The website of the online kitchenware store Food52.com is rife with barriers that make it inaccessible to those who are visually impaired or legally blind, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleged Manhattan resident Ramon Fontanez in a class action Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-09584) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York.

The court should deny T-Mobile’s attempt to arbitrate legal claims stemming from the company shutting down its Sprint 5G network without properly alerting and compensating consumers, plaintiffs told the U.S. District Court for the Western Washington in a Nov. 3 filing (docket 2:22-cv-00843).

Marriott International, through “good faith negotiations,” reached agreement on the terms of a consent judgment with Prestige DRVoIP.Com, one of the defendants in its trademark infringement complaint to thwart robocallers from impersonating Marriott telemarketers, said a joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:21-cv-00610) for entry of that consent judgment in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia. Once the court grants the motion, all of Marriott’s pending claims against Prestige will be dismissed with prejudice, it said.

The Professional Association for Customer Engagement supports Porch.com’s Oct. 26 petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Oct. 12 opinion reversing the U.S. District Court for Idaho dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit, said the trade group's proposed amicus brief Monday (docket 20-35962).

Even “accepting as true” plaintiff Afrika Williams’ allegations that Duke University Health System (DUHS) violated her privacy rights by installing Facebook’s Pixel tracking tool on the login page of its patient portal, this “does not support any of her causes of action,” said DUHS in U.S. District Court for Middle North Carolina in a memorandum of support Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-00727) of its motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

Communications Decency Act Section 230 isn’t a “license to do whatever one wants online,” the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last week, reversing a district court decision and finding a website liable for selling misleading and incomplete information used in background checks.

Twenty-three states, plus the District of Columbia and Guam, seek leave to file an amicus brief in support of the FTC’s preliminary injunction request blocking Meta’s Within Unlimited buy on antitrust grounds, said their motion Monday (docket 5:22-cv-04325) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.

Communications Litigation Today is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.

Businesses may need to reconsider their strategies for complying with California privacy law after Attorney General Rob Bonta’s summer action against Sephora signaled aggressive enforcement by the state, attorneys said in interviews. Privacy compliance work is especially urgent with California’s 30-day right to cure going away Jan. 1 and more state laws taking effect in 2023, the lawyers said.

Conservative Supreme Court justices at Monday’s oral argument in SEC v. Cochran appeared open to allowing entities to bring structural, constitutional challenges to federal agency actions in district court before a final judgment but expressed concern about the possible ramifications. A decision in the case could have implications for federal agencies (see 2211030063), particularly those with administrative law judges, such as the FCC. SCOTUS heard argument in a related case, Axon v. FTC, the same day (see 2211070049).