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.

On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles County jury in California’s Superior Court returned a $6 million verdict in favor of a minor child Plaintiff, K.G.M., against two major social media platforms. The jury awarded Plaintiff both punitive and compensatory damages.1 The negligence claims in the case centered on the allegation that the Defendants’ “addictive” product designs resulted in harm to the Plaintiff. The claim was that the platforms themselves caused the decline in the Plaintiff’s mental health.

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a buzzword in product safety. AI is actively reshaping the way companies identify hazards, manage recalls, communicate warnings, and address the unique risks of lithium-ion batteries. As products become more complex, consumer complaints arrive faster, regulators demand greater transparency, and recall costs soar. AI offers a powerful solution to traditional approaches, but only when it’s used thoughtfully and with legal awareness.

On February 24, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed a judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana awarding damages to plaintiffs in a Libby, Montana asbestos case, holding that BNSF Railway cannot be held strictly liable for asbestos-contaminated vermiculite that accumulated on its tracks and railyard.

On February 11, 2026, Judge Juan R. Sánchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to remand in a high-profile toxic torts case. Former professional baseball players and representatives of their estates filed a lawsuit, claiming that extended exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) while playing for a team that used artificial turf in its stadium led to the development of various cancers. Plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s removal was untimely, as it was filed 175 days after service of the original complaint, and also claimed the federal contractor defense lacked adequate evidence.

Senate Bill 293 (SB 293), codified at Section 23.303 of the Texas Government Code, requires Texas courts to follow a strict schedule for hearings and rulings on motions for summary judgment. Effective September 1, 2025, SB 293 aims to streamline judicial efficiency and provide Texas litigants with more predictability. Relatedly, Texas House Bill 16 (HB 16), effective December 4, 2025, modifies the timelines for judicial action initially set by SB 293 in two ways:

1) by increasing the time courts have to consider motions for summary judgment from 45 days after the motion is filed to 60 days; and

2) by allowing courts up to 90 days after a summary judgment motion is filed to consider it, but only under very limited circumstances. Motions for summary judgment filed between September 1, 2025 and December 3, 2025 are subject to the deadlines originally introduced by SB 293.

In September 2025, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tackled a significant procedural issue: whether an order compelling arbitration in ongoing litigation is immediately appealable as a collateral order. In Chilutti v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the plaintiffs, Shannon and Keith Chilutti, sued Uber and others for injuries allegedly sustained during a ride in a wheelchair-accessible Uber vehicle. Uber responded by invoking the arbitration clause in its user agreement and successfully petitioned the trial court to compel arbitration, staying the litigation. The Chiluttis appealed, and the Superior Court ruled in their favor, holding that the Order at issue qualified as an appealable collateral order because postponing review “may” result in irreparable loss to the Chiluttis’ claims. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that such an order does not constitute an immediately appealable collateral order and the Superior Court erred in holding to the contrary. This holding has broad implications, ensuring that litigation will generally proceed to a final judgment before appellate review of arbitration enforcement, preventing a flood of immediate appeals that could bog down the courts and increase costs for business defendants.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated a $1 billion jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged injuries arising out of a 2017 car accident. The case centered on alleged defects in a 1992 sports car’s occupant restraint system and roof design. The analysis from the Superior Court, while non-precedential, offers crucial insights into Pennsylvania’s product liability law particularly with regard to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark Tincher opinion.