South Carolina Business Law Blog

In AU Optronics Corporation and LG Display Co. v. State of South Carolina , the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals considered for the first time the issue of whether a state's lawsuit pursuing claims that may benefit some of its citizens is a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005  ("CAFA"). BACKGROUND The State of South Carolina brought separate actions against Defendants AU Optronics and LG Display (citizens of states other than South Carolina) in state court (Richland County) under the S.C. Antitrust Act and the SC Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA) and alleging a price-fixing conspiracy involving LCD panels.   The suits sought civil forfeitures, statutory penalties, and restitution for those South Carolina individuals who had purchased products utilizing these panels.    Defendants removed the actions to the District of South Carolina, alleging that the cases satisfied the "minimal diversity" standards of  CAFA as “class ...

It has scarcely been a month since this post describing Jennings v. Jennings , and the the S.C. Court of Appeals' construction of the Stored Communications Act . The South Carolina Supreme Court granted Certiorari to review the opinion, and on October 10th reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals .  Three of the five Justices on the Court issued opinions in the case, underscoring the difficulties in construing this law enacted before the advent of browsers and webmail.    Click here for the facts. The Majority Opinion: This is not Backup Justice Hearn rejected the rationale of the Court of Appeals that Mr. Jennings' single copies of previously opened Yahoo emails were stored "for purposes of backup protection" pursuant to Section 2510(17)(B) of the Wiretap Act:  "We decline to hold that retaining an opened e-mail constitutes storing it for backup protection under the Act."  Employing the ordinary meaning of "backup" as "one tha...