X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Six plaintiffs pursuing class actions over the gathering of consumer information on pharmaceutical company Web sites will have their cases heard in federal court in Boston under a transfer order issued by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 18. The JPMDL transferred six actions pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Noah Blumhofe, who has an action pending in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, also was a named plaintiff in a New York action. The panel found that the litigation involves common allegations that industry defendants surreptitiously accessed private information of consumers who visited pharmaceutical Web sites, and that centralization before Massachusetts Judge Joseph Tauro would eliminate duplicative discovery and inconsistent pre-trial rulings. The Southern District of New York had previously ordered the New York cases consolidated, over defendants’ objections. Plaintiffs in that court filed an amended consolidated complaint on Feb. 23. Defendants include Pharmatrak Inc., a Boston-based Internet-tracking service which markets to the pharmaceutical industry. Pharmatrak’s parent, Glocal Communications Ltd., is a British firm that is also named as a defendant. Industry defendants include Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia Corp., SmithKline Beecham PLC, Glaxo Wellcome PLC, Novartis Corp. and American Home Products Corp. Plaintiffs contend that the pharmaceutical companies are utilizing “cookies” or “web bugs” in a system developed by Pharmatrak to surreptitiously collect Internet browsing information and confidential personal data. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment. The six actions transferred from the Southern District of New York were Schroers v. Pfizer; Barring v. Pfizer; McClary v. Pharmatrak; Perlman v. Pharmatrak; Blumofe v. Pharmatrak; and Darby v. Pharmatrak. Hayes Law Reports offers specialized legal research and publishes monthly litigation reports on e-commerce and technology, insurance, and consumer law issues. More information about Hayes Law Reports can be found at http://www.hayeslawreports.com, and John Hayes may be contacted at [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.