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.
A California Superior Court recently saw its decision reversed on appeal to the California Court of Appeal over several improper evidentiary rulings in Sabrena Odom v. Los Angeles Community College District, et al., (2025) 331 Cal.Rptr.3d 642.
In June 2025, a Suffolk County, Massachusetts jury delivered an $8 million verdict in Janice Paluzzi v. Johnson & Johnson (21-2109). The jury allocated $5 million for past pain and suffering and $3 million for future pain and suffering.
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, granted the Trump Administration’s request to stay a permanent injunction that had ordered the reinstatement of three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”), after the Administration fired them from the independent agency without cause.
On June 30, 2025, the Honorable Paul Goetz of the New York Supreme Court held that plaintiff Norma Nazario’s lawsuit for the death of her son in a 2023 “subway surfing” incident could proceed against social media companies Meta Platforms, Inc., Tiktok, Inc. and ByteDance, Inc.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Washington overruled previous precedent regarding the deliberate intent to injure exception related to workers’ compensation immunity for employers, finding that an employee may sue its employer for latent disease injury if they can establish the employer had actual knowledge that latent diseases are “virtually certain” to occur. Cockrum v.
C.H. Murphy/Clark-Ullman, Inc., 569 P.3d 287, 289 (Wash. 2025). In Cockrum, the Plaintiff is a living mesothelioma claimant (“Plaintiff”), who filed suit against his employer as a premises defendant (“Defendant”), alleging that they deliberately intended to injure him by exposing him to asbestos without proper warnings or protections while he worked as a laborer at their facility from 1967 to 1997. He further argued that Defendant had actual knowledge that injury was certain to occur from asbestos exposure but willfully disregarded that knowledge by continuously exposing him to asbestos without proper warning or protection. Specifically, he alleged exposure to asbestos while working in the environmental lab, where he tested samples for asbestos without any protective gear.
Background
On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by President Donald J. Trump and other officials (“Defendants”) to stay his order reinstating three Democratic CPSC Commissioners: Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. (the “Commissioners”). The motion, filed on June 16, 2025, sought to pause the court’s injunction, prohibiting any action to effectuate the Commissioners’ removal, while the case is appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Prior to the district court’s decision, Defendants filed an emergency motion for a stay with the Fourth Circuit on June 17, 2025, which was denied on July 1, 2025. The next day, the Trump Administration submitted an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal.