On Friday, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the removal of Democratic Commissioners from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) without cause was unlawful. This decision arises from a lawsuit filed by Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. against President Donald J.
Senate Bill 328, as amended, makes significant changes to the law governing jurisdiction in Illinois, which would change 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. Per the Uniform Hazardous Substances Act of Illinois, “toxic” is defined as “any substance (other than radioactive substance) which has the capacity to produce bodily injury or illness to man through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through any body surface.” Senate Bill 328, with end of session amendments, passed both chambers as of June 1, 2025. Governor JB Pritzker is expected to sign the legislation into law.
In a recent case pending in Hawaii state court, a husband and wife sued a tobacco company defendant for various claims related to its manufacturing and marketing of tobacco cigarettes, including strict products liability, negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and loss of consortium. After more than a month-long trial, the defendant was found responsible for design defect, fraud, and conspiracy claims related to plaintiff’s laryngeal cancer. The case, pending in the Third Judicial District of Hawaii, resulted in an eyewatering $91 million dollar verdict for the plaintiffs.
Last week, we reported on the Trump Administration’s abrupt firing of all three Democratic Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC” or the “Commission”). At the time, the fired Commissioners expressed their intention to challenge their removal in court, with former Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. publicly stating, “See you in court, Mr. President.” Following through on that statement, legal proceedings have now begun.
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