Product Liability

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.

“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.

Wooden gavel and American dollars
Record-breaking verdict

The number of cases involving so-called “nuclear verdicts” — that is, verdicts with awards of $10 million or more — have risen sharply, and many of those cases concern product liability claims. For large corporations, such verdicts can be damaging, both from a financial and reputational standpoint, but rarely do they significantly impact operations beyond the quarter or year in which they are booked. For middle-market and smaller corporations, however, product liability litigation can be enterprise-threatening; therefore, it is vital for smaller corporations — especially those with limited in-house legal resources — to understand the claims most often brought in product liability litigation, how to triage inbound lawsuits, and when to call on outside legal advice to resolve disputes.

AI Generating picture of a futuristic modern electric car speedometer dashboard interior view with a holographic wireframe digital technology background.

Vehicles are more complex now, than ever, offering incredible and exciting technology, including self-driving features. But as innovation continues to rapidly change the automotive industry, can we expect the same innovation to impact the legal landscape giving way to new and unique theories in product liability actions and/or impacting the defenses asserted by defendants? The short answer appears to be, “not yet.”

This article is one of a series of posts diving into each aspect of The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) as the industry awaits MoCRA’s full implementation. This installment focuses on MoCRA’s approach to the regulation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetic products.
FDA3
As discussed in the Product Perspective, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) represents a major shift in cosmetic industry regulations. This article, in a continuing series of posts diving into each aspect of MoCRA, covers the talc testing and sample preparation requirements which will be established by the FDA under MoCRA.

On May 18, 2023, the Illinois General Assembly passed House Bill 219 (Bill) which, if signed by Governor Pritzker, would allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases. Illinois law does not currently permit punitive damages for recovery, only allowing compensatory damages. Suits against state and local government officials will still be exempt from damages if the legislation passes.

FDA3
The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (“MoCRA”) was signed into law on December 29, 2022. MoCRA expands the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to regulate cosmetics and serves as the most significant change to the regulation of cosmetics since the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act in 1938. MoCRA is a seismic shift in the world of cosmetic regulation, bringing new authorities to the FDA that are similar to those that currently exist for food, drugs and medical devices, among other regulated products. MoCRA has sweeping implications for domestic and international cosmetics manufacturers that market products in the U.S.

The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATR) published its 2021-2022 Judicial Hellholes Executive Summary. The report highlights the most prominent jurisdictions across the United States known for allowing innovate lawsuits, welcoming litigation tourism, and expanding civil liability.

The 2021-2022 Judicial Hellholes

The ATR’s top judicial hellholes are:

(1) California. “The Golden State” is back in the No. 1 Judicial Hellhole spot due to appellate courts holding e-commerce companies strictly liable for products sold on their sites, “baseless” Prop-65 lawsuits, “frivolous” Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) and American with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims, and the AG promoting an “expansive view” of public nuisance law.

(2) New York. “The Empire State” is right behind California for having one of the worst legal climates in the nation. The ATR notes this is due to New York’s unmatched number of “no-injury” class actions, ADA lawsuits, and immense asbestos litigation docket.