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.

As an update Georgia Governor Briam Kemp signed into law Senate Bill 68 and Senate Bill 69 on April 21, 2025.

The Georgia Assembly passed sweeping tort reform on Friday, March 21, 2025. Governor
Brian Kemp had announced his tort reform package on January 30, 2025. The Georgia Senate subsequently passed two bills, Senate Bill 68 on February 21, 2025, and Senate Bill 69 on
February 27, 2025. A committee substitute to Senate Bill 68 was debated at length on March 20, 2025, in the Georgia House, which eventually adopted the substitute and sent the legislation directly to the Georgia Senate. On March 21, 2025, after another lengthy debate, the Senate adopted the House version of SB 68. Senate Bill 69 remains in committee in the House.

We previously reported that the Illinois Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Martin v. Goodrich Corp., upholding the constitutionality of a 2019 amendment to the Illinois Workers’ Occupational Diseases Act (the “Act”).1 Since then, the Seventh Circuit has recognized the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling as an “unequivocal determination” of Illinois law and allowed a plaintiff’s tort claims to proceed as exempt from the Act’s exclusivity provisions.

In February 2025, the United States Environmental Protection Agency announced it will delay the addition of nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”) to its Toxics Release Inventory Report for the 2025 reporting year. “PFAS” is a term used to describe a diverse group of chemicals contained in many consumer products and industrial processes. The EPA’s announcement followed President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” which, among other things, requested a 60-day postponement “to the effective date memorandum for any rules that have been published in the Federal Register, or any rules that have been issued in any manner but have not taken effect, so that the administration may review any questions of fact, law, and policy that the rules may raise.” Accordingly, impacted industries now have additional time to prepare for new PFAS reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (“EPCRA”) and the Pollution Prevention Act (“PPA”) following the addition of nine PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (“TRI”).

On December 21, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul of New York vetoed, for a third time, the Grieving Families Act (“Act”), a significant bipartisan legislative proposal in New York aimed at reforming the state’s wrongful death statute, which has remained largely unchanged since 1847. The Act’s provisions, including expanding recoverable damages, extending the statute of limitations, and broadening the definition of beneficiaries, have significant implications on civil law in New York, including asbestos litigation.

Overview of the Ban

On January 16, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a significant regulatory change by revoking the authorization for use of Red Dye No. 3 in food (including dietary supplements) and ingested drugs. As noted in a prior Husch Blackwell Legal Update, the FDA based its decision on the Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibits the approval of additives found to induce cancer in humans or animals. The FDA recognizes that although the hormonal mechanism causing cancer in rats is not applicable to humans, Red Dye No. 3’s presence in the food and drug supply is sufficient to require a ban under the Delaney Clause. The FDA’s decision marks a pivotal shift in food and drug safety regulations.