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.
On May 21, 2026, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) granted in part Petition No. 609, kickstarting a process that may result in the ban of fabrication and installation of artificial stone in California.
If your company imports consumer products into the United States, a significant new regulatory requirement will take effect on July 8. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) now requires importers to electronically file product safety certificate information at the time a shipment enters the United States, a departure from the previous practice of providing certificates only after a shipment was flagged for examination. The new system applies broadly, with no de minimis exemption based on shipment value.
State regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as “forever chemicals,” continues to accelerate nationwide. In April 2026, New Jersey enacted the Protecting Against Forever Chemicals Act (the “Act”), which prohibits the sale of certain consumer products containing intentionally added PFAS and imposes labeling requirements on cookware containing PFAs. The Act takes effect in January 2028.
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.
A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court reinforces a demanding evidentiary standard in premises liability cases and reminds plaintiffs that circumstantial evidence of a hazard’s cause is not the same as evidence of its duration. In H-E-B, LP v. Marissa Peterson, the Texas Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who bring premises liability claims based on constructive knowledge must produce “evidence that the condition existed for a sufficient duration before the time and place of the injury for a premises owner to have discovered it.”1
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.
In January 2024, Plaintiff Graciela Dela Torre settled her long-term disability claim with Nippon Life Insurance Company (Nippon) and dismissed her case with prejudice. Later, Plaintiff
Dela Torre questioned her settlement. But she did not return to her attorney to ask questions. Instead, she turned to ChatGPT, a widely used AI chatbot.