Plimus “Unlimited” Downloads

June 2014: This action was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

April 2014: A federal judge denied certification of a narrower class concluding that the commonality requirement was not met because the named plaintiff’s proposed questions were not central to and did not resolve the question of Plimus’s liability, and the named plaintiff did not provide evidence that Plimus operated in a similar way with respect to each of the websites.

October 2013: A federal judge denied class certification in a lawsuit filed against Plimus, Inc., a company that helps create and distribute marketing campaigns for “unlimited download websites.” The complaint, originally filed in January 2012, alleges that the company promotes certain websites as providing consumers with unlimited downloads (for things such as eBooks, movies, TV shows, and video games) in exchange for a one-time fee when, according to plaintiffs, the websites do not, in any way, offer products in the way advertised by Plimus. In addition, plaintiffs claim that Plimus deceives consumers by including fake consumer reviews, testimonials, and blogs in the marketing campaigns.

The judge denied class certification finding that the named plaintiff could not adequately represent the class for two reasons. First, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a common relationship existed between Plimus and each unlimited download website in the complaint. Second, the plaintiff failed to show that the company’s involvement with each website was substantially similar and, therefore, the plaintiff’s claims would be representative of the claims of the entire class. (Yordy et al v. Plimus, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-00229, N. D. CA.).