- Federal Court Dismisses Products Liability Challenge to Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation Tools
- Maine Joins Other States in Refusing to Extend Public Nuisance Law to Product Liability Claims
- Court Holds that Deceased Expert’s Report is a Medical Record under Rule 703
- Industry Groups Oppose EPA’s PFAS Rule in Legal Challenge
- Medical Monitoring Class Action Based on Mere Exposure to Lead Fails for Lack of Standing
HOT TOPICS
A recent federal court decision dismissed a products liability challenge to social media platforms’ content reporting tools for failing to identify any product that actually caused harm. Read more
Maine’s highest court recently dismissed a public nuisance claim against sellers of opioid medications, adding to a body of caselaw that refuses to extend public nuisance doctrines against companies involved in making, marketing, or selling pharmaceuticals. Read more
EXPERTS EXAMINED
In Roubert v. Amazon, an Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court ruled that expert opinions from a deceased expert could be used by a new expert in forming their opinions, finding reports made in anticipation of litigation to be just as reliable a basis for expert testimony as pre-litigation medical records. Read more
ENVIRONMENTAL EDIT
The EPA’s designation of PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA has sparked industry opposition due to concerns over the rule’s breadth and cost implications. Read more
JURISDICTIONAL JABBER
A Pennsylvania federal court recently dismissed a medical monitoring class action, holding that risk of future injury from occupational lead exposure is not an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing. Read more
