On October 2, 2025, President Donald Trump nominated William “Billy” Hewes III, a Republican politician from Mississippi, to serve as a Commissioner of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Synthetic dyes, once regarded as harmless ingredients that simply made foods more visually appealing and marketable, are now the subject of a dynamic bipartisan movement for reform. Thousands of food items in grocery stores in the United States utilize synthetic dyes, which have been linked to potential health risks, including behavioral effects in children and carcinogenicity in animal tests. One of these items, Red Dye No. 3—which is commonly used in candy and cereal—has been identified as carcinogenic by the FDA based on rat studies. Abroad, the EU mandates warning labels, while Australia and Japan restrict or ban them.
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.
The Texas Supreme Court’s recent decision in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake (No. 23-0493) clarifies proximate causation in personal injury cases ensuring an appropriate bar for proving the causation element of a negligence claim. The Court reversed a nearly $90 million jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, hinged on a holding that the substantial factor element of proximate causation was not met in a deadly collision where a vehicle carrying the plaintiffs lost control on an icy road, crossed a wide median into oncoming traffic, and collided with an 18-wheeler operated negligently by the commercial truck driver. “Proximate cause is not established merely by proof that the injury would not have happened if not for the defendant’s negligence,” but rather also requires “proof that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injury.” Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake No. 23-0493, 2025 WL 2239275, at *1 (Tex. June 27, 2025).
In a recent case filed in Portland, OR, a 71-year-old man brought various claims against numerous defendants related to products liability, negligence, and failure to warn associated with asbestos-containing products after being diagnosed with biphasic pleural mesothelioma in 2023. The case, Richard D. Long v. 3M Company, et al., was pending in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County. The initial trial ended in a mistrial after four days of jury deliberation. The subsequent trial resulted in the Portland jury awarding $34,200,000 to the plaintiff on
September 5, 2025.
It is extremely rare for a civil case filed in New York State to be reviewed by its highest court—the New York Court of Appeals. In 2023, 1,030,781 civil cases were filed in New York State trial courts; however, only 93 appeals were decided by the Court of Appeals.1 This represents just 0.009% of civil cases filed that year. Due to a recent decision from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (“Fourth Department”), the Court of Appeals may soon address a question of law regarding the state’s causation standard in asbestos cases.2
If you have shopped online lately, odds are you saw products proudly advertising themselves as “Made in the USA.” Maybe it was a flag, a pair of boots, or a kitchen gadget. But how often is that label actually true? According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not often enough. And this summer, the FTC delivered a not-so-subtle message to major players in American e-commerce, raising questions about the appropriate roles and responsibilities of platforms versus individual sellers.
In Walter Coleman, et al. v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-20925 (S.D. Fla.), a putative class of consumers from thirteen states alleges that Burger King’s advertising for items such as the Whopper materially exaggerates portion sizes, making the burgers appear up to 35% larger than they actually are. Plaintiffs claim that since 2017, Burger King’s marketing has depicted patties protruding beyond the buns—imagery they say misleads consumers into believing the product has increased in size when it has not. The second amended complaint asserts fourteen counts: violations of consumer-protection laws in eleven states (including Florida, California, and
New York) plus Florida common-law claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees for a nationwide class and state subclasses.
On August 15, 2025, Governor Pritzker signed Senate Bill 328 into law, effective immediately. The bill makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, namely changing Illinois from a specific jurisdiction state to a general jurisdiction state for actions that allege injury or illness resulting from exposure to a toxic substance.
BAP1 as Independent Cause
Recent reviews of genetic research continue to challenge long-held assumptions about the causes of malignant mesothelioma. While plaintiffs’ attorneys often cite to asbestos exposure as the only cause of mesothelioma, a January 2025 publication in Scientific Reports led by Dahlia Nielsen includes a novel approach to the subject and provides further evidence that certain inherited genetic mutations—most notably in the BAP1 gene—can independently cause mesothelioma, even in the absence of asbestos exposure.1 The results of Nielsen’s Bayesian analysis and findings, together with a brand new paper2 by Dr. Michele Carbone’s group (which may find its way into a future blog), may alter the landscape of asbestos litigation and influence the strategies used by both plaintiffs and defendants.