Product Liability

A California Court of Appeal decision recognizing an unusual and potentially far-reaching negligence duty for product manufacturers is now before the California Supreme Court. In the 
Gilead Tenofovir Cases, the Court held that, in “appropriate circumstances,” a manufacturer’s duty of reasonable care to users of its product can extend beyond the traditional obligation not to place a defective product into the stream of commerce. The decision may have wide implications for all manufacturers as the newly articulated duty is grounded in general negligence principles, not limited to drug manufacturers.

Fleet of trucks parked at parking lot yard of delivery company. Truck transport. Logistic industry. Freight transportation. Truck leasing. Commercial truck for delivering goods from warehouse. Cargo

Texas made a targeted amendment to one of its key products liability statutes governing the rental and leasing of motor vehicles. The Texas Legislature recently amended Section 82.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a statute that significantly limits the exposure of vehicle lessors and rental companies in failure-to-retrofit claims. The statute helps protect commercial vehicle lessors from being required to adopt the newest technology time and time again.

The D.C. Court of Appeals recently granted rehearing en banc in this case, which vacated the
March 5, 2026 panel decision described below.1 The case will be reargued before the full court, and the analysis in this post reflects the panel decision as issued.

On March 5, 2026, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals invalidated D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds and vacated the defendant’s related firearm convictions. In Benson v. United States,2 the majority framed these magazines as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment when they are in “common and ubiquitous use” by law-abiding citizens and found no historical tradition permitting blanket bans on such items. Applying the Supreme Court’s Heller/Bruen/Rahimi framework, the court found no tradition of prohibiting arms in common use and rejected analogies like gunpowder storage limits and Bowie knife regulations, which were regulations, not bans.

Each year, thousands of individuals are severely injured or die from intentional inhalation of everyday products like computer duster to achieve a euphoric high. When these injuries or deaths lead to lawsuits against manufacturers, plaintiffs often argue that the products were defectively designed or inadequately warned. A recent Tenth Circuit decision reinforces a critical limit on such claims under Kansas law: when the plaintiff’s own criminal conduct is the proximate cause of the harm, recovery is barred.

The bar is rising for the developers of generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms and other companies that utilize generative AI in public-facing applications. As AI becomes more integrated into everyday products and services—and as litigation involving these uses evolves—avoiding legal liability and maintaining regulatory compliance will be something of a moving target but one that the industry will need to follow closely.

In recent years, the market for eco-friendly products has surged, driven by increasing consumer demand for sustainable and environmentally responsible options. However, this trend has also led to a rise in greenwashing claims, where companies are accused of making misleading or unsubstantiated environmental claims about their products. As American businesses strive to capitalize on the green movement, they must navigate the complexities of complying with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides to avoid potential liability risks.

In a recent case pending in Hawaii state court, a husband and wife sued a tobacco company defendant for various claims related to its manufacturing and marketing of tobacco cigarettes, including strict products liability, negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and loss of consortium. After more than a month-long trial, the defendant was found responsible for design defect, fraud, and conspiracy claims related to plaintiff’s laryngeal cancer. The case, pending in the Third Judicial District of Hawaii, resulted in an eyewatering $91 million dollar verdict for the plaintiffs.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has long been a cornerstone of protection for firearms manufacturers and sellers, shielding them from liability when their products are misused in crimes. But recent litigation, including the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc.,1 shows how litigants continue to test the boundaries of this federal law. While the ruling ultimately upheld the PLCAA’s protections, the case is a reminder of the ongoing scrutiny the law faces—and why it remains essential for the firearms industry.

“With great power comes great responsibility,” and in the rapidly evolving landscape of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), the intersection of innovation and legal responsibility is becoming increasingly complex. As AI becomes more integrated into products and services across industries, matters regarding liability, regulation, and safety are raising questions about the tension between AI and liability. Courts must apply existing legal frameworks to this emerging technology while lawmakers play catch up and enact guardrails to ensure its safe and lawful use. This article explores the implications of AI in the context of product liability, focusing on recent litigation and potential theories of liability that companies must navigate as AI continues to permeate every sector of the economy.