In August 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to exclude an expert’s causation opinion as unreliable and grant summary judgment in favor of a herbicide manufacturer. The case, which arose from claims that exposure to an herbicide caused the plaintiff’s blood cancer, underscores the critical importance of rigorous and well-supported expert analysis in toxic tort litigation and the judiciary’s gatekeeping role under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.1
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.