Lenovo Fights Class Certification in Laptop Spyware MDL

In a multidistrict litigation over spyware allegedly installed on some of its laptops, Lenovo Inc. is opposing the plaintiff’s request to certify a proposed Class.

Attorneys for Lenovo filed their opposition to the motion for class certification on Aug. 19.

They argue that the proposed Class of Lenovo laptop owners is too broad, as it would include persons never harmed by the issues plaintiffs raise.

Lenovo also says that the plaintiffs raise issues that are not common to the entire proposed Class, and their model for calculating damages is inadequate.

Generally, plaintiffs in the Lenovo class action lawsuits claim Lenovo sold some of its laptops pre-installed with intrusive spyware – a software product known as VisualDiscovery, created by Superfish Inc.

They claim VisualDiscovery tracks Internet use and search history on the laptops without the user’s knowledge or consent.

The software also allegedly reduces security by signing and verifying security certificates that should instead be signed and verified by the business whose website the certificate is intended to vouch for.

Plaintiffs also claim VisualDiscovery breaks HTTPS encryption, exposing user information to anyone within Wi-Fi range of the laptop who is able to siphon the laptop’s data from its Wi-Fi connection.

In opposing class certification, Lenovo argues that the proposed “all purchasers” Class is “breathtakingly overbroad” because the vast majority of Lenovo laptop purchasers have never suffered any harm from the software at issue.

The company claims that in the two years since VisualDiscovery was first installed, no security breach has occurred that is attributable to Superfish software on a Lenovo computer.

Lenovo points out that the VisualDiscovery software at issue was not written by Lenovo but by former defendant Superfish Inc.

Plaintiffs have already settled their claims against Superfish, Lenovo says.

Lenovo also argues that the issues raised by the plaintiffs are predominately individual issues, not issues common to the entire proposed Class as would be required for class certification.

The company states that the plaintiffs’ proposed model for calculating damages is invalid because it assumes that a laptop with VisualDiscovery installed has zero value.

“This is, in essence, a prohibited ‘full refund’ model in disguise,” Lenovo argues.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in July 2016. Certifying the proposed Class is warranted in part because issues common to all proposed Class Members predominate over issues that affect only individual ones, they argue.

They claim Lenovo harmed all Class Members in a material essentially common way, with a “uniform scheme to unlawfully access class members’ computers and their internet traffic without authorization.”

One Lenovo class action lawsuit in the multidistrict litigation was filed by plaintiff Jessica Bennett in February 2015.

Bennett alleged pop-up advertisements started to appear on her Lenovo Yoga 2 laptop while she used it in the course of running her blog-writing business. Upon further inspection, she claims to have discovered her computer was infected with spyware.

Bennett’s Lenovo class action lawsuit claims the spyware “tracked [her] Internet use, invaded her privacy, and damaged her computer.” She also claims it diminished the value of her Lenovo laptop.

If certified as proposed, the plaintiff Class would encompass all persons who purchased a Lenovo laptop that had VisualDiscovery installed on it without the purchaser’s knowledge.

Plaintiffs’ counsel includes attorneys Jonathan K. Levine and Elizabeth C. Pritzker of Pritzker Levine LLP; Daniel C. Girard, Elizabeth A. Kramer and Amanda M. Steiner of Girard Gibbs LLP; and Steven N. Williams, Matthew K. Edling and Philip L. Gregory of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

The Lenovo Superfish Spyware Class Action Lawsuit is In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, Case No. 5:15-md-02624, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Oct. 27, 2016, a California federal judge granted class certification for the Lenovo Adware litigation after rejecting some claims. 

UPDATE 2: On Jan. 30, 2018, claims in a class action lawsuit alleging Lenovo preinstalled secret monitoring devices on computers were further trimmed by a federal judge. Lenovo successfully argued that class action claims under New York’s consumer protection laws should be dismissed.

UPDATE 3: On  July 18, 2018, Lenovo laptop users havereached $8.3 million class action settlementresolving allegations that a pre-installed software program on Lenovo computer caused performance, privacy, and security issues. Top Class Actions will let our viewers know as soon as the settlement website and claim form are available.UPDATE 4: January 2019, the Lenovo adware class action settlement is now open.Click here to file a claim.

UPDATE 4: On Nov. 12, 2019, Top Class Actions viewers started receiving checks in the mail worth up to $244.52. Congratulations to everyone who filed a claim and got PAID!