In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturers of cleaning products may want to examine what their marketing says (or doesn’t say) about their products’ ability to disinfect. What manufacturers should note: Plaintiffs’ lawyers are filing an increasing number of false advertising claims alleging that cleaning and sanitizing products do not do what they purport to do. While plaintiffs must still satisfy the existing legal standards for false advertising claims, these claims may lead some manufacturers to consider adjusting their marketing strategies.
Continue Reading How COVID Has Changed False Advertising Rules

Over the last several decades, there have been significant advancements in automotive technology. Today’s vehicles are equipped with more and more sophisticated computer systems than ever before. But as our reliance on technology continues to grow, so does the potential for cybersecurity attacks and resulting litigation. That’s why it’s becoming increasingly important for car manufacturers to pay close attention to the legal landscape.
Continue Reading Vehicle Manufacturers Face Cybersecurity Challenges

Attorneys have a duty to preserve evidence when bringing or defending claims.

In many jurisdictions, even accidental losses of evidence can lead to sanctions. For example, last year, an MMA fighter was sanctioned after a bottle of supplements critical to his suit against the manufacturer was lost in transit.[1] The court instructed the jury that it could draw an adverse inference based on the lost evidence.

Courts may also impose these sanctions where evidence is lost before a lawsuit is ever filed, if the litigation was foreseeable. Attorneys must therefore keep this duty to preserve evidence in mind after a dispute arises and remind clients to do the same.
Continue Reading Practice Pointer: Potential Consequences for Inadvertent Spoliation of Evidence

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last summer may have changed the trajectory of a high-profile pending commercial speech case. In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court modified the traditional commercial speech tests, perhaps placing a greater burden on the government when it seeks to regulate commercial speech. Becerra could influence the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision in Cigar Association of America v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration as to whether FDA-mandated cigar health warnings violate the First Amendment. If cigar regulations are found to violate the First Amendment, it could lead to a new wave of litigation.
Continue Reading You Can’t Make Me Say It: Does Becerra Make it Harder for the Government to Require Product Health Warnings?

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. Devries, 139 S. Ct. 986 (2019), a maritime tort law case in which plaintiffs alleged that asbestos exposure during their Navy service caused them to develop cancer. The Supreme Court held that, in the maritime context, a manufacturer has a duty to warn not only of the manufacturer’s own products, but also of third-party products that are later added to the manufacturer’s product.
Continue Reading The Rule of Requirement: Supreme Court Adopts New Standard for Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn in Maritime Law

It’s a typical marketing story: Not too long ago, manufacturers marketed coconut oil as a heat-tolerant alternative to other cooking oils. They further promoted it by noting that it was more sustainably harvested than palm oil and could replace butter for people avoiding dairy.

But then coconut oil marketing took a turn. People—not the manufacturers but social media influencers—started to talk about coconut oil in a different way. Influencers claimed that coconut oil was a “miracle cure” for a variety of health and other problems.
Continue Reading How Manufacturers Can Work With Social Media Influencers

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department, issued its decision yesterday on the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) punitive damages/Case Management Order (CMO) issue. While the Appellate Court held that Judge Heitler had the authority to modify the CMO to lift the deferral on punitive damages, it also found that she exceeded that authority to the extent that the order directs applications for a jury charge on punitive damages to be made at the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of trial. As a result, the long-term viability of punitive damages in NYCAL cases is back in question.
Continue Reading NYCAL Punitive Damages in Limbo

“The times they are a-changin” wrote Bob Dylan in 1964. Is New York City – recently dubbed by the American Tort Reform Association the Number 1 “Judicial Hellhole” in large part because of its pro-plaintiff bent in asbestos litigation – “a-changin” too? First, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was indicted for various allegedly bad judgments in connection with using state money to secure asbestos referrals and whopping settlement fees. Next, the judge that supervised the New York City Asbestos Litigation (NYCAL) for almost a decade is out and a new judge takes over. And then this week, Judge Barbara Jaffe issued a potentially game-changing opinion in the NYCAL, striking an $11 million plaintiff’s verdict in a mesothelioma case.
Continue Reading NY Judge Tosses Plaintiff’s Asbestos Causation Opinion