The Kansas Supreme Court recently delivered another strong endorsement of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), further solidifying its role as a shield for lawful commerce in the firearms industry. In Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC et al., the Court held that the PLCAA bars product liability and negligence claims against manufacturers and sellers when an injury results from a criminal misuse—even if the shooting was in some respects accidental.1
On March 18th, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ban of Chrysotile asbestos became the first rule to be finalized under the 2016 amendments to the nation’s chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Chrysotile is currently the only known form of asbestos being imported or used in manufacturing in the United States. Since the ban, there have been numerous appeals filed, all of which have since been consolidated and are pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, the EPA requested that the Fifth Circuit stay the litigation so that it may conduct a regulatory review mandated by a recently issued executive order. The stay was granted on February 14, 2025, and will pause the litigation for 120 days, allowing the EPA to review the ban in light of broader policy considerations.
On February 7, 2025, Judge Walker, sitting in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled that the Plaintiff (a subsidiary of a parent company engaged in nationwide talcum powder litigation) (“Plaintiff”) had standing to sue expert pathologists who testify for plaintiffs in personal injury litigation (“expert pathologists”) for injurious falsehood/product disparagement based on allegedly false statements in a scientific article purportedly linking cosmetic talc to mesothelioma.1 Although the experts did not name Plaintiff, or specific products in their scientific article, Judge Walker held that the subsidiary plausibly alleged that their economic injuries were traceable to the expert pathologists’ allegedly false statements, which contributed to a decline in consumer demand for baby powder products.
The electric vehicle (“EV”) revolution is reshaping the automotive industry, promising a greener future and reduced reliance on fossil fuels. However, as EV adoption accelerates, manufacturers face a growing legal and regulatory challenge: the risk of lithium-ion battery fires, which has sparked a wave of product liability lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny in recent months. For EV manufacturers, understanding the legal implications of these issues and proactively addressing safety concerns is critical to mitigating liability and maintaining consumer trust.
As a sovereign entity, the United States government is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued.1 However, its sovereign immunity may be waived under certain circumstances under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”), which is the exclusive remedy for state law torts committed by federal employees within the scope of their employment.2
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.
In recent years, numerous businesses have successfully enforced broad arbitration clauses, particularly those embedded in terms and conditions of online service agreements. We previously discussed a noteworthy example from a recent New Jersey appeals panel decision.1 The underlying cause of action in that case stemmed from a motor vehicle collision that occurred while plaintiff was a passenger in a ride share vehicle. The court sent the dispute to arbitration, enforcing an arbitration clause that was included in an the rideshare company’s food-delivery agreement that plaintiff’s daughter had agreed to when ordering food. Although an entirely different set of facts, the arbitration clause contained in the food delivery service agreement was deemed applicable to the claims of a passenger in a rideshare vehicle.2 This is just one recent example of how defendant corporations have succeeded in enforcing ostensibly unrelated arbitration clauses to a spectrum of tangential claims. Indeed, arbitration provisions have proven remarkably effective across a wide spectrum of legal matters, including personal injury claims, discrimination suits, and potentially even antitrust cases. Courts have shown a broad willingness to generally enforce arbitration clauses, including those included in “clickwrap” agreements, which require users to agree to terms and conditions before using a website, completing a software installation, or making an online purchase, that subject consumers to arbitration provisions through everyday digital services.
“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.
In December 2024, we reported on a City of St. Louis, Missouri jury verdict in favor of baby formula manufacturers in a lawsuit claiming their specialized infant formulas for premature babies caused an infant to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a potentially fatal condition. This was a landmark win for the manufacturers who have been embroiled in ongoing litigation for several years, especially considering the plaintiff in this case asked the jury for a staggering $6 billion in punitive damages. Although the defense verdict in this case seemingly cleared the manufacturers, a St. Louis Court recently negated the verdict and ordered a new trial.