Re:Torts - Issues

Issue 25 - March 2025

• Federal Court Dismisses Products Liability Challenge to Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation Tools
• Maine Joins Other States in Refusing to Extend Public Nuisance Law to Product Liability Claims
• Court Holds that Deceased Expert’s Report is a Medical Record under Rule 703
• Industry Groups Oppose EPA’s PFAS Rule in Legal Challenge
• Medical Monitoring Class Action Based on Mere Exposure to Lead Fails for Lack of Standing

Issue 24 - February 2025

• PFAS Out, Libel In: Testing the Boundaries of Defamation and Tortious Interference
• Plaintiff-Side Firms Bear the Burdensome Costs of Third-Party Litigation Lending
• The No-Harm Foul:  U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Class Actions Can Include Uninjured Plaintiffs 
• Environmental Group Sues FDA over Inaction on PFAS in Food
• State Court Appeals to Watch in 2025

Issue 23 - January 2025

• FDA Issues New Rule for Nonprescription Drugs with Additional Conditions of Use
• Plaintiff’s Firm Ordered to Produce Advertising Information
• EPA Proposes Human Health Criteria for PFAS in Surface Water
• Product Liability Litigation and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: A Year in Review

Issue 22 - December 2024

• PFAS in the Spotlight: EPA and FDA Zero in on Seafood and Water
• Online Retailer Avoids Liability in Suicide Cases (For Now)
• AI Expert Challenged for Relying on AI “Hallucinations”
• Ohio Supreme Court Rules Public Nuisance Claims Against Retail Pharmacies Barred by State Law
• U.S.-Style Multi-Claimant Actions Take Another Step in the U.K.: Le Patourel v BT, the First U.K. Opt-Out Judgment Goes to the Defense

Issue 21 - November 2024

• EPA to Expand PFAS Reporting and Delay Separate PFAS Reporting Rule
• U.S. Judicial Conference to Evaluate Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure Rule
• Northern District of California Rejects Claims That Tampons Contain Harmful Levels of PFAS

Issue 20 - October 2024

• Uber Drives Dual MDL Challenges to Ninth Circuit
• Major Companies Urge Greater Transparency in Third-Party Litigation Funding
• Supreme Court Hears Argument on Post-Removal Complaint Amendments

Issue 19 - August 2024

• Testing the Waters: The Implications of Loper Bright on EPA’s New PFAS Regulations
• AI Misfires Again: Lawyers Caught in the Web of Fictitious Cases as ABA Weighs In
• Third Circuit Affirms Use of Lone Pine Order to “Winnow Non-Compliant Cases from MDL”
• Michigan Supreme Court Asked to Determine Learned Intermediary Doctrine

Issue 18 - July 2024

• Bipartisan Momentum Builds to Shine Light on Litigation Funders
  
• Will Solicitor General Prompt SCOTUS Ruling on Preemption of Climate Change Torts?
• Remote Depositions: When Mere Convenience Is Not “Good Cause” 

Issue 17 - June 2024

• Are Litigation Funders the Truest Parties in Interest?
  
• A Defendant's Guide to the Plaintiffs' Trial Playbook: Strategies and Countermeasures
• Supreme Court Rules on Insurers in Mass Tort Bankruptcy Proceedings
  
• Recent Litigation Against EPA Highlights More Focus on PFAS in Biosolids

Issue 16 - May 2024

• Supreme Court to Resolve Availability of RICO Claims to Personal Injury Plaintiffs
• Supreme Court Confronts a Circuit Split on Post-Removal Complaint Amendments 
• Supreme Court of California to Consider Duty to Innovate
• Perennial Plaintiffs’ Expert Excluded For “Methodological Shapeshifting”

Issue 15 - April 2024

• “A bridge too far”: Alaskan Court Puts the Freeze on Opioid Nuisance Claim
• Plaintiffs in Consolidated Complaint Bound by Bellwether Judgments in the Seventh Circuit 
• S.D.N.Y. Says Software’s Source Supports Section 230 Safe Harbor 
• Proposed New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1 Offers Tools for Effective MDL Management
  
• EPA Finalizes Two Landmark Regulations for PFAS 
• EPA Designates Two PFAS as CERCLA Hazardous Substances
• Increasing FDA Interest in Regulating Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Medical Products

Issue 14 - March 2024

• A Prescription for Liability: Michigan Repeals Flagship Drug Immunity Law
• Unclear for Takeoff: Canadian Airline Liable for Chatbot Misinformation
• It’s (Still) Important Enough to Get It Right
• Gilead Appeals New “Duty to Innovate” Negligence Claim: A Potential Shift in Manufacturer Liability?
• A Package Deal: FDA and Manufacturers Halt PFAS Use in Disposable Food Containers
• FDA Urges Careful Evaluation of Third-Party Data in Regulatory Submissions

Issue 13 - February 2024

• Cal/OSHA Emergency Temporary Stay Order Issued for Workers Exposed to Respirable Crystalline Silica
• “It’s important enough to get it right”: Federal Appellate Courts Ask State Supreme Courts to Decide Opioid Public Nuisance Question
• The Continuing Ethical and Legal Quandaries in Obscured Litigation Funding
• “Proxy” Testing Insufficient at Pleadings Stage in PFAS Litigation
• Regulators and Legislators Target Tech

Issue 12 - January 2024

• The Phantom-Case Menace: Managing the Use of AI in Court Filings
  
• Piercing the Shield and Blunting the Sword: A Fourth Circuit Appeal Challenges Whether Courts Should Protect Made-for-Litigation Studies
• “Industry Standards” Not a Defense in Design Defect Cases, Says Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Plurality Opinion 
• Draft Report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Won’t Be Produced in Camp Lejeune Litigation
• EPA’s Progress Report on PFAS Previews its Continued Regulatory Focus
• Product Liability Litigation and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: A Year in Review

Issue 11 - November 2023

• Recent Nuclear Verdicts Highlight Danger Of Punitive Damages
  
• FDA's Remote Control: Virtual Inspection Tools are Here to Stay
  
• California’s Chemical Crackdown
  
• PFAS Product Testing Not Enough to Powder Over Blemishes in Class Action Pleadings
  

Issue 10 - October 2023

• Senators Focus Attention on Litigation Funding’s Opacity
• Social Media at The Supreme Court
• Cybersecurity and Medical Devices – FDA’s Updated Guidance
• EPA’s New PFAS Reporting Rule Bears Important Commercial Consequences
• PFAS: The Rising Tide of Regulatory Compliance and Litigation Risks

Issue 9 - September 2023

• Delaware Supreme Court Rejects No-Injury Medical Monitoring Claims
  
• Continued Spotlight on PFAS: EPA’s New Enforcement Priorities for 2024
• Treated as an Expert: When Treaters Must Submit an Expert Report
• Computer Software: It’s Still Everywhere, Even in Medical Devices
• FDA Issues Three Draft Guidance Documents for the 510(k) Program for Medical Devices

Issue 8 - August 2023

• Advances in Videoconferencing Do Not Change the Subpoena Power of the Court
• California Codifies Standard for Defense Experts’ Alternative Causation Opinions
• New MDLs Created for Bard Implants and Insulin Price Fixing
• EPA Issues Gatekeeping Framework for New PFAS and New Uses of Existing PFAS
• NYDOH’s Proposed Regulations Expand Notification Requirements for PFAS in Drinking Water
• EPA Releases White Paper Explaining Approach to Part 2 of Asbestos Risk Evaluation

Issue 7 - July 2023

• “I am not a Chat!”
• Delaware Supreme Court Mulls Over Medical Monitoring
• Expanding Scope of Damages Available in Survivorship and Wrongful Death Actions
• Pre-Packaged Problems: The “Expert Standard” for Corporations
• EU Proposal Raises the Stakes for Product Liability
• FDA Finalizes Guidance on Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-To-Consumer Promotion
  

Issue 6 - June 2023

• States Intensify Efforts to Regulate PFAS
• FDA Proposes New, Easy-to-Read Medication Guide
• Montana TikTok Ban Sparks Litigation
• FCA Scienter: A New Subjective Standard
• ALI Delays Vote on No-Injury Medical Monitoring
• Former FDA Officials Contend Fosamax Claims Are Not Preempted

Issue 5 - May 2023

• New State Laws Restrict Social Media Use by Minors
• FDA Publishes Guidance on Submissions for Medical Devices That Are Artificial Intelligence / Machine-Learning (“AI/ML”)-Enabled
• FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Decentralized Clinical Trials
• EPA’s PFAS Enforcement Authority Expands Into A New Area
• Momentum Builds on Third-Party Litigation Funding Disclosure
• On the Record: Discoverability of Remote Meetings
• Sixth Circuit: State Court Pleadings Satisfy Federal CAFA Jurisdiction
• Snappy Decisions

Issue 4 - April 2023

• Truest Parties in Interest: Non-Disclosed Third-Party Litigation Funder Stops Settlement
  
• Florida’s Prospective Tort Reform
  
• Federal Court Sanctions A Company Over Deleted Chats
  
• EU Set to Overhaul Its Product Liability Laws
• FDA Issues Final Guidance for Cyber Device Submissions

Issue 3 - March 2023

• PFAS Litigation Continues to Expand
• EPA Proposes National Drinking Water Regulation for Six PFAS Compounds
• Supreme Court Debates Section 230 Immunity in Algorithm Use and Liability of Tech Companies
• EU Digital Services Act: Product Liability Considerations for Online Intermediaries
• January 2023 JPML Hearing Rulings
• Supreme Court Asked to Review Finding of Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Company

Issue 2 - February 2023

• Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Challenge to Interim PFAS Guidance, Leaving Important Questions Unresolved
  
• European Union Proposes to Significantly Restrict PFAS 
• Governor Kathy Hochul Vetoes New York Wrongful Death Bill
• First Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in Zofran MDL
• FDA Cybersecurity Requirements for Medical Devices Passed into Law
• FDA Publishes Final Guidance on REMS Programs for Prescription Drugs

Issue 1 - January 2023

• More PFAS Reporting Obligations On the Horizon
• The Pending Amendments To Rule 702
• Zantac MDL Judge Grants Defendants’ Daubert Motions
• “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”: Third-Party Litigation Financing
• Products Liability Multi-District Litigation Heading into 2023
• A Proposed Rule for MDLs
• Bringing Cosmetic Regulation “into the 21st Century”
• FTC Updates Guidance on Health Products Advertising