The Jere Beasley Report July 2026

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

America At 250: Reflecting On Independence Day

This Fourth of July carries special meaning as the United States marks its 250th anniversary—known as the semi quincentennial—a milestone marking two and a half centuries since the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. 

More than just a date on the calendar, this anniversary offers a rare moment for all of us to pause and reflect. With a single document, the nation’s founders set in motion an enduring experiment rooted in the ideals of liberty, equality, and self-governance. Over the past 250 years, those principles have been tested, debated, strengthened, and continually redefined by generations of Americans. Those principles are under extreme attack today without a doubt.

From the earliest days of independence through periods of growth, conflict, and progress, the American story has been shaped by resilience and a commitment to building something better. Major milestones—from the founding era to the Civil War, the civil rights movement, and the modern age—have all contributed to the country we know today. 

This year’s commemoration is designed not only as a celebration, but as an opportunity to reflect on where the nation has been and where it is headed. Across the country, communities are recognizing the anniversary through programs, events, and shared experiences intended to honor the past while looking forward to the future. 

As we mark America’s 250th birthday, Independence Day serves as a reminder of both the freedoms we enjoy and the responsibilities that come with them. It is a time to honor those who helped shape the nation, to appreciate the progress that has been made, and to renew a shared commitment to the values that brought the country together in the first place.

Each of us can do our part to help make sure our country is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave with liberty and justice for all Americans. 

God Bless America!

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

A Historic Defense Of A Historic Verdict: Judge Kuhl Denies Defendants’ Post-Trial Motions In KGM

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has refused to overturn a landmark jury verdict holding Meta and Google responsible for harm tied to the design of their social media platforms. The decision keeps in place a $6 million verdict—one of the first in the country to hold social media companies accountable for how their platforms are built, not just what users post. 

A Major Milestone in Social Media Litigation

This case is part of a growing wave of lawsuits filed by families, school systems, and individuals across the country. At the center of many of these cases is a common concern: whether social media platforms are designed in ways that can harm children and teens.

Beasley Allen has played an active role in this litigation. Firm lawyers were part of the trial team in this coordinated California proceeding, helping prepare the case and present evidence involving platform design and its impact on young users. 

This trial was selected as a “bellwether,” meaning it helps shape how thousands of similar cases may move forward nationwide. Mark Lanier was the lead lawyer in the trial, and he did a tremendous job. 

A Case Focused on Design — Not Content

Unlike many past lawsuits, this case was not about harmful posts or videos. Instead, it focused on the way platforms like Instagram and YouTube are designed.

The plaintiff said she became addicted to these apps as a child. She pointed to features like:

• Infinite scroll
• Autoplay videos
• Push notifications

The plaintiffs legal team contended these features were built to keep users engaged for long periods, especially younger users. 

The jury agreed and found that the platforms’ design played a major role in her mental health struggles.

Judge Rejects Meta and Google’s Attempts to Overturn Verdict

After the trial, Meta and Google asked the court to set aside the verdict or grant a new trial. Judge Kuhl denied those requests.

The companies argued that they were protected under Section 230, a law that often shields tech companies from liability tied to user content. But the court ruled that the claims in this case focused on design decisions—not content—and could move forward. 

Judge Kuhl also rejected free speech arguments and confirmed that the jury had been properly instructed not to base its decision on user content.

Why This Verdict Matters

This case signals a shift in how courts are looking at social media platforms. For years, companies leaned on legal protections like Section 230 to avoid responsibility. Now, courts are allowing claims to move forward when they focus on how these platforms are designed—not just the content they host.

That change could shape thousands of cases already filed across the country and influence how future claims are handled.

Beasley Allen lawyers have been at the center of this fight. Their work in this bellwether trial reflects a broader effort to hold companies accountable when product design puts consumers—especially children—at risk. The firm continues to advocate for families who say these platforms caused real harm.

The plaintiff in the instant suit is represented by the Lanier Law Firm PC, and the Social Media Victims Law Center. Plaintiffs in the coordinated California cases are represented by Beasley Allen, Lanier Law Firm PC, Kiesel Law LLP, and Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

The instant case is P.F. et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23SMCV03371, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The consolidated case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255 and lead case number 22STCV21355, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team  

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Litigation Team, is co-lead counsel for the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP) for the plaintiffs in California State Court. Joseph is also a member of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in the MDL, helping lead the federal social media multidistrict litigation. Lawyers on the Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team are set out below.

Social Media Litigation Team 

Joseph VanZandt (who heads the team), Jennifer Emmel, Suzanne Clark, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Seth Harding and Slade Methvin. Andy Birchfield, who heads our Mass Torts Section, also works with the team.

TALC LITIGATION

The Fight Continues: Beasley Allen Takes On Johnson & Johnson In Los Angeles Talc Trial

For six weeks this spring, a Los Angeles courtroom became the battleground in one of the most important consumer safety fights of our generation. In Owens, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, JCCP No. 4872, Beasley Allen attorneys Leigh O’Dell and Andy Birchfield joined co-counsel from Robinson Calcagnie and Wisner Baum to represent three families whose loved ones — Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken, and Geneva Williams — each lost their lives to ovarian cancer after decades of trusting Johnson’s Baby Powder. 

Although the jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defense, the evidence presented in that courtroom told a powerful and damning story about one of America’s most recognizable corporations. We look forward to other opportunities on behalf of our clients to present this compelling case to a jury of their peers, including in an upcoming trial in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida on behalf of the Mancuso family.

Three C’s: Cosmetic Talc Causes Cancer

Leigh O’Dell opened plaintiffs’ closing argument with the framework that has defined this litigation for years: the three C’s. Cosmetic talc Causes Cancer. And Johnson & Johnson knew it. As Leigh told the jury, J&J “hid the presence of asbestos in their talcum powder products from the FDA, other regulatory agencies, from health agencies and healthcare providers, and the public at large for decades, and that began in the 1960s.

The evidence presented at trial was staggering. Testing of historical samples of Johnson’s Baby Powder — the very products used by Ms. Owens, Ms. Tienken, and Ms. Williams during their lifetimes — revealed that 68 percent contained amphibole asbestos and 98 percent contained talc fibers. A single 9-ounce bottle of baby powder produced in 1978 contained over 16 million asbestos fibers. For Chinese-sourced talc used from 2003 until J&J finally pulled the product from shelves in 2020, 95 percent of bottles tested positive for chrysotile asbestos — the very type the FDA found in 2019 and that triggered a recall.

A Half-Century of Deception

Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of this case is not simply that Johnson & Johnson sold a product that could cause ovarian cancer. It is that they knew — and chose to hide it. Leigh walked the jury through a meticulously documented pattern of corporate misconduct spanning five decades.

J&J’s own scientists and corporate representatives admitted under oath that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure, that asbestos had been detected in their talc, and that those internal test results were never provided to the FDA. Dr. Susan Nicholson, one of J&J’s own corporate representatives, confirmed that after 1973, Johnson & Johnson never gave the FDA asbestos testing results related to the Vermont deposits used in Johnson’s Baby Powder.

The company’s testing methodology — the industry standard known as J4-1 — was exposed as deeply flawed. Internal documents showed that J&J’s own representative chaired the industry committee and reported that the method’s objectives of accuracy, reliability, and practicality “have not been achieved” — even after J4-1 had already been adopted. Evidence revealed that J&J had deliberately excluded the concentration technique from testing as early as 1973, with internal records showing the omission was because using a technique that would make the testing more sensitive was “not in the worldwide company interest.”

In addition to misleading the public, J&J also misled the FDA for decades, starting in the 1970s and culminating in 2016, when J&J told the FDA that “no asbestiform structures have ever been found” in their talcum powder products — a statement that was unquestionably false.

The evidence further showed that J&J aggressively lobbied to prevent the National Toxicology Program from listing talc as a carcinogen. Internal emails surfaced at trial showed J&J executives celebrating having “fended off the NTP.” Meanwhile, two NTP scientific working groups had voted 13 to 2 to list talc as a carcinogen. Andy Birchfield noted in rebuttal that IARC — the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm — was different: it was beyond J&J’s political reach. In 2025, IARC upgraded its classification of talc-based body powder to Group 2A, meaning “probably carcinogenic to humans.”  IARC has classified asbestos as a Group 1 (“known carcinogen to humans”) since the 1980s, concluding that exposure to asbestos (including as a result of genital talc usage) can cause ovarian cancer.

Targeting the Most Vulnerable

The evidence also revealed that Johnson & Johnson’s marketing was deliberately designed to build emotional trust — what one witness called the “mother-infant bond” — while the company buried the truth. J&J marketed genital use of talcum powder to adult women beginning in 1966, despite the fact that the company’s own scientists had documented that talc caused an inflammatory response in human tissue. As Andy told the jury in rebuttal, the company took the same talc it knew caused an inflammatory reaction and began encouraging women to apply it to their genital area every single day.

Troublingly, epidemiologic data showed elevated risk in African American and Hispanic consumers, yet the company targeted precisely those communities in its marketing campaigns. The evidence showed J&J chose sales over safety at every turn.

Doubling Down: A Corporate Strategy Exposed

In his rebuttal argument, Andy described with precision the strategic choice Johnson & Johnson made — and has continued to make — when confronted with evidence of harm: double down. As Andy explained, J&J’s own outside consultant, a respected scientist named Dr. Wehner, wrote a candid letter warning the company that its defenses were unsupported, that some of its arguments were “outright false,” and that if J&J continued to deny the obvious in light of all the evidence, the company would be viewed the same way as the tobacco industry. His advice: don’t deny the science.

Johnson & Johnson chose a different path. Rather than warn consumers, reformulate the product, or acknowledge the mounting body of epidemiological and scientific evidence, the company cultivated what Andy called a mastery of “sowing confusion.” Scientists who raised concerns — researchers like Dr. Selikoff, Dr. Lewin, Dr. Langer, and Dr. Henderson — were placed on what internal J&J documents called an “antagonist list.” Company representative Dr. Hopkins confirmed in deposition that J&J actively worked to compromise and neutralize these scientists. The 1999 Cramer study, which estimated that 2,000 women per year were developing ovarian cancer attributable to talc use, recommended warnings. J&J did nothing.

“What you have seen over the course of this trial,” Andy told the jury, “Is a multi-billion-dollar company that has spent decades honing the skills of attacking and undermining anyone that stands up against them.”

The Women Behind the Case

While the corporate misconduct evidence was damning, it is critical to remember who this case was truly about. Mary Owens, Bonnie Tienken, and Geneva Williams were real women with families who loved them. They trusted Johnson & Johnson. They used the product as directed, for decades, in the privacy of their own homes, never knowing that each application might be exposing them to a known carcinogen. Ms. Owens and Ms. Williams were African Americans who saw J&J’s advertisements in Ebony and Jet, ads that were placed despite the fact that safety studies demonstrated a significant increased risk of ovarian cancer with talc use.  Their children and spouses sat in that Los Angeles courtroom throughout the trial, carrying the weight of their losses and the hope that their mothers’ deaths would mean something.

Bonnie Tienken’s children recalled that their earliest memories included playing in the cloud of powder dust that accompanied their mother’s daily routine. These families deserved answers. They deserved accountability. And while this jury did not deliver the verdict we sought, the story told in that courtroom — supported by J&J’s own internal documents, the admissions of its own witnesses, and decades of scientific literature and testing — is a story that cannot be erased.

We Will Not Be Deterred

Johnson & Johnson has attempted through its bankruptcy proceedings and through relentless litigation to make these cases go away. It has not succeeded, and it will not. The evidence of J&J’s wrongdoing is overwhelming and well-documented. Courts across this country have heard it. Juries across this country have found in favor of plaintiffs. The IARC classification, the FDA’s own 2019 recall, the internal documents showing deliberate concealment — none of that disappears because of a single verdict in a single courtroom.

Beasley Allen’s lawyers are among the most experienced and dedicated lawyers in the country in the fight to hold Johnson & Johnson accountable for the harm its talcum powder products have caused. Our work in this Los Angeles trial — six weeks of advocacy on behalf of three deserving families — reflects the commitment that our firm brings to every case we take. We do not take losses lightly, but rather as opportunities to learn how to better present to a jury this complicated and compelling case.

The trial record built in Los Angeles — the admissions extracted from J&J’s own witnesses and the documents admitted into evidence — strengthens the foundation for continued litigation. This fight is not over. It has never been more important.

Jury Awards $32 Million In Los Angeles Baby Powder Trial Against J&J

A Los Angeles jury has awarded $32 million to the family of Maria Lozano, finding that decades of using Johnson’s Baby Powder was a substantial factor in causing her mesothelioma. The award involved only compensatory damages. The trial judge ruled that punitive damages were not warranted in the case.

During trial, Johnson & Johnson argued that other factors—including environmental exposure in Mexico City and possible contact with automotive products through Lozano’s husband—caused her illness. The jury rejected those arguments and found for the family.

The plaintiffs were represented by Danny Kraft and Mark Linder of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP.

The case is Maria T. Lozano v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 23STCV16061, and the coordinated proceeding is LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Court Upholds $65.5 Million Talc Verdict Against J&J

A Minnesota judge has upheld a $65.5 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson, rejecting the company’s attempt to overturn a jury’s finding that its talc-based baby powder exposed a woman to asbestos and contributed to her cancer.

In her ruling, the judge found that the jury had sufficient evidence to support its decision, including expert testimony that J&J’s talc products could contain asbestos and that the plaintiff was likely exposed through long-term use. The court emphasized that it was within the jury’s role to weigh conflicting expert opinions and determine credibility, ultimately siding with the plaintiff’s witnesses.

The judge also rejected J&J’s argument that the plaintiff failed to prove a defect or that the specific products she used contained asbestos. Instead, the court pointed to evidence that J&J was aware for decades that some talc sources could be contaminated with asbestos but continued to sell the product. The plaintiff, a 37-year-old mother of three, testified that she used the company’s baby powder regularly from childhood through adulthood, supporting the claim of repeated exposure.

The plaintiffs were represented by Ben Braly, Aaron Chapman, Laurel Halbany and Daniel Liberio of Dean Omar Branham Shirley and Chad Alexander of Sieben Polk PA at trial.

The case is Anna Jean Houghton Carley and Michael Carley v. Colgate-Palmolive Company et al., case number 62-CV-25-2358, in Ramsey County District Court, Second Judicial District of Minnesota.

Source: Law360

J&J Talc Case Settled During Trial 

A long-running lawsuit over whether Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder caused the cancer that killed a Miami anesthesiologist has ended in a last-minute settlement, avoiding a second jury verdict.

The case, brought by Robert Sugarman, alleged that decades of using J&J talc-based powder led to the peritoneal cancer that took the life of his wife, Dr. Marilyn Seskin, in 2019. The dispute had already resulted in a mistrial in March 2024, when jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision. 

This second trial began in early June 2026. The parties reached a settlement just before closing arguments. As part of the agreement, J&J will make a charitable donation in Dr. Seskin’s honor, with no compensation going to her family. 

The plaintiff’s lawyer said the outcome was focused on preserving Dr. Seskin’s legacy and supporting cancer research, rather than securing damages.

The plaintiff is represented by Lance V. Oliver and Michael J. Pendell of Motley Rice LLC and Alex Alvarez of The Alvarez Law Firm.

The case is Sugarman v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 2019-017627-CA, in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Florida.

Source: Law360

Jury Deadlock Leads To Mistrial In J&J Talc Trial

A Los Angeles judge declared a mistrial in a two-month talc trial against Johnson & Johnson after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Jurors deliberated for four days before deadlocking on key claims, including design defect, failure to warn, and negligence, in a case brought by the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma in 2022. While jurors agreed the plaintiff had regularly used J&J’s talc products and that the products contained asbestos, they were divided on whether that exposure was sufficient to cause her illness and whether other factors contributed.

Plaintiff’s counsel has indicated the case will be retried. The plaintiffs are represented by Jessicia M. Dean and Venus Burns of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP. 

The case is Brad M. Yandell v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number 23STCV11850, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team 

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) continues. I tried our firm’s first case against J&J in St. Louis in 2016. We have been involved since that time. While J&J’s three fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims, our lawyers refused to back down. Beasley Allen continued to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason. Our goal is for justice to be served for the thousands of J&J victims and their families.

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J. Our clients’ best interests have been and continue to be at the top of our list of priorities.  

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Litigation Updates

A recent order from the court addressed the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group’s (PLG) motion in limine seeking to exclude various categories of offset evidence under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). The court granted the motion in part, excluding offsets from non-enumerated sources, but otherwise denied it, adopting a broad interpretation of the CLJA’s offset provision. 

The CLJA provides that any damages award “shall be offset” by “any disability award, payment, or benefit” provided under specified federal programs, specifically the Department of Veterans Affairs, Medicare, and Medicaid, so long as the benefit relates to Camp Lejeune water exposure. 

First, the court rejected PLG’s argument that offsets are limited to benefits already received at the time of judgment. Interpreting the statutory term “provided,” the court concluded that the language does not impose a temporal limitation and may include both past and future benefits. Emphasizing the statute’s mandatory and expansive language, particularly the use of “shall” and “any,” the court held that future benefits are not categorically excluded from consideration. However, the court clarified that defendants must demonstrate that any proposed future offsets are reasonably certain and quantifiable, not speculative, and that admissibility remains subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Second, the court declined to impose a “categorical equivalence” requirement that would limit offsets to corresponding categories of damages (e.g., medical benefits offsetting only medical expenses). The court found no support for such a restriction in the plain text of the CLJA, which requires that “any” qualifying benefit be offset against “any” damages award, without regard to specific damage categories. The court emphasized that it would not read additional limitations into the statute or rely on practices under other statutory schemes, such as the Federal Tort Claims Act, where Congress did not include comparable language. 

Third, the court rejected PLG’s request to exclude evidence of past medical expenses paid by qualifying government programs. The court reasoned that damages and offsets are distinct matters of proof; plaintiffs must establish their damages, while defendants bear the burden of proving applicable offsets, and that disputes remain regarding whether specific medical expenses qualify under the statute. Accordingly, such evidence is neither categorically irrelevant nor unduly prejudicial and may be addressed at trial. 

The court did grant the motion to the extent it sought to exclude offset evidence derived from sources not expressly identified in the CLJA. Relying on the statute’s “plain and unambiguous” language, the court held that offsets are limited strictly to benefits provided under the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid, and may not include payments from other programs. The only categorical limitation recognized is the statute’s express restriction to enumerated federal benefit programs.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of our Camp Lejeune Litigation Team:  Jeff Price, Ryan Kral, William Sutton, Tucker Osborne, Elizabeth Walden, Travis Chin, Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Miland Simpler, Khadiga Carr, Will Jones, Connor Chase, Sarah Grace Strength, and Rylee Buzbee.

Rhon Jones, who heads our Toxic Torts Section, is heavily involved in all aspects of the litigation, including serving on the Resolution Committee. Rhon is also in leadership as a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee. 

The lawyers on our litigation team are available and would be honored to work with other law firms on their claims.

SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION

Rideshare Sexual Assault Litigation

The Lyft Rideshare sexual assault litigation is advancing on two parallel fronts — a newly formed federal MDL and long-running California state court proceedings — with the first trial now on the horizon.

On the federal side, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered centralization in February 2026, with the Honorable Rita F. Lin presiding. The consolidation initially captured 17 cases, and the total MDL docket has grown to 54 cases as of June 2026. 

On May 8, plaintiffs’ leadership filed the Master Long-Form Complaint.  Theories of liability include negligence, misrepresentation, breach of contract, strict product liability, and failure to warn. On June 8, the court approved a template Short-Form Complaint for plaintiffs to complete individual claims and provide factual allegations not already set forth in the Master Complaint.  

Judge Lin has been active in moving the case forward, with case management conferences scheduled for June 25, July 15, and August 26. 

In the California state courts, cases have been coordinated since January 2020 under JCCP No. 5061, In re Lyft Rideshare Cases, in San Francisco Superior Court.  A bellwether trial is set for September 2026 and will be the first opportunity to assess how these claims are received by a jury.  This trial will come on the heels of a federal jury awarding $8.5 million to an Uber passenger who was sexually assaulted by her Uber driver.

This progress represents a significant landmark in the sexual assault litigation against rideshare services. Beasley Allen lawyers handling this litigation are Elizabeth Walden, Tucker Osborne, Khadiga Carr, and Wesley Merillat.

Pornhub Entities Reach Settlement With Trafficking Survivors

The entities behind Pornhub have reached a settlement with a certified class of survivors who allege the platform profited from child sex trafficking and abuse content. The settlement was in California federal court. 

Class counsel said the settlement includes significant monetary relief for class members along with “sweeping reforms” to the platform. Details were not available at press time. A motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement will come soon.

The settlement is said to cover both the California action and a parallel case in Alabama. U.S. District Judge David Proctor closed the Alabama case without prejudice after the parties notified the court they had resolved both actions, subject to approval. Both lawsuits, filed in 2021, accused MindGeek (Pornhub’s parent company at the time) of violating the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act by profiting from sexual abuse material and failing to adequately monitor content. Plaintiffs alleged the company generated substantial revenue while allowing unlawful material to remain on its sites.

The Alabama case involved claims that images and videos of abuse involving minors were distributed across MindGeek platforms, with a certified class including individuals under 18 who appeared in such content since 2011.

The California case similarly alleged the platform knowingly hosted and monetized illegal content, with a certified nationwide class and a California subclass covering underage individuals depicted in videos on the site.

Final approval of the settlement will depend on review by the California federal court. The California class is represented by Halley Wilder Josephs and Krysta Kauble Pachman of Susman Godfrey LLP.

The Alabama class is represented by Gregory Zarzaur of the Zarzaur Law Firm and Mark Schoeller of Clark Hill PLC. 

The cases are Jane Doe v. MindGeek USA Inc. et al., case number 8:21-cv-00338, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and Jane Doe v. MG Freesites Ltd. et al., case number 7:21-cv-00220, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Source: Law360

GAMING LITIGATION

Predatory Gaming (Roblox) Litigation Update

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has launched a formal investigation into Roblox Corporation, the popular gaming platform used by millions of children, citing concerns about child exploitation, grooming, and addictive design features. 

The investigation follows multiple lawsuits alleging that Roblox’s platform exposes minors to online abuse. The Attorney General’s office is seeking records on the age of Connecticut users, time spent on the platform, revenue generated from those users, and the company’s parental control measures. The investigation will examine what Roblox knew about alleged exploitation on its platform, how it profited from young users, and what steps it took to protect them. Investigators are also looking into a specific game that reportedly recreated the Sandy Hook school shooting. 

Attorney General Tong is also leading a bipartisan letter to Congress calling for stronger protections on platforms marketed as family friendly. He and Governor Ned Lamont are backing HB-5037, which would require social media companies to obtain verified parental consent before using recommendation algorithms on minors, along with daily use limits. 

The investigation comes amid growing scrutiny of Roblox and other technology companies. Advocacy groups have urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate similar allegations, including claims that Roblox’s design features, chat functions, and virtual economy expose children to grooming, abuse, and excessive spending. Roblox has not publicly responded to the Connecticut investigation.

CFTC Proposes New Framework For “Gaming” Contracts Under Rule 40.11

As we have previously reported, our firm has filed a number of illegal gaming cases. Recently, we filed a class involving how Kalshi has allegedly violated the CFTC. Since all these issues are related, we feel it necessary to report on this new gaming framework that has surfaced.

On June 10, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a 267-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would, for the first time, formally define “gaming” as it applies to event contracts traded on CFTC-registered exchanges. The NPRM would also establish a structured framework for determining when such contracts may be prohibited as contrary to the public interest.

Why This Matters

The prediction market industry has grown explosively. The number of event contracts listed on CFTC-regulated exchanges jumped from roughly 220 in 2021 to over 8,000 types traded in May 2026, with monthly trading volume exceeding $25 billion as recently as March 2026. That growth, particularly around sports-related contracts, has put the Commission under mounting pressure to clarify what it will and won’t allow.

What the Proposal Does

Under existing law, the Commodity Exchange Act authorizes the CFTC to prohibit contracts involving terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, or unlawful activity if it determines those contracts are “contrary to the public interest.” But until now, the rule implementing that authority lacked clear definitions.

The NPRM introduces a three-step inquiry: 

• Is it an event contract? 

• Does it “involve” a prohibited activity? 

• If so, is it actually contrary to the public interest after weighing factors like price discovery utility, manipulation risk, and regulatory administrability?

Critically, the proposal clarifies that involvement in a prohibited category is not an automatic ban. The Commission must still undertake a public interest analysis before blocking a contract.

The “Gaming” Definition

The proposal defines gaming as any activity that participants engage in for recreation or entertainment, is governed by rules, and includes measurable outcomes dependent on luck, skill, or athletic ability. Under this definition, most standard sports contracts — final scores, point differentials, win/loss results, and individual statistics — are preliminarily found unlikely to be contrary to the public interest, provided they are based on objective settlement criteria and listed by exchanges with appropriate market surveillance. 

However, the CFTC identified several contract types likely to be prohibited, including those tied to player injuries, officiating decisions, and outcomes of pre-collegiate sports events.

The NPRM largely expands the federal government’s authority over sports betting which, up to this point, has mostly been left to states. 

What’s Next

The public comment period closes 45 days after Federal Register publication. CFTC Chairman Mike Selig stated the goal is to provide a “durable, transparent framework” that protects market integrity without stifling legitimate innovation.

Prediction market operators, sports leagues, and state gaming regulators — many of whom have fought the expansion of federally regulated sports contracts in court — are expected to weigh in heavily during the comment period.

Video Game Addiction Case Against Roblox, Epic And Microsoft Force Go To Arbitration Out Of Court

A Pennsylvania federal judge has ordered that a lawsuit blaming three major gaming companies for a child’s video game addiction must go through private arbitration instead of a public jury trial. The child’s mother filed suit against Roblox, Epic Games, and Microsoft, claiming their platforms were deliberately engineered to be habit-forming and marketed toward minors without proper warnings. She contended this left her son mentally, emotionally, and academically worse off.

The court sided with all three companies, pointing to arbitration clauses buried in the user agreements families accepted when creating accounts. For Roblox and Epic, the terms went a step further, handing arbitrators — rather than courts — the authority to rule on whether those clauses hold up legally. That provision effectively blocked the judge from weighing in on the mother’s argument that the agreements were unfair or invalid. Microsoft’s terms lacked that specific language, but the court enforced its arbitration clause. 

The mother had argued her son was too young to be legally bound by the contract, but the court disagreed reasoning that since the child kept using Xbox after the dispute arose, he couldn’t selectively reject the parts of the agreement he found inconvenient. The dispute will now move to a private arbitration process.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

$30 Million Verdict Against Nissan In Defective Vehicle Case

Beasley Allen lawyers Mike Andrews, Kendall Dunson, and Dana Taunton secured a $30 million verdict on behalf of their client, a South Carolina woman who suffered severe injuries after being pinned against a gas station building when her 2017 Nissan Altima suddenly moved forward.

At trial, our lawyers presented evidence that the vehicle’s continuously variable transmission (CVT) had a long history of problems, including repeated technical service bulletins and known defects. Despite this history, the vehicle remained in use without design changes that could have reduced or eliminated the risk.

Evidence showed the vehicle failed to perform as expected. The car moved forward while being used in a foreseeable, normal and intended manner. That unexpected movement led directly to the incident and the injuries that followed.

The case also highlighted that the car lacked a key safety device and that safer alternative designs were available but not used. Our lawyers argued that these alternatives could have prevented the vehicle from moving in this way and avoided the crash altogether.

The jury found that the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and that those defects caused serious and lasting injuries, including physical harm, emotional distress, and long-term impairment.

The $30 million verdict reflects the severity of those injuries and the risks associated with known defects that go unaddressed. Interest on the judgment will begin accruing immediately at approximately $8,000 per day. The verdict is the largest ever awarded in Marlboro County, South Carolina. Mike Andrews says: 

The evidence in this case was overwhelming.  Expert testimony described the 2017 Nissan CVT as one of the worst transmissions in automotive history.  Testimony and documents, including Nissan’s own internal service bulletins, revealed that Nissan was aware of this problem for years before Ms. Tyndall’s Altima was manufactured and sold.  The jury listened to evidence of defects, available alternative designs, and devastating injuries and made the right decision in this case.

$14 Million Settlement In Case Involving Deadly Alabama TractorTrailer Crash

Beasley Allen Law Firm has secured a $14 million settlement in a wrongful death case arising from a tragic tractor-trailer crash that claimed the life of a Hale County resident who was killed when a large commercial vehicle crossed the centerline on Alabama Highway 69. The case was handled by LaBarron Boone, a highly successful lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section.

In February 2024, the victim was a passenger in a vehicle traveling on Highway 69. As traffic slowed near an intersection, a heavily loaded tractor-trailer failed to stop, crossed the centerline, and struck oncoming traffic head-on—including our client’s vehicle. The victim died from her injuries. She did nothing wrong and played no role in causing the crash.

Our investigation revealed that the collision never should have happened. Evidence showed that the tractor trailer was overloaded and lacked the ability to safely stop at highway speeds—turning it into a deadly projectile on a public road.  LaBarron had this to say:

When companies and operators don’t follow safety rules, innocent people pay the price. The evidence established that the truck’s brakes were out of adjustment and that the driver could not stop, despite claims that our client entered the truck’s lane—prompting the truck driver to move into our lane to avoid a collision—and then suddenly returned at the last moment. The physical evidence and eyewitness testimony did not support that account.

He adds:

This case was supported by strong, objective proof. In other trucking cases, however, we are seeing CDL-licensed drivers offer a similar alibi—claiming the other vehicle briefly entered their lane—to try to explain away a head-on collision, even when the physical evidence points in another direction.

The settlement in this case reflects accountability for serious safety failures that put the public at risk. While no amount of money can replace a life, it reinforces the importance of following safety standards designed to protect everyone on the road.

The victim was a respected member of the Black Belt community, known for a life of service. She worked in public service and as a small business owner, touching countless lives through her generosity. Her loss has deeply impacted her family, friends, and community.

Through this resolution, her family honors her memory by highlighting the real-world consequences of ignoring roadway safety—and by sending a clear message that preventable tragedies demand accountability. LaBarron had these closing remarks: 

Because of the commitment of this courageous family to see this to the end, the defendants have changed their policies, which we believe will better protect the motoring public from needless death caused by 18 wheelers.

Using Internal Policies Against Trucking Defendants

Litigation involving trucking companies has increased dramatically. It has become a challenge to the legal profession. Trucking companies often have detailed safety policies that exceed federal or state minimum standards. Those same policies become powerful admissions when the company fails to enforce them. Companies that employ or hire truck drivers routinely adopt safety manuals, handbooks, training materials, dispatch protocols, and monitoring programs. 

These documents demonstrate what the carrier or employer believes is necessary for safe operation. Internal Company policies can help establish the standard of care, prove a company’s knowledge of an issue, and provide evidence of its negligence.

Our firm recently represented the family of a woman who was killed in a trucking accident in Georgia. In that case, the company’s internal policies were key evidence that resulted in a successful recovery for the family. Specifically, the company that employed the driver had a driving manual, safety policies that included a three-strike limit on violations, and a monitoring system that allowed the company to review videos of safety violations. 

Despite these systems and policies that acknowledged the dangers of unsafe truck driving, the company failed to monitor or enforce its policies sufficiently. As a result, a truck driver with a history of unsafe driving practices was allowed to remain on the road, which eventually resulted in his committing a lane change violation and killing a family’s loved one. The company knew the risks and chose not to enforce its own policies to keep the roads safe. Ultimately, the company’s policies were pivotal in proving claims of negligent retention, supervision, and entrustment. 

Chris Glover, who manages our Atlanta office, has extensive experience with trucking cases. He knows first-hand the importance of identifying and using a trucking company’s internal policies against the company.

Beasley Allen’s Involvement In Trucking Litigation

Since 1979, our firm has been dedicated to the mission of “helping those who need it most.” We have secured verdicts and settlements amounting to billions of dollars, championing justice in complex plaintiff litigation across the nation. Our team of skilled lawyers, supported by an experienced support staff, has fought for thousands of clients to obtain the justice they deserve. To learn more about our firm’s impact and services, visit our website at www.BeasleyAllen.com.

Beasley Allen has developed a reputation for successfully handling trucking cases. Our lawyers have decades of experience representing families harmed by tractortrailer crashes and commercial vehicle accidents. These cases are complex and involve serious injuries and loss of life.

Truck accident cases require thorough investigation, knowledge of federal and state trucking regulations, and the resources to take on companies responsible for putting unsafe vehicles on the road. Beasley Allen lawyers have handled numerous trucking and transportation cases involving overloaded trucks, brake failures, and other preventable safety violations.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS

June 2026 Motor Vehicle Recalls

Motor vehicle recalls continued at a steady pace in June 2026, with federal safety regulators flagging a wide range of issues across major automakers. These recalls involve critical safety systems—from airbags and steering components to electrical systems and structural parts—and in some cases, defects that could lead to fires or sudden loss of vehicle control.

Many of the most serious recalls include warnings to park vehicles outside or stop driving them altogether until repairs are completed. As always, recall repairs are performed free of charge, making it important for drivers to act quickly when a notice is issued.

Major Recalls Issued in June

Below is a breakdown of some of the most notable vehicle recalls announced in June 2026:

• Jeep Wrangler & Gladiator (2021–2025)
  • Electrical connection in the power steering system may overheat
  • Risk: Vehicle fire—even when parked
  • Owners advised to park outside until repairs are completed

• Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid (2020–2022)
  • High-voltage battery defect may trigger thermal runaway
  • Risk: Fire while vehicle is off
  • Owners told to stop charging and park away from structures

• Ford Bronco Sport (2021–2026) & Ford Maverick (2022–2026)
  • Control arm defect may cause separation
  • Risk: Loss of control while driving
  • “Do Not Drive” warning issued in some cases

• Ford Bronco, Explorer, and Ranger (2025–2026)
  • Engine issues may lead to sudden loss of drive power
  • Risk: Increased crash potential

• Ford Expedition & Lincoln Navigator (2018–2022)
  • Seat belt systems may fail to retract or extend properly
  • Risk: Reduced occupant protection in a crash

• Ford F-150 (multiple model years)
  • Issues include unintended movement, lighting failures, and transmission defects
  • Risks include reduced visibility and sudden loss of control

• Honda Pilot, Ridgeline, Passport & Acura MDX (various model years)
  • Rear subframe corrosion may lead to structural failure
  • Risk: Loss of vehicle handling and control

• General Motors Trucks & SUVs (various models)
  • Airbag inflator defects and gear selection issues identified
  • Risks include airbag rupture or unintended vehicle movement

• Toyota & Lexus Models (2024–2025)
  • Instrument panel display may fail
  • Risk: Loss of critical driver information (speed, warnings)

• Subaru Forester (2026)
  • Moonroof glass may detach while driving
  • Risk: Road hazard and injury to occupants or others

• Nissan Kicks (2025–2026)
  • Blank screen display may prevent visibility of key controls
  • Risk: Reduced driver awareness

• Honda & Acura Models (multiple vehicles)
  • Airbag systems may deploy improperly or unintentionally
  • Risk: Increased injury in a crash

• Volkswagen Tiguan (2024)
  • Rearview camera image may not display
  • Risk: Reduced visibility when reversing

• Jeep Grand Cherokee (2022–2026)
  • Side airbags may not deploy correctly
  • Risk: Reduced crash protection for passengers

Common Defects Identified

Several trends emerged across June’s recall activity. Many recalls involved electrical and fire-related risks, including wiring issues, battery defects, or overheating components that could lead to fires—even when vehicles are not in operation. There were also widespread concerns tied to loss of control, where defects affecting steering, suspension, or engine power could cause a sudden loss of vehicle control and increase the risk of a crash. 

In addition, ongoing issues with airbag and seat belt systems remain a major concern, as these critical safety features may fail during a crash or deploy improperly. Finally, visibility and information failures were also common, with malfunctioning cameras and display systems limiting a driver’s ability to safely monitor surroundings and operate the vehicle.

What Drivers Should Do

If your vehicle is subject to a recall, taking prompt action can help reduce the risk of serious safety issues. Drivers should regularly check for recalls using their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and follow the manufacturer’s instructions for scheduling repairs. If a recall includes a “Do Not Drive” warning or advises parking the vehicle outside due to fire risk, it is important to follow those instructions immediately.

AVIATION LITIGATION

Air India Flight 171 Crash: One Year Later

Over a year after the Air India Flight 171 crash, the investigation is still ongoing. For many families, the wait for answers continues. We will update on the crash and related matters below. 

On June 12, 2025, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India. The plane struck a nearby medical college, killing 260 people, including passengers, crew, and people on the ground. The crash happened less than a minute after takeoff and remains one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent years.

Investigators recovered key evidence, including the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder. These systems continue to be analyzed as authorities work toward a final determination.

New Questions About Possible Technical Issues

Legal teams for many families have raised concerns about how the investigation is being handled and how information is being shared after the crash.

Attorneys involved in the case, including Mike Andrews from our firm, have pointed to possible technical issues with the aircraft. This differs from early reports that focused on pilot actions. Key areas of concern include:

• Whether the plane’s ram air turbine (RAT)—a backup power system—turned on earlier than expected

• Simulator testing showing the takeoff may have been longer or slower than normal

• Signs of reduced engine power or brake drag, which could point to larger system problems

Experts are also looking more closely at the RAT system itself, including how quickly it could begin supplying power. The timing of when it activated may be key to understanding what happened just before the crash.

Families Still Searching for Answers

While the investigation continues, families impacted by the Air India Flight 171 crash are still waiting for clear, reliable answers.

Many have spoken out about the need for greater transparency and more timely communication. In particular, families have called for:

• Access to cockpit voice recordings and flight data

• Clear updates from investigators about what is known—and what is not

• A more consistent flow of information as the investigation unfolds

Others say the slow pace of updates has made an already painful situation even harder, leaving them in prolonged uncertainty.

Why the Air India Flight 171 Investigation Matters

The Air India Flight 171 crash has raised bigger concerns about flight safety. These include how planes are built, how they are maintained, and how they are regulated.

A full and open investigation is critical—not only for the families, but also to improve safety and help prevent similar crashes in the future.

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent families affected by the crash, working with other law firms in different parts of the world. Our firm’s Aviation Litigation Team is still actively involved. The team is reviewing evidence, working with investigators, and pushing for transparency throughout the process.

Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team

Mike Andrews leads the charge in aviation litigation for our firm. Mike, author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation, is one of the Top 10 Aviation Attorneys named by the National Trial Lawyers Association. Mike has represented families impacted by some of the most devastating aviation disasters, including the Boeing 737 Max 8 crashes. Currently, Mike and Beasley Allen’s Aviation Litigation Team are seeking justice on behalf of families affected by aviation-related harm. 

Aviation crashes often make headlines due to their devastating impact. But behind every incident is a story of preventable failure. Whether you are seeking answers after a catastrophic airline disaster or a loved one was injured in a helicopter or small plane crash, an experienced aviation accident lawyer can help navigate the legal complexities and fight for the compensation you deserve.

Mike Andrews, LaBarron Boone, and Dana Taunton, from our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, compose our Aviation Litigation Team. Other Beasley Allen lawyers in the Section assist the team with individual cases as needed.

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Beasley Allen’s Mobile Office Litigates Wrongful Death Case Stemming From Faulty Equipment

Lawyers in our Mobile, Alabama office are currently litigating a wrongful death case stemming from a catastrophic trucking accident in Mobile County. Our client’s son was working as an independent contractor hauling materials at an industrial site when the dump truck he was operating rolled over, leaving him with devastating spinal cord injuries and complete quadriplegia. He survived for nearly two years before ultimately succumbing to those injuries.

A central focus of the litigation is the trucking company with whom he had contracted. The lawsuit alleges that the dump truck provided to him was in a dangerous state of disrepair at the time of the accident. Investigation revealed multiple unserviceable tires, flat trailer tires, and a range of other mechanical failures – evidence of serious, long-term neglect of basic safety standards.

This case highlights a recurring and under litigated problem: independent contractors in the trucking and hauling industries are routinely placed in dangerous working conditions, operating poorly maintained equipment with little to no oversight or training – and too often, they pay for it with their lives.

If you have a client who has been catastrophically injured or killed as the result of faulty or poorly maintained equipment, we welcome the opportunity to review the case with you.

PREMISES LIABILITY

Short-Term Rental Injuries In Georgia: What Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Should Consider

When a guest is injured at a short-term VRBO, Airbnb, or similar rental, the lawsuits that follow sound in premises liability. Georgia’s premises liability framework is well-settled, but the facts unique to short-term rentals create evidentiary opportunities and potential defendants that don’t exist in a conventional premises case. 

For example, in these cases, it is not unusual for the owner to live three states away, with a management company handling the on-site operations. The last “inspection” may have been completed by a cleaner who had 45 minutes between checkouts. Attorneys who recognize these opportunities can build significantly stronger cases for their clients.

The Knowledge and Inspection Problem

In any Georgia premises liability case, a plaintiff must show the owner knew or should have known of the hazard through reasonable inspection. A traditional hotel has daily housekeeping, dedicated maintenance staff, and established inspection protocols. An Airbnb or VRBO property typically gets a brief cleaning visit between guests, with the focus on linens and surfaces, rather than structural hazards. Meanwhile, constant turnover accelerates wear and increases the likelihood that dangerous conditions develop undetected. There is no clear law on what reasonable inspection requires in that context, but the argument that frequent commercial turnover demands a more rigorous protocol is a strong one.

Platform reviews add another dimension. If prior guests flagged a hazard, like a loose railing, a broken step, or an unstable deck, and the host did nothing, that’s powerful constructive knowledge evidence that simply doesn’t exist in a traditional premises case. Pulling the full review history early in litigation, as well as private messages between the host and other visitors, should be standard practice.

The Property Manager as a Second Defendant

Many short-term rentals are managed by professional third-party companies that coordinate bookings, supervise cleaners, and conduct periodic walkthroughs. Under Georgia’s occupier liability framework, that management company likely owes an independent duty of care to guests, making them a potentially significant defendant, separate from the property owner. The management company’s inspection logs, maintenance tickets, and internal communications become critical discovery targets. And when both a host and a management company are defendants, indemnification disputes between them can create meaningful settlement leverage for plaintiffs.

The involvement of two separate companies also creates spoliation risk. When a host and management company begin pointing fingers at each other over responsibility for property maintenance, records have a way of disappearing (or testimony comes out about them never being created in the first place). Contracts between owners and management companies are often vague about inspection obligations, which only compounds the problem. Sending litigation hold letters to both defendants early, and being aggressive about it, is essential. 

How Beasley Allen Can Help

These cases reward clients whose lawyers know how to identify all responsible parties, build a constructive knowledge record, and develop the right experts. If your client was seriously injured at a short-term rental, Beasley Allen would welcome the opportunity to evaluate the case with you as a referral or co-counsel arrangement.

FCA AND WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

Matrix, HealthFair, And HealthFair Founder Pay $56.5 Million To Settle FCA Claims

Community Care Health Network LLC, doing business as Matrix Medical Network (Matrix), along with DPN USA (HealthFair) and Shahriah “James” Ekbatani, have agreed to pay a total of $56.5 million to resolve allegations under the False Claims Act (FCA) involving the submission of false diagnosis codes to the Medicare Advantage program. Matrix will pay $36.5 million, while HealthFair and Ekbatani will pay $5 million and $15 million respectively, to settle separate whistleblower lawsuits filed in federal courts in New York and Texas.

The government alleges that the defendants engaged in conduct that inflated payments from Medicare Advantage by reporting diagnoses that were unsupported or invalid. According to the government, from 2014 to 2019 Matrix conducted in-home health assessments and submitted diagnoses that often failed to meet clinical criteria or lacked sufficient documentation. Matrix acquired HealthFair in 2018 and shut down its operations by 2020. The government alleges that from 2015 to 2017 HealthFair, which operated mobile health clinics, allegedly reported serious conditions without proper verification, sometimes relying solely on patient statements or incomplete records. 

The Medicare Advantage program allows private insurers to administer benefits for Medicare beneficiaries using funds provided by the government and intended to support the care of those beneficiaries. Payments are adjusted based on patients’ documented health conditions. Authorities emphasized that accurate diagnosis reporting is essential to ensure proper funding and protect taxpayer dollars. Officials from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services stated that misrepresenting patients’ conditions undermines the integrity of the program and diverts resources intended to support legitimate healthcare needs.

The settlement resolves claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the FCA by a former Matrix employee and HealthFair’s former chief medical officer. The qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private party to file an action on behalf of the Government for false claims. Under the FCA, whistleblowers receive 15% to 25% of the proceeds in cases that the Government joins. The whistleblowers will receive nearly $11 million of the proceeds from the settlement.

If you are aware of fraud being committed against federal or state governments, your reporting is confidential and protected by the FCA. Under that same statute you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud you have witnessed. If you have any questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, contact a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section for a free and confidential evaluation of your claim. You can contact one of the lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team. 

Source: Department of Justice

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims are being made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  

If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower or need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION

The Price Of Watching You: Surveillance Pricing

The rising prices of goods and services are an economic risk that threatens every American consumer’s economic security. But prices won’t remain uniform unless corporate America is confronted over its use of surveillance pricing, otherwise known as algorithmic pricing or personalized pricing. This is the newest scheme to defraud the American consumer. 

Surveillance pricing occurs when a company uses sophisticated data collection tools to build individualized profiles of consumers and then deploys those profiles to set prices tailored to each person’s perceived willingness to pay. 

Imagine being alerted that your $170 subscription to a news source will renew at $260 or being offered wildly different rates for the same product, not because of a coupon or loyalty discount, but because the corporate seller has been quietly watching everything you buy online, every aisle you linger in, and every brand you browse. That is the essence of surveillance pricing, and it is no longer hypothetical.

The litigation landscape came into sharp focus in June when a class action was filed in D.C. Superior Court against The Washington Post. The suit, led by subscriber Chelsea Blink, alleges that beginning at least as early as December 2024, the Post began using its subscribers’ reading habits to build pricing profiles, essentially secret dossiers on individual readers that the company then used to charge different prices for the same subscription.

According to the complaint, these profiles compiled an extraordinary range of personal data: reading habits and engagement patterns, demographic data, income, internet and browsing activity, location data, device information, and data sourced from other Bezos-owned platforms, including Amazon. Subscribers who linked their Amazon accounts to promotional offers had no reason to expect their purchasing behavior on a retail platform would one day be used to determine what they paid for a newspaper. The plaintiffs contend that this conduct violates D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order requiring accurate disclosure of the Post’s data practices and an end to its undisclosed surveillance pricing scheme. The Washington Post lawsuit does not stand alone. Regulatory and legislative attention to surveillance pricing has accelerated dramatically, and that attention is directly creating litigation exposure for companies across every sector of the consumer economy.

This is neither a niche technology practice nor a problem confined to media subscriptions. In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission released preliminary findings from its landmark Section 6(b) study into surveillance pricing, which examined eight major intermediary firms that sell these tools to retailers across industries. It found these tools at work across retail, travel, hospitality, e-commerce, and financial services, and confirmed that companies are using algorithms to automatically set individualized prices based on competitor pricing, precise location, browser history, demographics, and other real-time data streams, and that these tools operate across a remarkably wide range of consumer markets.

Surveillance pricing cases present a compelling convergence of consumer harm, corporate opacity, and evolving legal accountability, precisely the conditions that produce viable class action litigation. Every industry that touches the consumer internet is a potential arena for these claims. Clients who subscribe to streaming services, book travel online, shop for consumer goods, or use delivery platforms may already be paying algorithmically inflated prices without any knowledge that their personal data drove the decision.

As these cases develop, the critical early work involves identifying clients who experienced unexplained pricing disparities, preserving evidence of data collection disclosures (or their absence) at the time of subscription or purchase, and working with experts who can model the price differential attributable to the algorithmic system.

If you have clients who may have been subject to surveillance pricing practices, we welcome your referrals and are available to discuss the evolving legal theories and case development strategies in this area.

Sources: Courthouse News Service, FTC Section 6(b) Surveillance Pricing Study, Holland & Knight Client Alert, Faegre Drinker Client Alert, King & Spalding Client Alert, American Bar Association Antitrust Source 

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

Death On The Job

Each year the AFL-CIO collects and publishes data of injuries and deaths in the workplace in the United States.  The latest report, Death on the Job:  The Toll of Neglect, 2026, was released on April 27, 2026.  The report is compiled from a host of sources, including national and state reporting, OSHA and MSHA citations, and the like.  The 2026 report principally evaluated and reported data from 2024.

One point the authors make that cannot be ignored is that over the last 35 years, the responsibilities and jurisdiction of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has expanded significantly, yet Congress has continued to reduce the agency’s budget. This resulted in staff reductions of about 26 percent, including a 16 percent reduction in inspectors.  Not only does this reduction in staff and funding affect the efficacy of the agency, but it also may have an impact on the reported data.  

According to the report, workplace safety continues to be a significant issue in this country.  The authors reported staggering numbers, including:

• More than 380 workers die each day from hazardous working conditions (which includes environmental deaths in addition to workplace accidents). 

• For the reported period, 5,070 people died in workplace accidents.  An additional 135,000 died from occupational diseases.  

• The fatality rate was reported at 3.3 per 100,000 workers, which is an improvement from prior years.  

• Over 3.1 million work-place injuries were reported, and while a decrease from prior years this number is still staggering.  The authors suggest that this number is much higher because of what they contend to be gross underreporting of on-the-job injuries.  

• The death rates among African American and Latino workers is disproportionately higher than other groups.  Older workers (those over age 55) are also at a heightened risk of injury or death.  

The report places a cost of workplace injuries and death at $177 billion to $354 billion per year!  

Wyoming, Mississippi, Alaska, North Dakota, and Arkansas lead the nation in terms of the number of workplace injuries and deaths.  Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, followed by mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction, lead the nation in workplace deaths.  Other industries with a high rate of fatalities are transportation and warehousing, construction, and wholesale trade.  

As the authors observed, there needs to be more done in the area of workplace safety.  Greater budgets for enforcement agencies with more boots on the ground, coupled with the education of workers and employers should be at the top of the list.  Proper training and extensive and repeated training of employees on workplace safety should be the central theme of any industry, especially those which are resulting in the greatest rates of injuries or death.  Because of the high rates of chemical exposure, proper safety equipment for workers must be available without compromise.  

When The Workplace Creates The Risk: Power, Access, And Employer Liability In Sexual Assault Cases

Workplace sexual assault claims are often framed around what an employer knew and how the employer responded to its knowledge. Another potential area of liability is what risk did the employer create that may have played a role in an assault. Certain jobs, by their nature, place employees in positions of unchecked access and authority. These conditions can facilitate abuse if not carefully structured and monitored.

Industries that require employees to enter private spaces or maintain control over vulnerable individuals, whether it be healthcare, hotel/hospitality services, property services, or education, create zones of vulnerability that are more likely than in other industries. In these settings, employees may have unsupervised access to hotel rooms, patient areas, homes, or confined environments where oversight is limited. When employers design workplaces that depend on this level of autonomy without meaningful safeguards, the risk of misconduct becomes not just possible, but foreseeable. 

Power imbalances further compound the risk associated with these zones of vulnerability. In these circumstances, where an employee is in one of these, or other similar environments, with the added power imbalance, traditional defenses, like that misconduct fell outside the scope of employment, is likely to be less persuasive because the employer granted the very authority that enabled the harm. This is even more true when the employer knew or should have known that it needed to have additional safeguards in place to protect vulnerable persons. 

The question should not be limited only to whether an employer responded appropriately after misconduct occurred, but whether the employer’s decisions regarding staffing, supervision, and access created a foreseeable opportunity for abuse. Where an employer gives power and has no meaningful oversight of that power, it should anticipate and guard against misuse of that power.

For practitioners, early case evaluation should include careful scrutiny of job structure (who had access, what level of supervision existed, and how authority was exercised). In many cases, liability is not only about what happened, but how the workplace itself made it possible.

These issues above, and many others are constantly monitored by our team of employment lawyers available to our consumer clients.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Key ERISA Litigation Developments So Far In 2026

We will take a look at several actions in cases that will have an effect on employment litigation. These have been compiled by Law360.

Supreme Court Takes Up Intel 401(k) Case

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review claims that Intel mishandled its 401(k) investment lineup, a case that could reshape pleading standards in ERISA class actions. The proposed class alleges Intel breached fiduciary duties by offering underperforming proprietary funds. The Ninth Circuit previously dismissed the case for failing to identify adequate benchmark funds, an issue now squarely before the high court.

Case: Winston R. Anderson et al. v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al., No. 25-498 (U.S. Supreme Court).

Fourth Circuit Decertifies Genworth 401(k) Class

The Fourth Circuit vacated class certification in a suit accusing Genworth of offering underperforming BlackRock target-date funds, holding that differences among participants’ investment experiences defeated commonality. The decision has already influenced other courts and prompted renewed challenges to class certification in similar ERISA cases.

Case: Peter Trauernicht v. Genworth Financial Inc., No. 24-1880 (4th Cir.).

Fifth Circuit to Rehear Aramark-Aetna Dispute En Banc

The Fifth Circuit agreed to rehear a high-stakes dispute between Aramark and Aetna over whether ERISA claims alleging more than $200 million in improper payments must proceed in arbitration. The en banc review will address the scope of arbitration clauses covering equitable and monetary relief under ERISA.

Case: Aramark Services Inc. Group Health Plan et al. v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 24-40323 (5th Cir.).

Supreme Court Backs Pension Fund in Withdrawal Liability Fight

The Supreme Court ruled that multiemployer plan actuaries may retroactively adjust assumptions used to calculate withdrawal liability, rejecting employers’ arguments for strict limits. The decision is expected to increase liability exposure for companies exiting such plans.

Case: M&K Employee Solutions LLC et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, No. 23-1209 (U.S. Supreme Court).

Eleventh Circuit Revives Mortality Table Claims

The Eleventh Circuit revived an ERISA class action against Southern Company Services, holding that actuarial assumptions used to convert annuities—such as mortality tables—must be reasonable. The ruling aligns with similar decisions from the Sixth Circuit and signals growing momentum for these claims.

Case: Drummond et al. v. Southern Co. Services Inc. et al., No. 24-12773 (11th Cir.).

Source: Law360

INSURANCE Litigation

Non-Sharing Protective Orders In Alabama Bad Faith Litigation Cases

The Supreme Court of Alabama heard oral argument on June 3, 2026, in Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, a mandamus proceeding concerning whether a trial court exceeds its discretion by entering a protective order that permits a plaintiff’s counsel to use confidential discovery materials produced in one case in other pending bad faith cases against the same insurer.

The underlying action was filed on January 9, 2025, in the Circuit Court of Bullock County by James and Krystina Foor against State Farm, arising from a January 2024 wind and hail loss. The Foors’ allege that State Farm not only failed to pay the full amount necessary to repair their roof, but that the underpayment was part of an enterprise-level program directed at systematically reducing roof-damage payouts nationally. The Foor’s case is one of eight bad faith cases currently being prosecuted by their counsel against State Farm in Alabama involving similar allegations.

The trial court entered a protective order providing those confidential materials produced by State Farm “shall be available to counsel for the requesting party to use in this case and in any cases in which counsel for the Foors also represent parties that have made claims of bad faith against State Farm relative to a roof claim.” State Farm petitioned for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the order authorizes impermissible cross-case dissemination of its trade secrets and confidential claims-handling materials.

The Foors responded that the Protective Order has a narrowly limited mechanism allowing their counsel to use the same materials in other bad faith roof cases against State Farm that they are actively prosecuting, which are subject to the same confidentiality obligations. They further contend that requiring policyholders to relitigate the same discovery disputes in each individual case imposes unnecessary delay, wastes judicial resources, and compounds the inherent asymmetry between institutional insurers and individual policyholders in bad faith litigation.

If the court grants the writ of mandamus, it could effectively foreclose sharing provisions in single-plaintiff cases and require policyholders’ counsel to relitigate protective order disputes in each case. If the court denies the writ or sets limits, trial courts will retain broader discretion to craft discovery orders that balance the legitimate interests of both insurers and policyholders. 

Beasley Allen lawyers, including Dee Miles, Paul Evans, and Rebecca Gilliland, monitor developments of this kind and regularly engage in insurance bad faith litigation. 

The case is In re: James M. Foor & Krystina Foor, v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. SC-2025-0918 (Ala.). 

Class Action Litigation

NFL Players’ Disability Class Case Receives Preliminary Approval

A federal judge has given preliminary approval to a proposed nationwide class action settlement involving how certain disability benefit claims were evaluated for former professional football players.

The case focuses on whether race-based adjustments were used when reviewing some cognitive testing results tied to disability benefits.  Beasley Allen was appointed to help lead the nationwide effort alongside Tom Sinclair.

What Was Happening to Players?

At the center of the case is a practice known as “race norming.”

In simple terms, this method adjusted cognitive test scores based on race. Certain calculations assumed Black players started from a lower baseline, which would make it harder to qualify for disability benefits. 

Because of this, some former players may not have received the benefits they expected based on their test results.  In 2021, the Plans directed doctors not to use race in these evaluations but did not rescore decisions made prior to that directive.

Now, as part of this proposed settlement, Beasley Allen and co-counsel have worked with the Plans to create a race-neutral process to take a fresh look at certain past evaluations.

A Step Toward Fairness

On June 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin in Baltimore, Maryland, preliminarily approved the class action settlement, allowing the resolution to move forward on behalf of former players whose testing used race-based adjustments. 

The court:

• Approved the case as a non-opt-out class action
• Recognized the named plaintiffs as appropriate representatives for the group
• Set a final approval hearing for September 16

This is a key moment—but it’s not the finish line.

What Happens Next & Why It Matters

If the case receives final approval after the upcoming hearing in September, former players’ prior scores will be reassessed without race-based adjustments. This step is critical to understanding who was affected and how much they may be owed.

The full value of the case will not be known until that process is complete.  Each player’s situation will be evaluated based on updated test results, and any changes will depend on the results of those individual reviews.  

The proposed settlement is designed to ensure a consistent process going forward while also allowing certain past evaluations to be reviewed under these standards.  

While this is an important step, there is still work to be done. If the court grants approval, the legal team will continue guiding the process, including overseeing the review of prior scores and working to make sure any changes in benefits are delivered to eligible players.  

Beasley Allen Files Class Action Against General Motors Over Defective Radiator Hoses

Beasley Allen represents a plaintiff and class members in a proposed class action lawsuit against General Motors LLC filed in the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff assert claims against General Motors for breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission, and for violations of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Georgia’s Fair Business Practices Act. 

As alleged in plaintiff’s class action complaint, General Motors designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold 2023–2026 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon models equipped with the L3B 2.7L turbocharged four-cylinder engine, and 2024–2026 Chevrolet Traverse and GMC Acadia and 2025–2026 Buick Enclave models equipped with the LK0 2.5L turbocharged four-cylinder engine (collectively, the Class Vehicles). 

The lawsuit alleges that the Class Vehicles closed, sealed liquid cooling systems are equipped with a defective radiator hose quick-connect interface that causes coolant to leak from the hose connections early within the warranty period and the Class Vehicles useful lives (the Defect). As alleged in the complaint, those seals degrade prematurely under normal operating conditions, reducing coolant volume and impairing the cooling system’s performance. Because the failure can cause a vehicle to enter limp mode or stall without adequate warning, the Defect poses particular risks to occupants and other motorists, especially at highway speeds or in heavy traffic.

It’s alleged in the complaint that General Motors knew of the Defect as early as 2022, based on its pre-release design and testing of the engines, consumer complaints of the Defect reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), warranty claims for repairs associated with the Defect, and defendant’s technical service bulletin and special warranty coverage acknowledging the upper radiator hose quick-connect seal failure. General Motors has not recalled the Class Vehicles for the Defect, nor has it offered an extended warranty for all Class Vehicles. 

The Beasley Allen lawyers working on this case are Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann. 

The case is Dixon v. General Motors LLC, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. We will continue to keep our readers informed as this important litigation develops.

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Infant Formula Litigation Update

Beasley Allen is litigating infant formula cases for children inflicted with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) as newborns from being fed infant formula derived from cow’s milk. Giving “cow’s milk” formula to premature, underweight infants dramatically increases their risk of getting this permanent, life-threatening condition. Virtually every pediatric health organization in the world encourages mothers to breastfeed their premature newborn if possible or use human donor milk when breastfeeding is not feasible. Non-cow’s milk formulas are a third recommended option.

Federal court lawsuits against Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil products) and Abbott Laboratories (maker of Similac products) are consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the Honorable Rebecca Pallmeyer presiding. Most of Beasley Allen’s cases are pending in Illinois state court in Madison County, IL.

So far, the verdicts to date have mostly been in plaintiffs’ favor. In April, a Cook County, IL jury awarded $53 million to four families whose premature infants developed NEC after receiving Abbott Laboratories’ preterm infant formula. Two other plaintiff verdicts and a handful of defense verdicts were rendered over the last two years. One state court defense verdict was overturned on appeal. The first two federal NEC MDL trials are slated for July and August of this year. Presently there are approximately 800 cases pending in the MDL. Hundreds of other NEC cases are pending in state courts in Illinois, Missouri, and elsewhere.

JPML Consolidates Dupixent Cases In The District Of New Jersey

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has centralized all federal lawsuits alleging that the biologic drug Dupixent (dupilumab) caused Cutaneous T-cell Lymphoma (CTCL) into a single MDL proceeding. The order, issued June 4, 2026, establishes MDL No. 3180 in the District of New Jersey.

Dupixent, manufactured by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi, is widely prescribed for atopic dermatitis (eczema). Plaintiffs allege the drug caused or accelerated CTCL, a form of lymphoma affecting the skin. With 15 active cases and 7 potential tag-along actions across 12 federal districts, the panel found consolidation necessary to serve judicial efficiency and the convenience of parties.

Common factual questions will include whether scientific evidence establishes a causal link between Dupixent and CTCL, when defendants knew or should have known of the risk, and whether adequate warnings were provided to patients.

The panel selected New Jersey as the transferee district given that Sanofi’s principal place of business is located in that state, and Regeneron maintains corporate offices in a nearby district. The litigation was assigned to Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. The MDL’s scope is currently limited to CTCL claims, though the panel left open the possibility of expanding it to include other T-cell lymphoma subtypes through the conditional transfer process.

Global Kratom Coalition Asking Federal 10th Circuit To Block Enforcement Of Utah’s Kratom Regulation Act

A federal judge in Utah denied a request by the maker of a dietary supplement that contains a combination kratom leaf and noble kava root to block enforcement of parts of Utah’s new Kratom Regulation Act that bans the sale of its product in the state starting in May 2026.  U.S. District Judge Howard Nielson Jr. denied the bid for a preliminary injunction brought by Botanic Tonics LLC, the maker of the “feel free” supplement, and the Global Kratom Coalition, an advocacy organization. 

Now, Botanic Tonics and the Global Kratom Coalition are asking the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10^th Circuit to overturn the lower court’s finding that the Utah law banning the sale of enhanced or synthesized Kratom products was not preempted by federal laws, particularly the U.S. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, that regulate dietary supplements. 

Kratom is a plant-based substance derived from a tropical tree native to Southeast Asia. In some states, it is sold in gas stations, vape shops and online in powder, capsule, drink or gummy form. In small doses, it can act as a stimulant, while higher doses can produce opioid-like effects.  

Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed the Kratom Regulation Act into law on March 26, 2026. The law prohibits the sale of enhanced or synthesized kratom products, which until now could be found at gas stations and convenience stores in the state. Whole leaf kratom can still be sold at smoke shops to customers ages 21 and over.

Discovery Disputes Underway In Hair Relaxer Litigation

A recent contested discovery issue in the Hair Relaxer MDL involves defendants’ requests for plaintiff photographs. In several bellwether cases, defendants sought photographs showing plaintiffs’ hair before, during, and after their alleged use of hair relaxer products. Some requests went even further, seeking at least one photograph for every year over periods spanning 50 to 60 years.

Plaintiffs objected, stating that the requests were overly broad, unduly burdensome, and untimely. Bellwether plaintiffs already produced representative photographs and answered deposition questions concerning those images. Defendants nevertheless sought additional photographs for missing years and, in some instances, confirmation that no other photographs existed.

The practical burden of these requests is significant. Many plaintiffs began using relaxers decades ago, long before digital photography and smartphones made photo preservation commonplace. Requiring individuals to locate, collect, and verify photographs documenting their hair year by year from the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s places an unrealistic burden on plaintiffs and their families.

At the May 21, 2026, status hearing, the court largely agreed with plaintiffs’ concerns. The court denied defendants’ request for production of photographs for specific time periods before plaintiffs began using hair relaxer products. However, the court ordered plaintiffs to produce any responsive photographs reasonably available to them, including photographs that may be obtained from close family members.

Beasley Allen is currently accepting Hair Relaxer cases involving diagnoses of ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, and endometrial cancer.  Our lawyers are honored to represent women affected by hair relaxer use.

Ozempic MDL Judge Issues Rulings On Critical Experts

A Pennsylvania federal judge has ruled against Eli Lilly & Co. in a dispute over expert testimony in MDL No. 3094. The company is accused of downplaying the side effects of its weight loss drugs. 

U.S. District Judge Karen Marston denied Eli Lilly’s motion to restrict the testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler. Judge Marston found that Dr. Kessler’s anticipated testimony was either expressly included in his report or constituted a “reasonable synthesis” or elaboration of disclosed opinions.

The dispute arose after Dr. Kessler relied on more than 100 pages of personal notes created after submitting his expert reports during his deposition. Although plaintiffs agreed to limit their reliance to opinions contained within the report, Eli Lilly sought to bar any reference to allegedly late-disclosed opinions. Judge Marston declined to grant that request.

Dr. Kessler’s opinions at issue focus on the mechanism of action of GLP-1 receptor agonists and related gastrointestinal risks; allegations that Eli Lilly’s warnings were inadequate regarding severe gastrointestinal side effects; and critiques of the company’s 2022 safety analysis submitted to the FDA.

The broader litigation, which also names Novo Nordisk as a defendant, involves thousands of claims alleging that manufacturers failed to adequately warn about gastrointestinal complications linked to popular GLP-1 drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Trulicity.  Beasley Allen lawyers Ryan Duplechin, Chad Cook, and Cade Crow are on the forefront of this litigation and continue to advocate for those injured by GLP-1 medications.

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Paraquat Litigation Update: Pressure Mounts On The Road Toward Settlement Resolution

As of June 2026, more than 6,650 lawsuits have been filed in the federal Paraquat multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending before Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.

While public updates have been relatively limited in recent months, June has brought meaningful movement as the parties continue working toward a global settlement. In an effort to move the litigation closer to resolution, Judge Rosenstengel has issued several orders addressing key issues that remain outstanding.

Many plaintiffs have elected to participate in the proposed settlement by “opting in.” However, a significant number have chosen to “opt out” and continue litigating their claims. In late May 2026, the court directed the appointed Special Master to contact opt-out plaintiffs to ensure they fully understand their settlement offers and available options before making a final decision.

The court took an additional step on June 2, 2026, when Judge Rosenstengel noted that a substantial number of opt-out cases were concentrated among a small group of law firms. The court ordered three firms—Nachawati Law Group, DiCello Levitt, and The Smith Law Firm—to complete additional discovery, including approximately 74 plaintiff depositions, within 60 days.

In the order, Judge Rosenstengel explained that the depositions will help the court better understand the plaintiffs and their claims while advancing the “expeditious, economical, and just resolution” of the MDL. The court specifically stated that it seeks “a better understanding of the possible reasons for these exceedingly high opt-out rates.”

Despite these developments, both sides appear committed to reaching a resolution that fairly compensates eligible claimants. Meanwhile, the litigation remains active, with new lawsuits continuing to be filed.

For those who may qualify, now may be an important time to act. Beasley Allen continues to investigate potential Paraquat claims. Individuals may be eligible if they have: (1) a confirmed Parkinson’s disease diagnosis and (2) direct Paraquat exposure through mixing, handling, or application. As settlement efforts progress, the window to participate in the litigation may become increasingly limited.

Supreme Court Backs Monsanto In Roundup Warning Case

The U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of Monsanto in the Roundup case. In the decision, the court ruled 7–2 that federal law bars state-level claims alleging the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. The decision overturns a $1.25 million Missouri jury verdict in favor of plaintiff John Durnell, who claimed his long-term use of Roundup caused his cancer.

At the center of the case was whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) allows states to impose their own warning requirements when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to require one. The court held that it does not. Because the EPA has concluded that glyphosate—the active ingredient in Roundup—is unlikely to cause cancer and has not mandated a warning label, states cannot require additional or different warnings.

The ruling is a major setback for persons hurt by the failure to warn of the cancer risk. It limited the ability of an individual in the case to seek damages under state law. Plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that the $7.25 billion class settlement was designed to provide compensation to tens of thousands of people regardless of the court’s decision.

Durnell is represented by Ashley Keller of Keller Postman LLC, W. Wylie Blair, James G. Onder, Gregory J. Pals and Mark E. Berns of OnderLaw LLC, David C. Frederick and Derek C. Reinbold of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC, and T. Roe Frazer II, Thomas Roe Frazer III and James Grant LaBar of Frazer PLC. 

Since this case was decided on the day this issue was being sent to the printer, we have not had a chance to do more than read the opinion. Based on the evidence that Beasley Allen lawyers have acquired in litigation, the outcome in this case was shocking. 

The case is Monsanto Co. v. John L. Durnell, case number 24-1068, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

Roundup Class Settlement Sent Back To Missouri State Court

A Missouri federal judge has sent the proposed $7.25 billion Roundup class settlement back to Missouri state court, rejecting an attempt by objectors to move the case into federal multidistrict litigation in California.

U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey ruled that the objectors lacked authority to remove the case because they are not defendants. As a result, the federal court lacked jurisdiction and had to remand the case.

The objectors, who oppose the settlement and claim it unfairly benefits the settling parties, said they plan to appeal to the Eighth Circuit. They contended they would have had proper standing if their motion to intervene had been granted.

The decision effectively halts efforts to transfer the case into the broader federal

Roundup MDL and returns control of the settlement process to Missouri state court, where it was originally filed and preliminarily approved.

The proposed deal would provide up to $7.25 billion over 21 years to resolve claims that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer. 

The plaintiffs in the settlement are represented by Christopher Seeger, David R. Buchanan and Steven J. Daroci of Seeger Weiss LLP, Eric D. Holland and Patrick R. Dowd of Holland Law Firm, Joseph F. Rice, Frederick C. Baker and Fidelma Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice LLC, Peter A. Kraus and Charles Siegel of Waters Kraus Paul & Siegel, John Eddie Williams Jr. and John Boundas of Williams Hart & Boundas LLP, and Michael Ketchmark of Ketchmark & McCreight PC.

The objectors are represented by R. Prescott Sifton Jr. of Frazer PLC and Ashley

Keller of Keller Postman LLC. 

The underlying state court case is King et al. v. Monsanto Co., case number 2622-CC00325, in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in the State of Missouri.

Source: Law360

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients 

Beasley Allen is organized in a structure that benefits the clients we represent. The firm operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked extremely well for the firm. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has allowed our Lawyers to bring about needed national changes in product and workplace safety.  

Since our beginning over 45 years ago, Beasley Allen lawyers have handled all sorts of civil litigation for plaintiffs. The Administrative Section supports the four Litigation Sections that could be described as “mini-firms” within Beasley Allen. Those four Litigation Sections are the Mass Torts Section, the Toxic Torts Section, the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and the Personal Injury & Products Liability Section.  

Each litigation section has a team of lawyers and support staff working closely together, creating efficiency and case proficiency within each section. Successful section performance leads to better firm performance overall, allowing us to expand our resources and enabling firm growth. We believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most, year after year.  

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section 

Cole Portis heads our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section with Sloan Downes serving as the Director of the Section. The section handles Auto Accidents, Auto Products, Aviation Accidents, Defective Tires, Negligent Security, On-the-Job Injuries, Premises Liability and Truck Accident cases.  There are 27 lawyers in the Section.

The Mass Torts Section 

Andy Birchfield heads our Mass Torts Section. Melissa Prickett serves as the Section’s Director. With over 50 years of combined legal experience, Andy and Melissa lead the firm’s largest section in medical devices, medication, and other practice areas. The section currently handles cases involving Acetaminophen, Hair Relaxers, Kratom, NEC Baby Formula, Ozempic, Social Media, Predatory Gaming, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Dupixent and Talcum Powder. There are 40 lawyers in the Section.

The Toxic Torts Section 

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination, Roundup, and Paraquat.  There are 19 lawyers in the Section.

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section 

Dee Miles is the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Michelle Fulmer is the Director of the Section. The section currently handles cases involving Business Litigation, Class Action, Consumer Protection, Social Media, Securities cases, Civil & Human Rights, Employment Law and Whistleblower cases. There are 16 lawyers in the Section.

The Administrative Section 

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Michelle Parks serves as the Director of Accounting, while Michelle Fulmer is the Director of Operations. Kimberly Youngblood holds the position of Executive Director, overseeing HR, IT, and Marketing. 

Since we reorganized the firm’s structure in 1998, Beasley Allen’s record speaks for itself. The revised structure – without any doubt – has contributed greatly to our firm’s success. Section Heads and Directors have been able to concentrate on the volume of cases in their section. They quickly recognize when additional resources are needed.  

Lawyers have been able to focus on cases within their sections. This has allowed them to achieve favorable results. There are major differences in each section, both as to the law, regulations and industry requirements.  

The efficiency and teamwork generated by the sections concept has resulted in our firm being recognized as one of the best litigation firms in the country. This has been for the benefit of the folks we represented.  

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

Our BeasleyAllen.com website provides the latest information on the current case activity at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, the top navigation, or the practices page of the website (BeasleyAllen.com/Practices/).

Practices

• Business Litigation
• Civil & Human Rights
• Class Actions
• Consumer Protection
• Employment Law
• Medical Devices
• Medication
• Personal Injury
• Product Liability
• Toxic Exposure
• Whistleblower Litigation

Cases

• Acetaminophen — Cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD.
• Auto Accidents — Life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence.
• Auto Defect Class Actions — Pursuing auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks.
• Auto Products — Investigating auto accidents for defects or product liability issues.
• Aviation Accidents — Investigating aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error, and other causes.
• Camp Lejeune — Cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987.
• Defective Tires — Accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures.
• Depo-Provera — Individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral meningiomas.
• Dupixent — Investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL).
• Hair Relaxers — Cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers who may develop uterine, ovarian, or endometrial cancer.
• Kratom — Cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula — Cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac.
• Negligent Security — Cases where property owners fail to provide adequate security, putting visitors at risk of violent crimes.
• On-the-Job-Injuries — Workers’ compensation cases, often finding defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths.
• Ozempic — Cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat — Cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease, banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries.
• Premises Liability — Cases where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions resulting in serious injuries.
• Roblox — Investigating claims involving online and in-person harm for children who have encountered adult predators on Roblox and/or Discord.
• Social Media — Advocating for youth who have suffered harms from social media addiction including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide.
• Talcum Powder — Cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder.
• Truck Accidents — Accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks.
• Ultra-Processed Foods — Cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction — Cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors.

Resources to Help Your Practice

The leadership team at Beasley Allen understands the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our fellow trial lawyers throughout the country. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our other trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case. 

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

Beasley Allen sends out a Co-Counsel E-Newsletter specifically tailored with lawyers in mind. It features case updates, highlights key victories achieved for our clients, and informs readers about the firm’s latest resources. You can get it online by visiting our website, BeasleyAllen.com, and clicking the Articles link. 

Recalls Update 

We try our best to stay current on the latest significant consumer recalls. Contact our JLB Report Team at [email protected] if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall. 

The Jere Beasley Report 

We also consider The Jere Beasley Report a service to lawyers and the general public. We provide the Report at no cost monthly. Visit our website, BeasleyAllen.com and click the Articles link. 

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Getting the Most Out Of Your Expert: Preparing Witnesses In Toxic Torts Cases

Will Sutton, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section, has some recommendations relating to expert witnesses in Toxic Torts litigation. This litigation lives and dies on expert testimony. Unlike many areas of civil practice, these cases often turn on disputed science. Even the most credentialed witness can become a liability on the stand without thorough, deliberate preparation. The following tips are designed to help litigators get the most from their expert witnesses during each stage of litigation. Let’s see what Will has for us.

Get Fluent in the Science

You cannot effectively prepare an expert witness on a subject you do not understand. In toxic tort cases, this requires investing significant time in becoming knowledgeable in the relevant science.  This may include the fate and transport of chemicals, toxicology, epidemiology, remediation cost modeling, human factors, or regulatory frameworks, among many other complex subjects. This scientific fluency is also the foundation for everything else. You cannot identify your expert’s vulnerabilities, prepare them for Daubert challenges, or build a compelling courtroom strategy without it. Further, an expert’s insights can help develop strategies for written discovery and fact witness depositions. Use your early meetings with your expert to educate yourself; then you will be prepared to evaluate their opinions and methodologies the way a hostile cross-examiner would. 

Addressing Your Expert’s Vulnerabilities Before Opposing Counsel Does

Review your expert’s CV, prior testimony, published work, and the materials they rely upon with a critical eye. Find inconsistencies, gaps, or positions taken in prior cases that could be used against them. Before your expert drafts a final written report, it is critical that you spend adequate time discussing all relevant facts and evidence and comparing the expert’s preliminary thoughts and opinions.  Then, conduct your own internal Daubert challenge to stress-test their methodologies and reliability before your opposition does. Ferreting out speculative or clearly inadmissible opinions at this stage is key. A few questions for you to consider include: 

• Is the opinion based on sufficient facts or data, and what did the expert exclude? 

• Are the studies and data relied upon relevant to this specific case?

• Has the expert’s methodology been tested, peer reviewed, or published, and is there a known rate of error? 

• Is the methodology generally accepted in the field, and did the expert comply with applicable standards? 

• Did the expert consider alternative explanations? 

• What are the assumptions underlying the opinion?

You will almost always find weaknesses, and it is best to address them proactively. Opposing counsel will find them too, and you want your expert to be prepared and able to maintain their credibility and trustworthiness. 

Deposition Preparation

The deposition is the first opportunity for your opposing counsel to meet and evaluate your expert. For many experts, effective deposition preparation begins with the basics: ensuring they understand the rules and protocols for discovery and depositions. Even seasoned experts are likely to benefit from a refresher. Your expert must be made aware of the importance of re-reviewing their report and all materials provided (and relied upon). This is particularly important in cases where there is a prolonged period between the report and deposition. Preparation for deposition testimony should be treated the same as preparation for trial testimony. 

The technical language experts use in their line of work may be misunderstood by laypeople or exploited by opposing counsel. Work through their terminology to ensure the expert can state their opinions directly, avoid unnecessary qualifying statements, and resist the urge to over-explain. 

Opposing counsel in toxic tort cases often adhere to predictable areas of examination. These include a focus on the expert’s CV, qualifications, publications, past expert work, and prior testimony. Review these items and prepare your expert to discuss each. 

Most expert depositions involve questioning about what the expert considers authoritative or reasonably reliable sources in their field. Knowing this in advance allows you to thoroughly review these sources and prepare for a potential line of questioning that may discredit your expert’s opinions. 

Another important line of inquiry to prepare for is the expert’s evaluation of the facts and evidence of your case. What did the expert review and rely upon in forming each opinion? What facts or evidence were omitted from the report? A failure to review or consider any document will be framed as something nefarious by opposing counsel.  

Work Through Each Phase of Your Case Collaboratively with Your Expert

To get the most out of your expert, you must work collaboratively during each phase of your case. Work with your expert to develop demonstratives that clarify complex science for a lay audience, identify the themes that connect the technical evidence to the human impact of the case, and build a narrative that jurors can follow.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Key Lamberth Selected For 2026 GTLA LEAD Program

Beasley Allen lawyer Key Lamberth has been selected for the 2026 Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) LEAD Program, a prestigious leadership initiative that develops the next generation of trial lawyers across the state.

The GTLA LEAD Program brings together a select group of emerging lawyers who have demonstrated leadership potential and a strong commitment to the civil justice system. Through a series of educational sessions and networking opportunities, participants are equipped with the skills and insight needed to serve in leadership roles within the profession and their communities. 

Key, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, handles cases involving catastrophic and complex negligent security and premises liability, as well as defective products, serious personal injuries, wrongful death, and trucking accidents. She has built a reputation for thoughtful advocacy and strong results, contributing to multimillion-dollar outcomes for clients. 

Key’s work has earned her recognition as a 2026 Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in Georgia and a finalist for the Daily Report’s Southeastern Legal Awards Most Promising Newcomer. She was also recently named to Lawdragon’s 500 X – The Next Generation, which highlights rising lawyers making an impact in the legal profession. 

Key is an active member of the State Bar of Georgia and the Young Lawyers Division, where she was selected for the 2025 Leadership Academy. She also serves on the 2025–2026 Georgia Code Revision Commission Committee, helping review and refine the state’s laws. 

Key’s selection for the 2026 GTLA LEAD Program highlights her continued commitment to leadership, service, and excellence in advocacy. We are blessed to have her at Beasley Allen.

34 Beasley Allen Attorneys Named To 2026 Mid-South Super Lawyers, Rising Stars

Super Lawyers has recognized 34 lawyers from Beasley Allen for their outstanding achievements and peer recognition for the 2026 Mid-South Region. 15 of those lawyers were named to the 2026 Super Lawyers list. Beasley Allen’s 2026 Mid-South Super Lawyers include:

Greg Allen Ben Baker Andy Birchfield LaBarron Boone Mike Crow

Kendall Dunson Lance Gould Rhon Jones Dee Miles

Leigh O’Dell Cole Portis Roger Smith

Gibson Vance Joseph VanZandt** Frank Woodson **New to the list

In addition, 19 lawyers were included on the Super Lawyers “Rising Stars” list, which recognizes the top up-and-coming attorneys 40 years old or younger who have been practicing for 10 years or less.  Beasley Allen’s 2026 Mid-South Super Lawyers Rising Stars are:

Ryan Beattie David Diab Ryan Duplechin Paul Evans

Evan Allen Sydney Everett** Jessi Haynes Tyner Helms Warner Hornsby Gavin King

Aigner Kolom Ryan Kral Dylan Martin Tucker Osborne Mary Cam Raybon**

Clinton Richardson Davis Vaughn Elizabeth Walden Mitch Williams **New to the list

About Super Lawyers

The Super Lawyers lists are published in Super Lawyers Magazines, a Thomson Reuters business, and leading city and regional magazines across the country. The Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law. For more information, go to superlawyers.com.

Work With Us

At Beasley Allen, we are proud to have built lasting partnerships with referring and co-counsel lawyers across the country. These relationships are grounded in mutual respect, shared values, and a commitment to achieving justice for those who need it most. We welcome the opportunity to collaborate on cases involving catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and corporate misconduct. Our team brings decades of experience, a proven track record, and the resources necessary to take on even the most powerful defendants. Together, we have helped secure meaningful outcomes for clients while driving real change in public safety and corporate accountability.

When you refer a case to Beasley Allen, you can trust that your client will be treated with compassion, professionalism, and the highest level of legal representation. We are here to support your efforts and help you achieve the best possible result-because when we work together, we make a greater impact.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Paul Evans

Paul Evans is a Principal in the firm’s Consumer Fraud and Commercial Litigation Section. He began his career at Beasley Allen in 2016 as a law clerk. Paul became a lawyer in 2017 and has continued to grow within the firm. Paul focuses on a wide range of matters, including class actions, consumer fraud, commercial litigation, and bad faith insurance cases. He was drawn to the legal profession by a strong desire to serve others, particularly those who may not otherwise have the resources or ability to advocate for themselves—and he brings that purpose-driven approach to his work each day.

Outside of work, Paul enjoys spending time with his wife Jillian and their two children. The Evans family lives in Montgomery and remains active in their community. They also share their home with their Goldendoodle, Atticus. In his free time, Paul enjoys attending and watching sporting events, especially football, and values opportunities to spend time with family and friends. Paul earned his Juris Doctor from Faulkner University’s Thomas Goode Jones School of Law and his undergraduate degree from Troy University, graduating with honors. 

Paul shares that his favorite part of practicing law is seeing the meaningful impact his work has on clients and their families. He also notes that what he appreciates most about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s strong commitment to helping others, along with the shared dedication among attorneys and staff to serve clients with integrity and purpose.

Paul is a tremendously talented lawyer, who works hard for his clients. He is a definite asset in the firm. 

Cameran Rachatellelle

Cameran Rachatellelle is a Staff Assistant in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section and she has been with Beasley Allen since December 2023. In her role, Cameran works under the direction of the lawyers in the section, assisting with client outreach and helping ensure case files remain complete, organized, and up to date. She plays an important role in gathering necessary documentation and maintaining accurate records, supporting the legal team, and contributing to the overall efficiency and success of the cases she assists with. 

Cameran enjoys spending time with her family. She has been married to her husband, Cody, for two years, and together they recently welcomed their son, William, who is growing quickly and keeps them busy, Cameran says. The family also shares their home with a dog, Bubba, and two cats, Chiveev and Whisp. In her free time, she loves reading and has built her own at-home library, along with a collection of books on her Kindle.

Cameran says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the welcoming, family-like environment. She appreciates the support she has received from her coworkers, noting that even during challenging times, the firm has shown genuine care and compassion.

Cameran is a dedicated employee who does good work and she is an asset to the firm. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

Laura Reaves

Laura Reaves is an Advanced Certified Paralegal in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section and recently celebrated an impressive 25-year anniversary with Beasley Allen. In her role, Laura supports complex litigation matters, primarily focused on plaintiff personal injury and trucking-related cases. Working under the direction of the lawyers she supports, she is responsible for case evaluation, medical record and billing analysis, discovery management, and trial preparation. Laura plays a vital role in helping ensure each case is thoroughly developed, organized, and positioned for the best possible outcome.

Outside of work, Laura enjoys a full and rewarding personal life. She recently celebrated 24 years of marriage to her husband, Jamie, and they have one son, Hunter. The family enjoys spending time together at their home on Lake Jordan, where they make the most of summers with boating, fishing, grilling, and gardening. Laura is also deeply involved professionally, serving as President of the Alabama Association of Paralegals and contributing to several legal and professional organizations.

Laura says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s commitment to helping individuals and families during difficult times, along with the collaborative environment and dedication to excellence among her colleagues.

Lauren is an asset to our firm. She has been recognized nationally for her excellent work and dedication to the rule of law and the role of paralegals. We are fortunate to have Laura at Beasley Allen.

Stephanie Wall

Stephanie Wall is a Paralegal in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section, where she works under the direction of the section’s lawyers to support complex litigation matters. In her role, Stephanie assists with cases involving toxic exposures, including environmental and product-related claims. She helps manage case files, organizes and reviews key documentation, and assists with discovery and case preparation to ensure matters are thoroughly developed and ready for litigation. Stephanie’s attention to detail and organization are vital to supporting the lawyers and advancing client cases.

Outside of work, Stephanie enjoys spending time with her husband, Todd, and their family. She values the time they share together and appreciates the balance between her professional and personal life. Whether relaxing at home or spending time with loved ones, Stephanie enjoys being present with her family and making the most of her time outside the office.

Stephanie says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the collaborative environment and shared commitment to helping others. She values being part of a team that works together to support one another while making a meaningful difference in the lives of clients and their families.

Stephanie is a dedicated employee who does very good work as a paralegal. She is an asset to the firm, and we are fortunate to have her with us. 

Ken Wilson

Ken Wilson is a Principal in the firm’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section in our Atlanta office, where he focuses on product liability, motor vehicle collisions, including commercial vehicle cases, and premises liability matters. Since joining Beasley Allen in 2020, Ken brings a purpose-driven approach to his work. He chose to become a lawyer to help people and serve as a strong voice for fairness and justice, striving to ensure that justice is not merely an ideal, but a reality for everyone.

Outside of work, Ken enjoys spending time with his wife, Amber, and their three children—Kyleigh (9), Kenneth II (7), and Kason (3). He is actively involved in his local church, where he serves as a minister, and his family participates in the church’s music ministry together. In his spare time, Ken enjoys competing in fitness events, including Spartan races, and playing the bass guitar. Ken earned his undergraduate degree from Morehouse College, graduating with honors, and later earned his Juris Doctor from Mercer University’s Walter F. George School of Law. 

Ken says that his favorite part of practicing law is witnessing joy and relief on his clients’ faces when their cases are resolved. Ken believes Beasley Allen is unique because of the genuine spirit of altruism shared among its lawyers and their unwavering commitment to helping clients.

Ken is a tremendous talented lawyer who is dedicated to his clients and their cases. He is an asset to the firm. We are blessed to have Ken with us. 

Favorite Bible Verses

In this month’s issue, two of our lawyers and two of our staff members share their favorite Bible verses.

Paul Evans

Paul Evans offers two verses.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who[a] have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28

Cameran Rachatellelle

Cameran’s first verse reminded her during postpartum that no matter the changes she went through that she was still wonderful and worth it all. 

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Psalm 139:14

Cameran says the second verse served as a reminder that even though she was living away from her family, that she was never alone and will never truly be alone.

As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem. Isaiah 66:13

The third verse reminds her not to dwell on who or what her parents did, and that she is building her own future that she will one day share with her children. 

We will not hide them from their descendants; we will tell the next generation the praiseworthy deeds of the Lord, his power, and the wonders he has done.5 He decreed statutes for Jacob and established the law in Israel, which he commanded our ancestors to teach their children, 6 so the next generation would know them, even the children yet to be born, and they in turn would tell their children. Psalm 78:4-6

Ken Wilson

Ken shares three of his favorite verses with us. 

But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. 2 Corinthians 2:14

I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13

But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint. Isaiah 40:31

Stephanie Wall

Stephanie’s favorite verses come from the books of John and Philippians.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

I can do all this through him who gives me strength. Philippians 4:13

MONTHLY REMINDERS

We continue to include this section of “reminders” in the Report. That’s because we believe each of the reminders is very important. The reminders are from key individuals and are for all of us at Beasley Allen. The reminders are to be applied in the workplace, in our social life, and at home. In addition to all of us at Beasley Allen, we send these reminders to all who get the Report each month. All persons in a leadership role, including those persons in government at every level, will benefit by reading the quotes and applying the lessons learned in their daily lives.  

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.  

2 Chronicles 7:14 

Let’s not assume for one moment that our work is done, the struggle for equal justice continues

Fred D. Gray

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. 

Edmund Burke 

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. 

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him it is right. 

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people. 

  

Martin Luther King, Jr.  

Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America. 

Rep. John Lewis speaking on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on March 1, 2020 

  

Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week, or one year. Ours is not the struggle of one judicial appointment or presidential term. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes, and each one of us in every generation must do our part. 

Rep. John Lewis on movement-building in Across That Bridge: A Vision for Change and the Future of America 

The opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice. 

Bryan Stevenson, 2019 

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. 

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864  

PARTING WORDS

Remembering Pamela Hatfield Murphy

Beasley Allen mourns the loss of our longtime colleague and friend, Pamela Hatfield Murphy, who passed away on June 14, 2026, at the age of 73.

Pam was a valued member of our Mass Torts section, where she served as a Medical Records Coordinator for 25 years. Throughout her time with the firm, she was known for her strong work ethic, attention to detail, and deep pride in the role she played supporting our clients and attorneys. Just as importantly, Pam brought a sense of joy and warmth to the workplace, with a quick wit and a gift for making others feel welcome.

Born in Montgomery, Alabama, on October 4, 1952, Pam carried those same qualities throughout her life—kindness, dedication, and a genuine connection to the people around her. While she was deeply committed to her work, her greatest love was her family. She was a devoted mother to Kelly Murphy and a proud “Nana” to Wilson and Ella Murphy, who were truly the center of her world.

Pam’s family has expressed heartfelt appreciation for the Beasley Allen community and the support shown to her in recent months. We are grateful to have shared in her life and career and will remember her as a loyal colleague and a friend who made a lasting impact on those around her.

We extend our deepest condolences to Pam’s family, friends, and all who knew and loved her. She will be missed at Beasley Allen.

To access this publication online, update an address,
or to contact us about this publication, please
visit BeasleyAllen.com.

This is an advertisement.