind area was evacuated. Reports were made of health and safety hazards to people and animals in the affected region. Three days after the crash, emergency responders intitiated a controlled release and burn of the remaining vinyl chloride. All the while, the EPA was overseeing air monitoring, water sampling, and other safety controls.

On February 10, 2023, EPA Region Five sent a notice of potential liability to Norfolk Southern’s Deputy General Counsel, Matt Gernand. The letter conveyed that the company was a potentially responsible party that might be responsible for cleaning up the Derailment site, or reimbursing the EPA for the cleanup costs incurred by the Agency, under Sections 106(a) and 107 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), colloquially known as the “Superfund Act.”

Ohio’s Lawsuit

About a month and a half after the Derailment, Dave Yost, the Attorney General (AG) of Ohio, filed a 106-paged complaint in federal court against Norfolk Southern. The complaint consists of 58 counts alleging violations of Ohio state laws, the federal CERCLA, and common law. In an announcement released the day of the filing, AG Yost stated, “Ohio shouldn’t have to bear the tremendous financial burden of Norfolk Southern’s glaring negligence.”

Ohio’s lawsuit points out that this Derailment is only the latest in a series of recent Norfolk Southern accidents. In fact, the company’s “accident rate has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, and at least 20 of those derailments since 2015 have involved chemical releases.” Ohio alleges that the entity’s increasingly common incidents are a result of putting its bottom line above health and safety. The instant filing details how this particular disaster was “foreseeable and preventable.” Prior to the Derailment, Norfolk Southern received real-time warnings and reports of malfunctions occurring with the train’s wheel bearings.

Ohio seeks to hold the transporter accountable for its “release of over one million gallons of hazardous materials, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and/or other harmful pollutants into Ohio’s air, streams, rivers, soil, and groundwater, killing tens of thousands of fish and other animals, and recklessly endangering the health of Ohioans throughout the region.” Sought-after compensatory and punitive relief for the harm caused by the Derailment includes the cost of emergency response and cleanup efforts, as well as compensation for the physical and economic harm suffered by local residents. The complaint also requests that the court issue a series of injunctions and declarations that would prohibit Norfolk Southern from further violating the law and negligently injuring.

What To Watch For

Ohio’s lawsuit is just one of many that Norfolk Southern is facing in the aftermath of the Derailment. Norfolk Southern has yet to answer the Ohio complaint. However, the company has previously stated that it is committed to safety and has invested in new technologies and training programs to prevent incidents like the East Palestine train derailment from occurring.

The Derailment suits against Norfolk Southern are expected to be closely watched by other transportation companies and industry experts, as they could set a precedent for future cases involving train derailments and hazardous materials. The outcome of this particular lawsuit could have a significant impact on the federal and state safety standards and regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials by rail in the United States.

Victoria KlineGuest Writer

Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day.

April 7, 2023
European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change by Victoria Kline

Guest Writer

Victoria Kline

Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day.

European Court of Human Rights to Hear Case on Climate Change

By Victoria Kline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CherryX

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is hearing a landmark case brought forward by the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland, who are suing the Swiss government (the “State”) for human rights violations related to climate change. Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and others v. Switzerland (“KlimaSeniorinnen”) is one of the first climate change matters the court has taken up. On Wednesday, March 29, 2023, the ECHR held a public hearing.

History of the Case

KlimaSeniorinnen began back in 2016, ignited by a group of women called KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, the Senior Women for Climate Protection Switzerland. The group filed suit in Swiss court against a variety of Swiss federal government bodies alleging violations of obligations set forth in the Swiss Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Convention”).

The heart of the suit is the State’s shortcomings in progress being made towards the adopted Paris Agreement’s goal to keep “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” The elderly plaintiffs purport that their demographic is especially vulnerable to the “temperature-related morbidity and mortality” caused by “climate change-induced excessive heat.”

On April 25, 2017, the suit was dismissed by the Federal Department of the Environment Transport, Energy and Communications for lack of standing on the prongs of injury and remedy. Over a year later, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal. Subsequently, on May 20, 2020, the Swiss Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ filed appeal, holding that plaintiffs should seek their desired government greenhouse gas reduction politically instead of judicially.

After exhausting their judicial remedies at their national level, the instant plaintiffs then applied for their case to be heard by the ECHR on November 26, 2020.

International Appeal

Plaintiff’s application to the ECHR, No. 53600/20, was granted to be heard with priority pursuant to Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The ECHR, which is based in Strasbourg, France, is a court of last resort for individuals who claim that their rights under the Convention have been violated by a member state. Because Switzerland has ratified the Convention, it will be bound to the holding of the ECHR.

The hearing for the case, which was held on March 29, 2023, was the first climate change matter taken up by the ECHR. Parties argued in front of a 17-member Grand Chamber led by Síofra O’Leary of Ireland. A webcast of the proceeding was published online by the ECHR and can be found here.

The hearing, which lasted less than three hours, opened with arguments from both the State and plaintiffs, before two third parties spoke, and the panel of judges asked questions. Then, both the plaintiffs and the State were given the opportunity to reply before the close of the hearing.

During the hearing, the senior plaintiffs argued that Switzerland’s failure to take adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was a violation of their right to life and their right to respect for private and family life, as guaranteed by Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention. Their arguments are backed by scientific research showing the increasingly dire health and safety effects that global warming is having on European senior citizens.

In contrast, the Swiss government argued that it is taking steps to address climate change, such as implementing a carbon tax and increasing the share of renewable energy in the country’s energy mix. However, it can only do so much as one state amongst many that are contributing to the emitted greenhouse gasses that are exacerbating climate change.

What to Watch For

Now that the hearing of the case is complete, the Grand Chamber has begun private deliberations on the matter. It is unknown exactly when the ECHR will issue its ruling.

The ECHR’s decision could provide insight on how to establish standing for particularized injuries suffered as a result of climate change, which by nature affect the world’s population. Further, while the court’s holding will not be legally binding on non-member states, if the ECHR finds in favor of the seniors, it could set a precedent for other climate change lawsuits in Europe and beyond.

Two other climate change cases are also being heard by the Grand Chamber—Carême v. France (no. 7189/21), and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others (no. 39371/20). The ECHR’s handling of all three cases is expected to be closely watched by policymakers, industry members, and activists alike.

April 7, 2023
AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability
AI Image Generators and Copyright:

Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability

Photo by Hitesh Choudhary on Unsplash

AI programs are now readily available for all. Stability AI, Lensa, and other AI image creation tools create original works of art, raising the question of IP protection for such art. The United States requires human authorship in order to obtain copyright protection, and so far, the U.S. Copyright Office has declined to grant copyright registrations for AI-created works of art based on a lack of human authorship (one of these decisions is being challenged in Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. filed June 2, 2022)). While some countries take a similar approach to the US, others treat the issue of copyright eligibility for AI-generated art quite differently and provide at least some protection of computer generated works.

Questions have also been raised as to whether AI-generated images constitute derivative works and whether such images and the AI generation tools used to create them infringe third-party copyrights, or whether the fair use doctrine or other defenses may apply. The first lawsuits involving image generators have now been filed raising copyright claims in addition to other claims.

Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines AI image generators and the associated copyright issues. The panel will discuss eligibility in the U.S. and the recent actions by the Copyright Office and contrast this with the approaches used in other countries. The panel will also address the recent cases that have been filed and the potential liability for copyright infringement in the U.S. and other countries.

Speakers

Michael R. Graif
Member
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo

Lisa T. Oratz
Senior Counsel
Perkins Coie

Scott J. Sholder
Partner
Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard

CLE On-Demand Webinar

This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences.

Topics
- What hurdles confront counsel when demonstrating authorship of AI-generated works?
- How does copyright apply to AI-generated works? How does it differ across jurisdictions?
- What steps can counsel take to increase the likelihood of success when seeking copyright protection for AI-generated works?
Outline
1. AI-generated works of art and copyrightability
  1. Eligibility in the U.S.
  2. Eligibility in other countries
2. AI image generators and copyright infringement
  1. Derivative works
  2. Fair use and other defenses
  3. Liability in other jurisdictions
  4. Best practices
April 6, 2023
Greenhouse Gases Cited in Suit to Invalidate Drilling Leases
Environmentalists Argue Federal Government Failed to Analyze Social Costs of Fossil Fuel Emissions from Drilling Leases

Photo by Marcin Jozwiak on Unsplash

“Federal public lands used for fossil fuel extraction contribute 24% of the United States’ Greenhouse Emissions,” according to 10 environmental groups in their ongoing lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of the Interior Debra Haaland, the Bureau of Land Management (BoLM), and BoLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning (Dakota Resource or Council, et al, v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., D. D.C., No. 1:22-cv-1853 ).

Their lawsuit seeks to invalidate 173 oil and gas leases approved in June 2022 across eight states: Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah, and Wyoming.

Plaintiffs include: Dakota Resource Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for a Healthy Community, Living Rivers & Colorado Riverkeeper, Montana Environmental Information Center, Rio Grande Waterkeeper, Sierra Club, Waterkeeper Alliance, Western Waterheads Project, and WildEarth Guardians.

The environmental groups argue the BoLM is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. § 4321, for failing to make efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere. The groups also argue that Secretary Haaland failed to follow the instructions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. § 1701, which requires her office to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradations of the land.”

Five states have intervened for the defendants: Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. Defendants, through Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, argued in their answer filed Oct. 21, 2022, the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the plaintiffs lacked standing, that plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and that the intervening states reserve the right to further amend pleadings throughout the course of litigation.

In January 2021 the newly-transitioned Biden Administration issued Executive Order 14008 requiring the Interior Department to place a “pause” on all new oil and gas leases and required the BoLM produce a report containing a review and reconsiderations of Interior’s leasing program. Louisiana challenged the order’s “pause” in Louisiana v. Biden, 543 F. Suppl. 3d 388, 410 (W.D. La. 2021) and won, reversing the order’s policy on oil and gas leases but kept the order’s requirement for the Interior Department to produce its report on leasing practices.

Interior published a 14-page report on Nov. 27, 2021, that highlighted recommendations for fiscal reforms but contained no analysis of the leasing program’s climate impacts. This report failed to acknowledge the BoLM’s recent acknowledgments of collaborative scientific research conducted by the federal multiagency Council of Environmental Quality in 2012, 2015, and in 2020, that revealed significant social costs incurred by greenhouse gas emissions. The BoLM acknowledged that lands under their management contained 96,100 actively producing oil or gas wells. This makes the BoLM responsible for managing lands producing as much as 7% of the country’s oil needs and 8% of its gas needs.

The coalition filed a motion for summary judgment on March 9, 2023, asking the judge to conclude the matter before greenhouse gas emissions from these lease sites curtail efforts by the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The coalition also addressed the defendants’ affirmative defense that plaintiffs lacked standing to allege injury for damage to aesthetic and recreational values of the land. The groups argued that “actual environmental harm from complained-of activity need not be shown,” citing Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000).

The environmental groups argued that the BoLM failed to follow NEPA by filing six separate Environmental Assessments that did not take into account the project’s at-large social costs. The BoLM failed to produce an impact report to the public about estimated greenhouse gas emissions generated throughout various stages of managing land containing active gas and oil production. Under Conner v. Burford, 848 F.2d 1441, 1451 (9th Cir. 1998), the groups argue the BoLM failed to comply with NEPA by streamlining the sale process and not properly conducting an environmental impact study for the 162 lease sites as an entire project rather than on a state-by-state basis. Under Conner, “[a] sale of an oil and gas lease represents an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” The environmental groups also point blame at Secretary Haaland for failing to follow instructions provided by the FLPMA regarding the management of federal lands.

FLPMA instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consider multiple federal land management principles, including: the combination of balanced and diverse resources; needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish; and the mutual, scientific, and historical value of the lands. The environmentalists insinuate that Haaland should have directed Interior to invalidate the lease sales and ordered the BoLM to restart the oil and gas lease assessment process in order to be NEPA compliant. The defendants’ answer to this motion is expected in the coming days.

Hunter SchmitzGuest Writer

Hunter Schmitz is a freelance legal writer and paralegal with Focus on Property Law and Civil Litigation.
The Texas Two-Step: Testing Bankruptcy Law and Jury Rights with Adam Silverstein

September 7th, 2026|Comments Off on The Texas Two-Step: Testing Bankruptcy Law and Jury Rights with Adam Silverstein
The Hidden Danger of Carbon Monoxide: Proving Exposure, Brain Injury & Liability with Sam Cannon

August 30th, 2026|Comments Off on The Hidden Danger of Carbon Monoxide: Proving Exposure, Brain Injury & Liability with Sam Cannon
War Risk Insurance and Exclusion | Webinar for CLE Credit

August 2nd, 2026|Comments Off on War Risk Insurance and Exclusion | Webinar for CLE Credit
AI and the Law: A Year-End Retrospective 2025 and Beyond | Webinar for CLE Credit

July 26th, 2026|Comments Off on AI and the Law: A Year-End Retrospective 2025 and Beyond | Webinar for CLE Credit
HIPAA Meets Social Media Marketing with Liz Heddleston and Leah Stiegler

June 22nd, 2026|Comments Off on HIPAA Meets Social Media Marketing with Liz Heddleston and Leah Stiegler
April 2, 2023
Conservationists Try Again to Block Drilling in Alaska’s Western Arctic

Willow II:
Conservation Groups Sue Again to Stop Oil Project in Alaska’s Western Arctic

Photo by Yuval Zukerman on Unsplash

Several conservation groups filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska against the federal government in another effort to halt the Willow Master Development Plan (Willow Oil Project), a proposed oil and gas development in Alaska’s Western Arctic. Spearheading the development is ConocoPhillips Alaska Incorporated. The project was approved for a second time by the Biden Administration only a day before the filing of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

The Willow Oil Project

The Willow Oil Project is a multi-billion dollar project that would involve the construction of drilling pads, pipelines, and other infrastructure in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (Reserve). The project involves drilling up to 250 wells for the purpose of generating 586 million barrels of oil within its 30-year lifespan. As a direct result of the activity, roughly 258 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions would be released into the atmosphere. The project has been controversial due to concerns over its potential impacts on the environment and wildlife in the area.

Willow II Case History

ConocoPhillips first proposed the Willow Oil Project to the Bureau of Land Management (BoLM) in May of 2018. After determining that the project was a major federally-involved action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, the BoLM knew it had to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

After studying the Willow Oil Project and comparing it to three action-alternatives and one no-action alternative, as well as seeking public comment, the BLM published a final EIS for the Willow Oil Project on Aug. 14, 2020. The BLM’s approval was immediately contested in the Alaskan District Court by conservation and Alaska-native groups.

About a year later, on August 18, 2021, the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining a court order vacating the first project approval due to NEPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) violations. Regarding the NEPA, the BLM “fail[ed] to adequately disclose and analyze the project’s downstream greenhouse gas emissions and by restricting the project alternatives it considered based on the mistaken view that ConocoPhillips had a right to extract all of the oil and gas on its leases.” And, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) “violated the ESA by relying on unspecified Marine Mammal Protection Act . . . mitigation measures to support the no jeopardy and adverse modification determinations in its biological opinion for the polar bear, and by issuing an arbitrary and capricious incidental take statement for the bear.” The court then remanded to the BoLM for actions not inconsistent with its ruling.

On remand, the BoLM prepared a draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) in July of 2022. The draft SEIS contained the same three alternative actions and one non-action alternative from the initial EIS, plus a new action alternative. After receiving public comment, including from the instant plaintiffs, the BoLM published its final SEIS for the Willow Oil Project on Feb. 3, 2023. Subsequently, the BoLM published a record of decision approving the Willow Project on March 13, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint

On March 14, 2023, Earthjustice, a non-profit environmental law organization, filed a complaint on behalf of several plaintiffs. Included in the group of plaintiffs are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace, Inc.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the BoLM failed to adequately assess the Willow Oil Project’s impacts on the region’s wildlife and its contributions to climate change before issuing its ROD, allowing the project to move forward, thus violating the NEPA, ESA, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint consists of five claims for relief.

Count I: NEPA

In the first count, plaintiffs assert that the BoLM’s final SEIS violated the NEPA by failing to consider any project-alternative “that would meaningfully reduce the climate impacts of the Willow Project by reducing total downstream greenhouse gas emissions, or any alternative that would prohibit infrastructure in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area and the Colville River Special Area.” Plaintiffs take issue with the fact that although BLM considered action alternatives as required by NEPA, all of the alternatives were based on BoLM fully developing the entirety of its oil and gas leases. Plaintiffs disagree with the BLM’s assertion that this was proper and necessary to avoid “strand[ing] an economically viable quantity of recoverable oil.”

Count II: NEPA

Plaintiffs’ second count alleges that the BLM committed another violation of NEPA by failing to take a “hard look” at the reasonably foreseeable risk of oil spills and potential discoveries of oil production prospects resulting from the project. Thus, the agency fell short of its NEPA duties to disclose and analyze the indirect and cumulative impacts of the Willow Oil Project.

Count III: Reserves Act (APA)

The third count in the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the BoLM violated the APA’s arbitrary and capricious decision-making standard by failing to act in accordance with the Reserves Act. The Reserves Act requires that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior “protect[] the ‘environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values’ within the Reserve.” Plaintiffs believe that the BoLM’s evaluation of only “full lease development” project alternatives contradicts its protection duties under the Reserves Act “to condition, restrict, or prohibit activity as it determines necessary to protect surface resources.”

Count IV: ESA – Unlawful NMFS Letter of Concurrence

Plaintiffs’ fourth claim is that the BoLM biological assessment to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the NMFS Willow Letter of Concurrence failed to analyze the possible taking of ringed and bearded seals, along with other listed species. Plaintiffs fear that the taking of these ESA-listed seals would occur as a result of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions affecting their critical habitats. The complaint is silent on the nexus between the emissions and the habitat effects. Still, it asserts that the NMFS conclusions failed to properly engage in ESA Section 7 formal consultation to determine the project’s effects on the listed seals and prepare the necessary incidental take statements. Thus, the letter’s analysis of the affected threatened species and their critical habitats was arbitrary and capricious.

Count V: ESA – Unlawful FWS Biological Opinion

The fifth and final claim in the complaint argues that the FWS’s biological opinion was arbitrary and capricious due to its failure to properly consider in view of the best available science the threats to polar bears brought on by climate change exacerbated by the Willow Oil Project’s greenhouse gas emissions. Polar bears, like the seals above, are a listed species under the ESA. Plaintiffs allege that the potential greenhouse gas emissions would increase sea ice melting, which will decrease the availability of ice seal prey in the polar bear’s critical hunting habitat. The agency did not prepare the necessary incidental take statement for polar bears either.

Requested Remedy

To remedy the violations asserted, plaintiffs request that the court vacate the BoLM’s project approval and supporting documents on the ground that the approval decision was arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs also seek a reward of costs and attorneys fees related to the action.

Defendants have not yet responded to the federal complaint, filed March 14, 2023.

Victoria KlineGuest Writer

Victoria is a third-year student at the University of Miami School of Law, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2023, Law Review Staff Editor, and soon-to-be associate at Jones Day.

April 1, 2023