Insights
Search Results
Client Highlights
1.08.25
Firm Secures Judgment for TikTok and ByteDance in Data Privacy Class Action
On December 24, 2024, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld of the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Wilson Sonsini's clients, TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Inc. The lawsuit, originally filed in May 2023, concerned allegations of illegal data collection by online advertisers using the Pixel, a web tool advertisers can install on web pages to collect certain browsing information. Such data, when matched to TikTok users, can be used to improve ad performance. The plaintiffs, three individuals who had never had TikTok accounts, claimed that TikTok violated their privacy, intercepted and eavesdropped on their communications with websites under the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and stole their property.
Client Highlights
9.27.24
Wilson Sonsini Defeats $341 Million Arbitration Claim Against Aadi Bioscience
On September 26, 2024, an international arbitration tribunal delivered a unanimous award in favor of Wilson Sonsini’s client, Aadi Bioscience, Inc., and decisively rejected the claimant’s multimillion-dollar demand for damages.
Client Highlights
5.17.22
Wilson Sonsini Obtains Securities Litigation Win for Dropbox
On May 13, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a decision dismissing a lawsuit filed in state court against Dropbox, its officers, its board of directors, the underwriters, and certain venture capitalists for alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act). The suit arose out of Dropbox’s March 2018 IPO, with the plaintiff alleging that Dropbox made false or misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus. Dropbox moved to dismiss, invoking its Federal Forum Provision (FFP)—a bylaw that states that any lawsuit brought under the ’33 Act must be brought in federal court. Building upon the firm’s win in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, in which the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed the validity of FFPs, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s ruling that Dropbox’s FFP did not violate the ‘33 Act’s anti-waiver or anti-removal provisions, was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and was enforceable under California law. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Dropbox in the matter.
Alerts
12.09.20
California Courts Rule Federal Forum Selection Provisions in Chartering Documents Enforceable
In March, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 227 A.3d 102 (Del. 2020) that "Federal Forum Selection Provisions," corporate bylaw or charter provisions that require claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") to be brought in federal court, are facially valid under Delaware's General Corporation Law. Wilson Sonsini represented Stitch Fix, Inc. and Roku, Inc. and their respective directors in the Sciabacucchi case, and previously issued an alert describing the Sciabacucchi opinion. The Delaware Supreme Court, however, expressly left open the question of whether Federal Forum Provisions were enforceable, leaving that decision to the various state courts in which Securities Act claims were filed. Three recent decisions in California have considered the enforceability of Federal Forum Provisions adopted by Restoration Robotics, Inc., Uber, Inc., and Dropbox, Inc., as a matter of first impression, and each found the provisions enforceable under California law.