Reached by phone Thursday, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said “the biggest class action in history just became bigger.” “We don’t have many more people on the face of the Earth.” Yanchunis said that besides expanding the size of the affected class, the latest disclosure raises questions about Yahoo’s handling of the breach.
end-users are able to post, and have in fact posted, highly offensive matter, including Nazi-related propaganda and memorabilia, the display and sale of which are illegal in France. avers that its French subsidiary sites do not permit such postings, Yahoo! S.-based site ending in ".com" does not impose such a restriction because to do so might infringe upon the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 's On or about April 5, 2000, LICRA sent a "cease and desist" letter to Yahoo! Although Defendants have not yet sought to enforce the French Order in the United States, the Court concludes that, as is discussed in more detail below, Yahoo!appropriately points out that in several of the aforementioned cases, as in the instant action, the plaintiffs asserted claims for declaratory relief.However, even in such cases the court generally has concluded or assumed that the underlying allegations sounded in tort.This Court concludes, however, that the application of the effects test in the present case is fully consistent not only with the rationale of the test but also with traditional principles of personal jurisdiction and international law.While filing a lawsuit in a foreign jurisdiction may be entirely proper under the laws of that jurisdiction, such an act nonetheless may be "wrongful" from the standpoint of a court in the United States if its primary purpose or intended effect is to deprive a United States resident of its constitutional rights.