The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that millions of Americans are injured in motor vehicle crashes annually.1 In just 2025, an estimated 36,640 Americans died as a result of a motor vehicle crash.2 Many vehicle manufacturers and technology companies hope to reduce these figures, envisioning a world forward where driving is done by autonomous vehicles, reducing the amount of human error that often leads to crashes.
On May 1, 2026, the State of Pennsylvania’s Department of State filed suit against Character Technologies, Inc., the developer of Character.AI, alleging that AI chatbot characters on the platform represented themselves as licensed medical professionals and provided medical advice in violation of Pennsylvania’s Medical Practice Act.
The wave of litigation targeting Apple over its AirTag tracking devices is a useful case study for any company that manufactures or sells a product that could conceivably be misused by a bad actor. In a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, a “Jane Doe” plaintiff alleges that a former romantic partner used AirTags to track her on at least three occasions in 2025 by concealing devices inside a suitcase and tablet, which were ultimately used to locate and take their daughter in violation of a custody order. The plaintiff alleges negligence, strict liability, invasion of privacy, and a violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In
August 2026, U.S. District Judge Marcia Morales Howard struck the complaint as an impermissible “shotgun pleading” and directed the plaintiff to file a corrected version. However, the underlying theories of liability remain at issue and are illustrative of a broader trend among plaintiffs seeking to hold manufacturers responsible for the deliberate criminal conduct of third parties.
If your company makes products, integrates software into products, or operates in a complex global supply chain that touches the European Union, a major overhaul of EU product liability law is coming. To guarantee consumer protection in the new age of AI and rapidly evolving digital technologies, the EU has adopted a new Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853 (the Directive). Below, we break down what’s changing, who it affects, and what companies should be doing now to prepare.
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.
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.