The Jere Beasley Report November 2026

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Landmark Settlement Approved In NFL Players’ Disability Benefits Class Case

A federal judge in Baltimore has granted final approval to a nationwide class action settlement challenging the use of race-based adjustments in testing used for disability determinations in NFL player benefit plans. This is a tremendously important settlement and is being labeled as a landmark event.

Following a final approval hearing, U.S. District Judge Julie Rebecca Rubin approved the Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class, clearing the way for the rescoring of former NFL players who may have been affected by race norming.

The case centers on a testing adjustment known as “race norming,” which altered neurocognitive scores based on a player’s race. Although the Plans directed physicians in 2021 to stop using race-based adjustments when evaluating players for cognitive impairment, prior decisions were not revisited.

As part of the settlement negotiated by Beasley Allen’s Dee Miles (co-lead counsel), Rebecca Gilliland and Leon Hampton, Jr., along with the other co-lead counsel Thomas O. Sinclair of Sinclair Law Firm, qualifying players’ prior evaluations will be reassessed using a race-neutral approach. Dee had this to say:

Today’s ruling permanently ends a practice that disadvantaged non-white former NFL players seeking disability benefits. For years, race-based adjustments could make it more difficult for players to qualify for benefits. With the Court’s approval, those discriminatory standards are gone, and players will be evaluated under a fair process that treats every player equally.

Filed largely under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the lawsuit sought system-wide relief to address the impact of race-based adjustments on disability benefit determinations.

The settlement establishes a process for reviewing prior claims and permanently eliminates the use of race norming in future eligibility determinations for neurocognitive disability benefits. Dee added this observation:

This is an important victory for former players and another step toward ensuring disability benefits are administered fairly. We are proud of this result and grateful to the players who stepped forward to challenge this practice. Their efforts helped bring about a lasting change that will benefit former players for years to come.

The court did not address any award of attorney fees, costs, or class representative awards, but it’s important to note that any amounts awarded will be in addition to payments going to the players and will not impact or diminish class benefits. That’s a significant aspect of the settlement.

If you have questions or need help with a case contact Michelle Fullmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation. She will have one of the lawyers respond to you.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

$25 Billion Judgment Awarded Against Meta In New Mexico Privacy Case

A New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion after a jury found the company made millions of deceptive statements about its data privacy practices over more than a decade. The jury concluded that 26 statements made between 2010 and 2021, including claims related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and Facebook’s handling of third-party app developers, violated New Mexico consumer protection laws.

The court determined that the violations could have supported penalties totaling $219.49 billion, based on nearly 43.9 million violations, but the judge reduced the award to $25 billion.

In his ruling, the judge said Meta repeatedly misled users about privacy protections, failed to fully follow through on promises to investigate third-party app developers, and continued practices that prior regulatory actions had failed to stop. The court also pointed to evidence that Facebook exempted certain business partners from data-sharing restrictions without disclosing those exceptions.

The award is believed to be the largest U.S. commercial verdict in nominal dollars. The size of the judgment reflects the scale of Meta’s alleged conduct, with penalties tied to millions of users and repeated violations over several years. The case could also have broader implications for other technology companies. Legal observers say it demonstrates how state consumer protection laws can be used to address privacy violations and misleading claims about how companies collect, protect, and use personal data.

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez praised the decision as a major victory for consumer privacy and accountability. But as expected, Meta plans to appeal, claiming the penalty is excessive and unconstitutional. This decision will definitely have an effect on the Meta litigation. It is being monitored by many, including Attorneys General from other states.

New Mexico is represented by Randi McGinn of McGinn Montoya Love Curry & Sievers PA, and Corban Rhodes, Adam Levitt, Daniel Schwartz, J. Gordon Bergstresser, Emma Bruder, Rebecca Trickey and Amy Keller of DiCello Levitt.

The case is State of New Mexico v. Facebook Inc., case number D-101-CV- 202100132, in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico.​‌

Source: Law360

Florida’s Social Media Law For Minors

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that Florida can enforce its law restricting social media use by children and teens, overturning a lower court’s preliminary injunction that had blocked the measure.

Florida’s law, known as H.B. 3, prohibits children under 14 from creating certain social media accounts and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds. The law was challenged by tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which argued that it violated First Amendment rights.

In the opinion, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the law is likely constitutional because it regulates platform features and functionality rather than the content of speech. The court found the measure to be “content neutral.” That means it is subject to the less demanding intermediate scrutiny standard rather than strict scrutiny. Judges said Florida has an important governmental interest in protecting minors from social media addiction and related mental health harms.

The court also found that the law is narrowly tailored because it applies only to certain platforms with features such as algorithmic recommendations, infinite scrolling, push notifications, autoplay functions, or livestreaming, and focuses on account creation rather than completely blocking access to social media.

While allowing enforcement of the law to continue, the court also ruled that CCIA and NetChoice have standing to keep pursuing their constitutional challenge. The litigation will therefore continue in the lower court, where the trade groups can further argue that the law is unconstitutional as applied to certain platforms.

The decision marks a significant victory for Florida and could influence similar efforts nationwide as states seek to regulate children’s access to social media. For now, the ruling allows Florida’s age-based restrictions on social media accounts to remain in effect while the broader legal challenge moves forward.

Hopefully other states will follow Florida’s lead and stand up for the protection of children. Because Beasley Allen is involved in social media litigation, we are fully aware of the need to protect children.

Source: Law360

Florida Presses Meta For Stricter Child Safety Rules

Florida is going its own way against Meta. Attorney General James Uthmeier asked a judge on October 7 to compel the company to strengthen its protections for children. The request comes shortly after a nearly $17 billion multistate settlement with Meta, which Florida was one of only three states to reject.

Florida is seeking faster and more aggressive removal of accounts used by children. The state also wants to bar accounts for all users under 14, a higher threshold than the 13-year-old minimum in other states. The complaint argues that Meta’s own annual target for removing underage accounts is a “reasonably achievable number” with little consequence for missing it. Uthmeier also wants Meta to give the court regular updates, including how many suspected or known underage accounts it deleted and why others were left active.

This settlement is seen as a landmark agreement to support teens and empower parents. Restricting one platform pushes teens to others. The Attorney General can target YouTube and TikTok.

The case is one of several Florida is pursuing against tech firms, including a recent lawsuit against OpenAI.

Roblox Asks Kentucky Federal Court To Send Teen’s Lawsuit To Arbitration

Roblox wants a federal judge in Kentucky to move a wrongful-death lawsuit over a 13-year-old’s suicide into private arbitration, and to dismiss the case if that fails.

Jaimee Seitz sued Roblox, Discord, and TikTok roughly a year ago. She claims her daughter encountered online communities that idealized mass shootings and violence and encouraged self-harm and was exposed to predators. Her daughter died in December of 2024.

In a motion filed October 6 in the Eastern District of Kentucky, Roblox argued the arbitration clause in its terms of service binds the family. According to the company, the plaintiff and both parents were presented with the terms and clicked to accept on numerous occasions, at signup, after revisions to the terms, and in connection with purchases of its Robux currency. Roblox claims the prompt urges young users to go over the terms with an adult before accepting. Roblox also contended the family has no path to cancel the agreement and whether the contract can be undone is for the arbitrator, not the court.

Roblox, Discord, and TikTok separately asked the court to throw out the case, largely recycling their challenges to the earlier complaint. They argue Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects them from claims based on user-generated content and that no duty exists to police it flawlessly. They also say the First Amendment covers their choices about how user communications are displayed, and that their conduct is too far removed from the plaintiff’s death to be a proximate cause.

Seitz’s attorney said in a statement that the companies want the case ended before any evidence is tested. They objected to the bid for confidential arbitration, pointing out that the agreement was accepted when the plaintiff was eight, and said the plaintiff deserves a jury’s verdict in a public courtroom.

Source: Law360

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.

The Social Media Litigation Team consists of: 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.

If you need more information on the ongoing social media litigation or need help with a case, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team contact you.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Court Cites Progress In Settlement Efforts And Reappoints Leadership

The Camp Lejeune litigation enters November with increasing momentum. The court has found meaningful progress is being made towards a global settlement. At the same time, the first bellwether trials remain on schedule.

On September 29, the judges overseeing the Camp Lejeune litigation reappointed the current members of the PLG for a new term running from November 1, 2026, through October 30, 2027.

The court noted in its order that progress toward a global settlement is being made, which speaks to the efforts of leadership. At the same time, the court recognized that additional work is needed to complete settlement discussions and the implementation of any global settlement achieved. It’s significant that the court has ordered ongoing weekly settlement meetings in an effort to achieve a global resolution.

Rhon Jones, Beasley Allen’s Toxic Torts Section Head, is a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee and serves on the Camp Lejeune Resolution Committee. Rhon serves alongside some of the nation’s most respected plaintiff attorneys in leading settlement negotiations on behalf of Camp Lejeune plaintiffs nationwide.

First Bellwether Trials Remain Scheduled

As the case moves into its next chapter, the focus increasingly turns to the bellwether trials that may help define the path forward for thousands of pending claims.

Judge Terrence Boyle has scheduled the first two Camp Lejeune bellwether cases for trial:

• Mousser v. United States of America (7:23-cv-00667-BO-RN) – November 9, 2026
• Fancher v. United States of America (7:23-cv-00275-BO-BM) – November 16, 2026

These cases involve kidney cancer and kidney disease claims and are expected to provide the court’s first trial-level rulings under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act. Although any decisions will be binding only on the parties involved, they may provide valuable guidance for the thousands of claims that remain pending and hopefully will influence future settlement discussions.

Looking Ahead

While no outcome is guaranteed, we have good reason for cautious optimism. The court has kept an experienced and skilled leadership team in place, settlement negotiations remain active, and the first trials are only weeks away. The coming months could prove consequential for Camp Lejeune claimants and their families.

We are grateful to the clients and co-counsel who continue to place their trust in our firm. We will continue to monitor developments closely and keep you informed as major updates occur.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Rylee Buzbee.

Honoring Joe Rice’s Legacy

The court’s reappointment order acknowledged the passing of Joe Rice, who served alongside Rhon on the Resolution Committee. Joe’s extraordinary work ethic and commitment to the veterans, family members and civilians harmed by the contamination at Camp Lejeune was on constant display. His influence on this litigation and the broader plaintiffs’ bar cannot be overstated.

We extend our heartfelt condolences to Joe’s family, friends, and colleagues. He will be missed by all.

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. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers on the Litigation Team respond to you.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Over $2.6 Million Recovered After Reckless Rear-End Crash

A South Carolina couple never expected a backup on Interstate 85 to change their lives. After safely stopping for traffic caused by an accident ahead, their vehicle was violently struck from behind by a speeding driver. The crash left both with serious injuries, destroyed their SUV, and set them on a long road to recovery. Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, Beasley Allen lawyers, handled the claims for the injured parties.

Crash Site: Interstate 85 in Anderson County

The couple was traveling northbound on Interstate 85 in Anderson County, South Carolina, when traffic ahead came to a stop due to an earlier collision. Our clients were able to safely slow down and stop. However, their vehicle was then struck from behind by another driver traveling at a high rate of speed.

The impact was severe, causing injuries to both passengers and completely destroying their vehicle. Other damages included: medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of use of their vehicle, and other losses resulting from the collision.

What the Lawsuit Covered

The driver who caused the crash failed to keep a proper lookout, drove at an unsafe speed, failed to maintain control of the vehicle, and failed to take action to avoid the collision. The lawsuit also alleged a negligence claim against the vehicle owner.

Rear-end crashes are often preventable. Drivers have a responsibility to pay attention to traffic conditions, maintain a safe following distance, and operate their vehicles in a way that protects others on the road.

Why Rear-End Collisions Can Cause Serious Injuries

Even when vehicles are moving in the same direction, a high-speed rear-end collision can cause life-changing injuries. Victims may suffer neck and back injuries, traumatic brain injuries, broken bones, chronic pain, and other long-term health problems.

Many crash victims also face lost income, expensive medical treatment, and emotional stress while trying to recover.

The Result in This Case

Parker Miller and Key Lamberth helped the couple in this case navigate the legal process and ultimately secured a settlement of more than $2.6 million on their behalf. The result provided compensation for the injuries, damages, and hardships they experienced following the crash.

At Beasley Allen, we are committed to helping crash victims and their families rebuild their lives after serious collisions caused by careless or reckless driving. When negligent drivers put others at risk, we work to hold them accountable and pursue the justice our clients deserve.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Parker Miller or Key Lamberth. They will be glad to work with you.

Big Rigs, Big Wins, Big Cases

I am asked frequently: “What sets Beasley Allen’s Trucking Litigation Team apart?” My response always is that when families are facing one of the most difficult moments of their lives, they need a team of lawyers with the experience, resources, and determination to take on powerful trucking companies and their even more powerful insurers. That’s exactly what our Trucking Litigation Team does.

A crash involving a commercial truck can change a life in an instant. Because tractor-trailers and other large trucks can weigh up to 20 times more than a passenger vehicle, these collisions often lead to devastating injuries, permanent disabilities, and wrongful deaths.

Why Truck Accident Cases Are So Complex

The circumstances surrounding truck accidents are more complex than those of an ordinary car collision. Besides looking into the crash itself, lawyers also have to review the driver’s records, safety violations, maintenance logs, onboard camera footage, electronic data, and the company’s policies. This is a necessity in all major purchasing cases.

After a crash, trucking firms usually have their lawyers, investigators, and insurance reps working right away. It makes a great deal of difference if victims have a legal team in play as soon as possible that knows how to investigate these cases. Lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section handle cases involving:

• Tractor-trailer and 18-wheeler accidents
• Delivery truck crashes
• Construction vehicle collisions
• Tanker truck accidents
• Logging truck crashes
• Catastrophic injuries
• Wrongful death claims

Big Cases Require Big Resources

One of the things that sets our firm apart is our proven ability to carry out a quick and thorough investigation into serious crashes.

Our lawyers work alongside experienced investigators and accident reconstruction experts to uncover what actually happened, preserve important evidence, and identify everyone who may be responsible. This approach regularly reveals critical information that would otherwise be hidden and stay hidden.

From onboard video footage to electronic driver records and safety data, trucking cases often contain valuable evidence that helps tell the complete story of a crash.

A Track Record of Success

Over the years, Beasley Allen has secured significant results for clients and their families. We have experienced lawyers, investigators and staff personnel who have a track record of success.

One of our recent cases involved a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a tractor-trailer crash. During the investigation, our litigation team uncovered concealed onboard video evidence, a documented history of safety violations, and evidence of a prior fatal collision involving the same driver. The case was resolved for more than $56 million, and the settlement is believed to be among the largest, if not the largest, pre-trial wrongful death trucking settlements in Georgia history. Other recent significant trucking results include:

• $25 million trucking settlement
• $17.25 million settlement for the family of a Georgia woman killed in a tractor-trailer collision
• $14 million settlement arising from a fatal tractor-trailer crash
• $18.79 million verdict for a client left paralyzed

No two trucking cases are alike, but these results show what’s possible when a litigation team is willing to dig deep, challenge powerful trucking companies, and fight for the people affected by a serious crash.

When Safety Failures Lead to Tragedy

All too often, these crashes could have been prevented. Whether the cause of a crash is a tired driver, a missed maintenance issue, or a trucking company that puts deadlines ahead of safety, innocent people pay the price.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck accident, it’s important to act quickly. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, at or by email. Sloan will have a lawyer in the Section who handles trucking litigation respond to you.

Who Else May Be Legally Responsible After A Truck Accident?

When a serious truck accident causes catastrophic injuries or the loss of a loved one, many families assume the trucking company’s insurance will cover their losses. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

In some 18-wheeler accident cases, the trucking company’s insurance coverage may not be enough to fully compensate victims for medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages. When that happens, it is important to determine whether other parties may share responsibility for the crash.

A thorough truck accident investigation can help identify additional sources of compensation and accountability.

Looking Beyond the Truck Driver

While some truck accidents are caused by driver error, other cases involve companies that played a role in putting the truck on the road or decisions that made the crash more severe.

A lawsuit resulting from a truck accident could include claims against parties other than the driver and the trucking company, such as freight brokers, the vehicle manufacturers, or the companies that are responsible for truck safety systems.

Can a Freight Broker Be Responsible for a Truck Accident?

Many trucking companies are hired through freight brokers, which connect shippers with motor carriers.

In some cases, a broker may be liable for selecting a carrier with a poor safety record, a history of violations, or unqualified drivers. When a broker fails to use reasonable care in choosing a trucking company, injured victims may have grounds to pursue a freight broker liability claim.

Identifying broker liability can be an important step when insurance coverage is limited.

Could Vehicle Technology Have Prevented the Crash?

Another important area of investigation is the truck itself.

Many commercial trucks can be equipped with safety technology designed to prevent crashes or reduce the severity of an impact, including:

• Automatic emergency braking systems
• Forward collision warning systems
• Collision avoidance technology
• Other advanced driver-assistance systems

If a truck does not have any available safety features which could have prevented the collision or have reduced the injuries, lawyers might look into whether there is a product liability claim.

The product claims may relate to the vehicle’s design, the safety equipment, or other defects which contributed to the crash or had the effect of making the injuries more serious.

Why a Thorough Truck Accident Investigation Matters

Serious truck accident cases often require a much deeper investigation than a typical car wreck. When serious injuries and deaths are involved that is usually a basic necessity.

At Beasley Allen, the Trucking Litigation Team does not stop at the truck driver when trying to identify all possible parties who could be responsible. When medical bills, lost income, and other losses exceed the trucking company’s insurance limits, identifying every party can make a meaningful difference for victims and their families.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an 18-wheeler accident, Beasley Allen lawyers and support staff have the experience, resources, and national trucking litigation team to investigate every claim and pursue the compensation you deserve. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, at or by email. Sloan will have a lawyer in the Section who handles trucking litigation respond to you immediately.

Rollaway Accidents In Commercial Vans

The rise of e-commerce and same-day delivery expectations has driven a sharp increase in commercial van usage in cities and suburbs alike. Companies have expanded their fleets significantly to meet strong consumer demand for faster shipping. Small businesses from tradesmen to non-emergency medical transport companies rely on commercial vans for their flexibility and cargo capacity.

Roll-away incidents are recognized safety issues in commercial vans, with several manufacturers issuing recalls involving vehicles that could move after the transmission is placed in park. The parking pawl is the transmission component that mechanically locks the drivetrain when a vehicle is shifted into park. When you shift into park, a spring-loaded pawl (a small metal tooth or lever) engages with a toothed gear, called the parking gear or parking lock gear which is mounted on the transmission’s output shaft.

Once engaged, the pawl locks that gear in place, which in turn prevents the output shaft, driveshaft, and ultimately the wheels from rotating. If it wears, fractures, or fails to engage, the vehicle can roll despite the shifter indicating “P.”

Commercial vans are often parked on inclines, loading docks, or uneven lots while loaded with heavy cargo, so the parking pawl bears a lot of stress holding that weight in place.

A notable example involved 2019-2022 Mercedes-Benz and Freightliner Sprinter vans. Mercedes recalled more than 120,000 vehicles after determining that components of the park-lock system could fatigue, causing the parking pawl not to engage and resulting in vehicle rollaway.

Some modern vans often use electronic shifters and transmission-control software that can error, allowing the vehicle to appear to be in park when the transmission has not fully engaged the park mechanism. Additionally, defects in the brake-shift interlock system can allow a vehicle to be shifted improperly or leave uncertainty about whether park was fully engaged. Various manufacturers have issued recalls over the years involving shifter-position detection and park engagement.

In vans that use shift cables or electronic gear selectors, misadjustment, stretching, wear, or faulty position sensors can create a discrepancy between what the dashboard shows and the transmission’s actual position. Recalls involve inadequate warnings when a driver exits the vehicle without the transmission actually being in park. These are particularly important in fleet and delivery vehicles where drivers make frequent stops.

Beasley Allen lawyers who handle Product Liability cases have extensive experience handling complex defective vehicle cases. If you have a matter that involves serious injury or death in a commercial van accident, lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section are available to review the case and help you determine the best course of action.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Stephen Dees, a lawyer in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section He will be glad to work with you.

Ford Truck Owners Clear Key Hurdle In Fuel Pump Litigation

A federal judge in Michigan has allowed key claims to move forward in a lawsuit involving alleged defects in fuel pumps used in Ford diesel trucks. The court also certified classes of truck owners in Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, California and Louisiana who say the pumps can fail without warning and lead to repair costs exceeding $10,000.

The lawsuit centers on high-pressure Bosch CP4 fuel pumps installed in Ford trucks equipped with 6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel engines from model year 2011 to the present. Truck owners allege the pumps are too fragile to withstand normal, real-world fuel conditions and can fail when exposed to contaminants such as water, air bubbles or low-lubricity fuel.

The judge denied Ford’s request to dismiss the core defect and causation claims, finding that the plaintiffs presented sufficient expert testimony for a jury to consider whether the pumps are defective. The court also allowed certain warranty claims to proceed.

However, the judge narrowed the scope of the case. Certified class members must have purchased the trucks for personal or household use, paid out of pocket for a CP4 pump repair, and not signed arbitration agreements. Claims involving truck owners who never experienced pump failure were dismissed from the litigation.

According to the lawsuit, Ford knew for years that the CP4 pump was vulnerable to failure but continued selling affected vehicles. Ford disputes those allegations and maintains the pumps underwent extensive testing. The automaker later introduced updated versions of the pump and previously issued recalls involving certain CP4-equipped diesel trucks.

The ruling is a significant development for truck owners because it keeps the central defect allegations alive and allows certified class claims in multiple states to move forward toward trial.

The truck owners are represented by Bonnie J Rickert of Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP, Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode and Emily E. Hughes of The Miller Law Firm PC, Jerrod C. Patterson and Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Lauren A. Akers and Robert Hilliard of Hilliard Law and Thomas Eric Loeser of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP

The case is Droesser et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number 2:19-cv-12365, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS

Motor Vehicle Recall Update

• Vehicle recalls continued at a brisk pace throughout October, with manufacturers announcing safety campaigns involving everything from steering and suspension components to cameras, fuel systems, and electrical equipment. According to federal recall data, dozens of new vehicle-related recalls were reported during the month, affecting passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, recreational vehicles, and trailers.
• Several recalls issued in October involved defects that could increase the risk of a crash or loss of vehicle control.

Land Rover Recalls Nearly 94,000 Vehicles

Jaguar Land Rover announced a recall of approximately 94,000 Range Rover and Range Rover Sport vehicles due to an issue involving the rearview camera system. A malfunctioning camera can limit driver visibility while backing up, increasing the risk of a collision.

Porsche Issues “Do Not Drive” Recall

Porsche recalled certain 2024 model-year vehicles after discovering that center-lock wheel bolts could fracture. If the defect occurs, a wheel could detach while the vehicle is in motion, creating a serious safety hazard. Owners were advised not to drive affected vehicles until repairs are completed.

Subaru Recalls Crosstrek And Forester Models

Subaru recalled certain 2026 Crosstrek and Forester vehicles because a lower control arm ball joint may not have been properly secured during assembly. According to the recall notice, the defect could lead to a loss of vehicle control and increase the risk of a crash. Subaru advised owners not to drive affected vehicles until repairs have been made.

Hyundai Announces Multiple Safety Recalls

Hyundai issued several recall campaigns during October involving various 2026 model-year vehicles. The recalls involved concerns related to suspension and wheel-fastening components that could potentially affect vehicle safety and performance.

Consumers Should Respond Promptly To Recall Notices

Vehicle recalls are intended to address defects that may affect safety. When a manufacturer issues a recall, repairs are typically performed free of charge. Consumers should pay close attention to recall notices and schedule repairs as soon as possible. Drivers can also check for open recalls by searching their vehicle identification number (VIN) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recall database.

Beasley Allen Continues To Monitor Vehicle Safety Issues

Our firm closely follows vehicle recalls and safety investigations involving potentially defective automobiles, trucks, SUVs, and vehicle components. While many defects are identified through recalls, others come to light only after serious crashes and injuries occur. When manufacturers fail to identify or correct dangerous defects, consumers can be placed at unnecessary risk.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a crash involving a potentially defective vehicle or automotive component, the lawyers in Beasley Allen’s Personal Injury & Products Liability Section can review the facts of your case and help determine your legal options.

AVIATION LITIGATION

What Air India Flight 171 & Jeju Air Flight 2216 Teach Us About Aviation Safety

When a commercial airplane crashes, investigators work to answer one important question: What went wrong?

The investigations into Air India Flight 171 and Jeju Air Flight 2216 have drawn attention around the world. While every aviation accident is different, both tragedies show why aviation crash investigations are so important. The investigation into Air India Flight 171 remains ongoing as investigators continue reviewing evidence and possible causes.

More Than One Cause

Many people assume a plane crash is caused by a single error or mistake, but aviation accidents often involve several factors. Investigators may look at:

• Aircraft design
• Maintenance records
• Pilot actions
• Safety procedures
• Airline operations
• Government safety oversight

Finding those answers takes time. Investigators review flight data, cockpit voice recordings, maintenance records, and other evidence to understand what happened and why.

What Investigators Are Looking For

As part of an aviation crash investigation, investigators often work to answer questions such as:

• What caused the aircraft to crash?
• Did any equipment or systems fail?
• Were there warning signs before the accident?
• Were safety procedures followed?
• What changes could help prevent a similar crash?

The answers are not always immediate, but each finding helps investigators build a clearer picture of the accident.

Why Aviation Investigations Matter

A plane crash investigation does more than identify the cause of an accident. It can also lead to important aviation safety improvements.

Investigators examine the actions of aircraft manufacturers, airlines, maintenance providers, and regulators to determine whether any problems contributed to a crash. Their findings can lead to safer aircraft, stronger safety standards, improved training, and better oversight.

Why Families Need Answers

Behind every aviation accident are families grieving the loss of loved ones.

For many families, the investigation is about more than learning what happened. It is about finding answers, supporting meaningful safety improvements, and helping prevent other families from experiencing the same loss.

The investigations into Air India Flight 171 and Jeju Air Flight 2216 continue, but the goal remains the same: uncover the facts, improve aviation safety, and help prevent future crashes.

At Beasley Allen, we believe families deserve answers. A thorough aviation crash investigation is often the first step toward accountability, safer skies, and protecting future passengers.

For more updates and recent interviews related to Air India and Jeju, contact Mike Andrews, who leads our Aviation Litigation Team. If Mike is not available, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. She will have another Beasley Allen lawyer who handles aviation litigation respond to you.

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Eleventh Circuit Makes It Easier To Bring ERISA Claims To Court

In a significant decision for employees and retirement plan participants, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has overturned a decades-old rule that often required workers to exhaust a retirement plan’s internal claims process before filing certain ERISA lawsuits in court.

The ruling revives a proposed class action brought by former employees of Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. who allege that the company’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) was mismanaged. The lawsuit had been dismissed by a Georgia federal court, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed that decision and allowed the case to move forward.

At the center of the dispute was a 1985 Eleventh Circuit precedent, Mason v. Continental Group Inc., which required plaintiffs to complete administrative remedies before pursuing statutory ERISA claims in court. The court concluded that the rule was not grounded in the text of ERISA and was created primarily for policy reasons. Judges also noted that most other federal appellate courts have rejected a similar exhaustion requirement.

The Eleventh Circuit further found that the Inland Fresh ESOP itself did not require participants to complete a formal claims process before bringing their claims. As a result, the court sent the case back for further proceedings.

The decision lowers a significant procedural hurdle for employees seeking to challenge alleged violations of federal retirement benefit laws and aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the majority of federal courts that do not require administrative exhaustion for statutory ERISA claims. The ruling is expected to have a broad impact on future ERISA litigation throughout Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

The proposed class is represented by Andrew D. Schlichter, Sean E. Soyars and Alexander L. Braitberg of Schlichter Bogard LLC.

The DOL is represented by Wayne R. Berry, Edward M. Wenger, Jonathan Berry and Stephen Stasko of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Division.

The case is Bolton et al. v. Inland Fresh Seafood Corp. of America Inc. et al., case number 24-10084, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Source: Law360

Spotting Workplace Retaliation: When Performance Problems Appear Only After The Employee Speaks Up

One of the most common patterns in employment retaliation cases is also one of the easiest to miss: an employee with a strong work history suddenly develops alleged “performance problems” immediately after reporting employer misconduct. The scenario is all too common – an employee with years of solid reviews reports an issue such as harassment, discrimination, a safety hazard, or unpaid wages and then within weeks, that same employee is the subject of counseling memos, a performance improvement plan, a critical mid-year evaluation, and closer supervision than anyone else in the department. By the time the client reaches a lawyer’s office, the termination letter cites a “documented history of performance problems.”

The issue is not whether an employer has the right to discipline employees. Employers are entitled to discipline employees, and nothing in the anti-retaliation laws changes that. The question for the lawyer evaluating the case is narrower: did the performance problem exist before the protected activity, or was it built afterward to justify a decision the employer had already made? Answering that question early, and preserving the evidence that answers it, often determines whether the case survives summary judgment.

Timing alone does not prove retaliation, but temporal proximity often provides a starting point for further investigation. Personnel files, performance evaluations, emails, text messages, and witness interviews may reveal whether the employer’s actions toward the employee are supported by objective evidence or were they the reaction to the employee engaging in protected activity.

When a potential client comes in, recognizing these patterns early can make a significant difference in the value of the case. What initially appears to be a routine employment dispute may actually involve unlawful retaliation, particularly when the employer’s criticism begins only after the employee speaks up.

Beasley Allen’s employment lawyers work within the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. The team includes Larry Golston, Lance Gould, Leon Hampton, Lauren Miles, and Jessi Haynes. These lawyers represent workers nationwide in retaliation, whistleblower, discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and wage and hour cases, as well as qui tam litigation under the False Claims Act. They have secured significant verdicts and settlements for employees who were punished for speaking up.

If you have a client whose “performance problems” began only after they reported misconduct, or any other employment matter, we would be glad to work with you. Contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have a lawyer on the team respond to you.

FCA AND WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

Key Development In Civil Cyber-Fraud FCA Litigation

We will take a look at a case that taught lots about FCA litigation involving cybersecurity issues. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a company affiliated with the Georgia Institute of Technology – Georgia Tech Research Corporation (GTRC) – had agreed to pay $875,000 to the U.S. Government to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly failing to meet cybersecurity requirements for obtaining Pentagon contracts.

The FCA lawsuit was filed in 2022 by two Georgia Tech whistleblowers who worked on the university’s cybersecurity team. The Justice Department joined the suit two years later on behalf of the Defense Department, Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The settlement resolved the claim against Georgia Tech and GTRC concerning their failure to install antivirus tools at Georgia Tech’s Astrolavos Lab while it conducted sensitive cyber-defense research for the Pentagon.

The Justice Department also found that Georgia Tech and GTRC had submitted a false cybersecurity assessment score to the Defense Department. “Failure to follow required cybersecurity requirements puts all of us at risk,” said Stacy Bostjanick, Chief Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity, Deputy Chief Information Officer for Cybersecurity, Office of the Chief Information Officer. Those who knowingly provide deficient cybersecurity products or services, misrepresent their cybersecurity practices or protocols, or violate obligations to monitor and report cybersecurity incidents and breaches must be held accountable. Enforcement efforts like this should serve as a reminder to the industry to prioritize DoD cybersecurity compliance.

The FCA permits private persons – known as “relators” – to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the government and to share in any recovery. The FCA also permits the Government to intervene and take over the lawsuit, as it did in this case as to certain allegations. The United States intervened in the qui tam suit and filed its own complaint in August 2024.

We learn from this case when the Justice Department began using the False Claims Act in 2022 to punish contractors over cybersecurity shortcomings under its Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative. It has since settled with a number of parties in those cases, including for $9 million with Aerojet Rocketdyne, $8.4 million with Raytheon and Nightwing, $4.6 million with MORSECORP and $4 million with Verizon Business Network Services. Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, made this statement at the time of the settlement:

When contractors fail to follow the required cybersecurity standards in their DoD contracts, they leave sensitive government information vulnerable to malicious actors and cyber threats.

Beasley Allen has been successful in many False Claims Act cases. Our lawyers have successfully tried False Claims Act cases and have obtained favorable verdicts. You can also visit our website at www.beasleyallen.com to read more about the successful results we have achieved on behalf of whistleblowers as well as federal and state governments. If you are aware of fraud, abuse or waste being committed against the federal government or a state government and are interested in pursuing a whistleblower lawsuit, contact Larry Golston, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section.

Sources: Department of Justice, Cyberscoop

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.

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes, and Tyner Helms. You can contact a lawyer on the team. You can also contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section and she will have a lawyer on the team respond to you.

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

Welder Suffers Amputation After 30,000-Pound Drill Bit Falls: Investigating Third-Party Liability In Georgia

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, is investigating a serious injury suffered by a welder. The welder was working at an industrial facility in Georgia when a drill bit weighing roughly 30,000 pounds fell and crushed his hand, resulting in the amputation of two fingers.

According to the information available so far, the welder was sent by his employer to a third-party facility to sharpen the drill bit. Ben’s investigation found that an employee of the facility’s owner caused the drill bit to fall through negligent handling and control of the equipment.

Under Georgia law, a business that invites others onto its premises owes a duty to use ordinary care to keep them reasonably safe (O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1). A worker sent by an outside contractor to perform a task is generally treated as an invitee. Employers are generally responsible for the negligence of their employees acting within the scope of their work.

Ben will examine whether the owner’s employees were properly trained and authorized to handle heavy lifting and rigging, whether the equipment was rated for the load, and whether the owner followed its own safety procedures and applicable OSHA standards.

Because Ben’s client was injured on the job, he is most likely entitled to workers’ compensation benefits through his own employer. Those benefits generally limit claims against that employer, but they do not bar claims against a separate company whose negligence caused the injury. Third-party claims can recover damages that workers’ compensation does not cover, including pain and suffering, loss of function, and loss of earning capacity.

If you have questions or need help with a workplace or premises liability case, contact Ben Keen. He will be glad to work with you.

PREMISES LIABILITY

SB 68 Narrowed Negligent Security. It Did Not Kill It.

The passage of legislation in Georgia relating to premises liability litigation has created lots of attention. Defense-side commentary has treated Senate Bill 68 as the end of negligent security litigation in Georgia. But the statute says otherwise. So, let’s take a look.

First, the threshold question: SB 68 applies only to causes of action arising on or after April 21, 2025. For earlier incidents, Georgia CVS Pharmacy v. Carmichael and its totality-of-the-circumstances test remain fully in force. Confirm the injury date before accepting a defense characterization of the governing law.

Second, for post-Act claims, foreseeability under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-51 has two independent routes. The “particularized warning of imminent wrongful conduct” prong has drawn the headlines, but it is the alternative. The second prong asks whether the owner reasonably should have known a third person was likely to engage in such conduct based on prior occurrences of substantially similar wrongful conduct on the premises, on adjoining property, or within 500 yards.

That inquiry is not the narrow gate defendants describe and claim it to be. The statute defines “substantially similar” by reference to nature and character, degree of dangerousness, proximity, location, time, and circumstances, measured against what a reasonable person in the owner’s position would apprehend. Those are the same considerations juries weighed under Carmichael, now organized into an express list. The analysis remains contextual and fact-intensive, which means it remains a jury question in most contested cases.

Practice points: build the prior-incident record early, use the 500-yard radius aggressively, and resist defense motions that treat the particularized-warning prong as the exclusive test. SB 68 replaced an open-ended test with a checklist. That checklist is a roadmap, not a barrier.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, at or by email. Sloan will have a lawyer in the Section who handles premises liability litigation respond to you.

Class Action Litigation

Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Honda Fuel Pump Class Action Settlement Covering More Than 6.3 Million Vehicles

Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, and Dylan Martin represent plaintiffs and Class members in a class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda) and Denso International America, Inc. (Denso) filed in the Northern District of Alabama. On September 24, 2026, the litigation team secured another major settlement, securing preliminary approval of a nationwide class action settlement that will provide significant relief to Class members.

On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff Tucker Oliver filed this lawsuit after Honda submitted a recall report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recalling approximately 136,000 Honda and Acura vehicles equipped with low-pressure Denso fuel pumps. Plaintiffs alleged that the fuel pumps contain impellers that can deform and fail under normal operating conditions, causing the vehicles to hesitate, stall, or become inoperable while driving. Plaintiffs further alleged that Honda’s recall was deficient because millions of additional Honda and Acura vehicles were equipped with the same fuel pumps but were excluded from the recall.

Over the course of the litigation, Honda expanded its recall twice, adding approximately 624,000 vehicles in 2021 and approximately 2.49 million vehicles in December 2023, which brought the total number of recalled vehicles to approximately 3.25 million. Even after those expansions, approximately 3.1 million Honda and Acura vehicles equipped with the same Denso fuel pumps remained outside of any recall.

On September 24, 2026, Chief Judge Madeline Haikala granted preliminary approval of the settlement covering the current and former owners and lessees of more than 6.3 million Honda and Acura vehicles equipped with low-pressure Denso fuel pumps.

Under the Settlement, Honda will provide a Limited Warranty covering the low-pressure Denso fuel pumps in all Covered Vehicles for fifteen years from the vehicle’s in-service date or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. The Limited Warranty applies to the approximately 3.25 million Recalled Vehicles and to the approximately 3.1 million Additional Vehicles that Honda had previously excluded from any recall. Owners and lessees of those Additional Vehicles will be entitled for the first time to a replacement fuel pump at no charge.

The Limited Warranty transfers with the vehicle to subsequent owners and lessees. Class members whose vehicles are repaired under the Limited Warranty will also receive a free loaner vehicle upon request and free towing to a Honda dealer if their vehicle is inoperable or unsafe to drive. In addition, current and former owners and lessees who previously paid out of pocket to repair or replace a fuel pump may submit a claim for reimbursement of those repair costs and any associated towing and rental car expenses, with no cap on the amount of an individual claim.

This is the fourth and final class action settlement for defective Denso low-pressure fuel pumps secured by Beasley Allen lawyers. The three prior settlements covered other manufacturers’ vehicles, the largest of which covered 4.8 million vehicles, and all three were approved and successfully implemented. With more than 6.3 million Covered Vehicles, this Settlement is the largest of the four.

A final approval hearing for this Settlement is scheduled for February 18, 2027, before Chief Judge Haikala. Additional information about the Settlement will be available at www.hondafuelpumpssettlement.com.

The case is Tucker Oliver, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., and is filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Rebecca Gilliland of Beasley Allen, along with attorneys from Seeger Weiss LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., and Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP.

If you have questions or need help with a class action case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, at or by email. She will have a lawyer in the Section who handles class action litigation respond to you.

Beasley Allen Files Class Action Against xAI Over Grok-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Material

Beasley Allen lawyers recently filed a proposed nationwide class action in California federal court against X.AI Corp., X.AI LLC, and X.AI Holdings LLC (collectively, xAI), which own the artificial intelligence (AI) model Grok and its image- and video-generator, Grok Imagine. The complaint alleges that xAI released Grok knowing it could turn ordinary photographs of real children into child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and then profited from the result.

According to the complaint, other AI developers use industry-standard safeguards to prevent sexualized images of real people. However, xAI did not use comparable safeguards on Grok’s image and video tools. Instead, xAI promoted a “Spicy Mode” for Grok Imagine and published system prompts stating that “‘teenage’ or ‘girl’ does not necessarily imply underage.” Grok is estimated to have generated 3 million sexualized images in eleven days, including about 23,000 that appeared to depict children. Rather than disable the functionality, xAI placed it behind a paid subscription, a change the complaint says, “merely ensures that xAI will profit from all such content.”

The six plaintiffs are Arkansas children who were photographed by Russell Bloodworth, a Bentonville professional photographer, during school and family photo sessions. In June 2026, police received a CyberTip from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) reporting CSAM content on an account linked to Bloodworth. A search of his phone revealed approximately 1,700 sexualized images and videos of children; some allegedly created with Grok from lawful photographs of his young clients. Bloodworth was arrested and charged. The plaintiffs’ files have since been entered into an NCMEC database, and they will likely receive notices for life whenever those images surface in a criminal case.

The complaint asserts claims under Masha’s Law, 18 U.S.C. § 2255, for the production, distribution, and possession of CSAM; under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; under a 2025 Arkansas statute allowing deepfake victims to sue the developer of the technology used to create the images; and for negligence and infliction of emotional distress. They seek damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class and an Arkansas subclass.

Dee Miles, Ali Hawthorne, and Paul Evans of Beasley Allen represent the plaintiffs and proposed classes, along with these three law firms: Salahi PC, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, and Herrera Law Group. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact one of the Beasley Allen lawyers regarding potential claims involving AI-generated CSAM. They will be glad to work with you.

The case is Doe I, et al. v. X.AI Corp., et al., case number 5:26-cv-08567-PCP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Supreme Court Declines To Hear Fiat Chrysler Arbitration Dispute In Defective Headrest Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Fiat Chrysler’s appeal in a long-running class action alleging defective headrests in certain Jeep and Dodge vehicles, leaving in place a Ninth Circuit ruling that allows the lawsuit to proceed in court rather than arbitration.

Fiat Chrysler (FCA) asked the justices to resolve a disagreement among federal appeals courts over who should decide whether a dispute belongs in arbitration when one party did not sign the arbitration agreement. FCA contended that the issue has divided courts nationwide and deserved Supreme Court review.

The dispute arose from a consumer class action alleging that active head restraint systems in certain Chrysler vehicles can unexpectedly deploy during normal driving, potentially causing injuries and costing more than $800 to repair. Plaintiffs claim the problem stems from a plastic bracket that is prone to cracking.

After a class was certified, FCA sought to force arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in lead plaintiff Jeffrey Olson’s vehicle lease agreement with a Jeep dealership. FCA was not a party to that agreement but argued that a delegation clause required an arbitrator, rather than a court, to determine whether the claims belonged in arbitration.

The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that FCA could not rely on an arbitration agreement it never signed. The court warned that accepting FCA’s position could allow an almost limitless number of third parties to invoke unrelated arbitration agreements and force consumers into arbitration in disputes they never agreed to arbitrate.

By declining review, the Supreme Court leaves the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact and allows the certified class action to move forward in federal court.

The underlying lawsuit focuses on allegations that active head restraints in certain Jeep and Dodge vehicles may deploy without a collision. Plaintiffs point to complaints submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, including reports of head, neck, and facial injuries linked to unexpected deployments.

The class is represented by Mark P. Chalos, Kenneth S. Byrd, Christopher E. Coleman and Amelia A. Haselkorn of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Stuart C. Talley, Ian J. Barlow and Jack R. Davis of Kershaw Talley Barlow PC, and Samuel Issacharoff of New York University School of Law.

The case is FCA US LLC v. Jeffrey Olson, case number 26-228, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Source: Law360

Upcoded By AI: A New Frontier In Consumer Class Litigation

Hospitals are adopting AI-assisted coding software that scans patient records and lab data for anything billable, and the evidence is growing that patients may be paying for it. Because AI coding tools apply the same logic across thousands of patient accounts, questions about the software’s design, the hospital’s oversight, and whether the codes lacked clinical support are developing into potential class action litigation on behalf of consumer patients.

New research from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Blue Health Intelligence suggests that AI in hospital billing is driving up costs by increasing the number and severity of diagnoses billed without any record of the expected treatment. Its analysis of 2023 through 2025 estimated roughly $942 million in excess costs to the BCBS system, as inpatient stays were billed as more medically complex because added diagnoses pushed claims into higher-reimbursement tiers, not because patients received more procedures.

At one hospital that publicly announced AI coding tools, case complexity rose 6.7%, while other hospitals in the same state saw growth under 1%. Even an insurer executive described early AI data as largely inflationary, with no strong evidence of different clinical outcomes.

Because patients are the downstream payers, an inflated diagnosis code can raise the amount a patient owes in coinsurance and deductibles, and it can send a bill to collections. The stakes are high: the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) reports that more than 73 million Americans have a bill in collections, and almost 60% of those are for medical debt. Researchers at the Lown Institute warn that hospital AI can be used to increase revenue rather than to prevent medical debt.

While Hospital leaders claim that higher-acuity coding reflects more specific documentation and a sicker patient population, not coding manipulation, the research does not yet settle the rising consumer concerns. That makes early, well-organized litigation important because plaintiffs who build the record now will shape this area of law. The critical early work involves identifying clients who experienced unexplained hospital charges and preserving itemized bills, explanations of benefits, and related records from the time of care.

If you have potential clients who may have been subject to inflated hospital billing, Beasley Allen welcomes the opportunity to work with you. Our lawyers are available to discuss the evolving legal theories and case development strategies in this area. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Lauren Miles, Rebecca Gilliland, or Paul Evans, lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. They will be glad to work with you.

INVESTMENT LITIGATION

$3 Billion AML Settlement In TD Bank Investor Lawsuit

A federal judge in New York has allowed most of an investor lawsuit against TD Bank and several of its executives to move forward, finding that some statements about the bank’s anti-money laundering (AML) compliance efforts may have understated the seriousness of the problems later revealed by regulators.

The lawsuit involves TD Bank’s agreement to pay more than $3 billion in penalties to resolve U.S. investigations into alleged AML failures. Federal authorities said the bank lacked adequate controls for nearly a decade, allowing hundreds of millions of dollars connected to criminal activity, including drug trafficking, to move through its accounts.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed some claims, ruling that certain statements by former CEO Bharat Masrani about fixing compliance shortcomings were not misleading because TD Bank had already disclosed the investigations and warned investors that penalties were expected. The judge found those comments reflected ongoing efforts to address known issues rather than guarantees that the bank’s controls were sufficient.

However, the court allowed other claims to proceed, including allegations that TD executives downplayed the scope of the bank’s AML deficiencies. The judge pointed to comments from Chief Risk Officer Ajai Bambawale suggesting the issues were limited to procedural weaknesses within U.S. operations rather than broader enterprise-wide problems. According to the court, investors plausibly alleged those statements minimized the true extent of the bank’s compliance failures.

The judge also found that certain risk disclosures in TD Bank’s regulatory filings may have been misleading because they referenced the possibility of regulatory challenges without fully conveying the magnitude of the ongoing investigations. By contrast, broader statements about prudent risk management and corporate priorities were deemed too general to mislead investors.

In addition, the court allowed claims tied to TD Bank’s failed merger with First Horizon Bank to proceed, including allegations that executives made misleading statements about discussions surrounding regulatory delays and the transaction’s collapse.

The ruling keeps the bulk of the investor case alive as shareholders seek to recover losses allegedly tied to the bank’s AML compliance failures and the fallout from the multibillion-dollar regulatory settlement.

The investors are represented by Joseph A. Fonti, Benjamin F. Burry, George N. Bauer, F. William Green, Adam C. McCall and Ross M. Shikowitz of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

The case is Tiessen v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al., case number 1:24-cv-08032, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

DATA BREACH LITIGATION

AT&T’s $177 Million Data Breach Settlement Receives Final Approval

A federal judge has given final approval to a $177 million settlement resolving claims stemming from two major AT&T data breaches that exposed the personal information of approximately 70 million current and former customers.

U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater approved the settlement agreement, which includes $149 million for customers whose personal data, including Social Security numbers, appeared on the dark web and $28 million for customers affected by a separate breach involving unauthorized access to call and text message records. The judge said the settlement represented a reasonable compromise given the risks, costs, and delays associated with continued litigation.

The settlement resolves claims arising from AT&T’s disclosure in March 2024 that personal information belonging to more than 70 million customers had been exposed online. Several months later, the company revealed that hackers had accessed call and text message records affecting nearly all wireless customers, though the contents of those communications were not compromised.

Plaintiffs alleged AT&T failed to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive customer information and did not follow industry standards designed to prevent large-scale cyberattacks. The lawsuits were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in federal court in Texas and included claims involving cloud storage provider Snowflake.

Despite objections from some class members, Judge Fitzwater rejected challenges to the settlement, finding that it provides a fair process for compensating consumers based on the type of information exposed and any documented losses. He also ruled that differences among state data-breach and consumer protection laws did not prevent approval because the settlement provides uniform relief to all class members.

The settlement brings an end to one of the largest data-breach cases involving a major telecommunications company and provides compensation to millions of affected customers. This is a significant settlement, and it was being watched closely.

The plaintiffs are represented by W. Mark Lanier of the Lanier Law Firm PC, Shauna Itri of Seeger Weiss LLP, James E. Cecchi of Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello PC, Jean Sutton Martin of Morgan & Morgan, Sean S. Modjarrad of Modjarrad Abusaad & Said, Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, J. Devlan Geddes of Goetz Geddes & Gardner PC, Raph Graybill of Graybill Law Firm PC, John Heenan of Heenan & Cook PLLC and Jason S. Rathod of Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

The case is In re: AT&T Inc Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, case number 3:24-cv-00757, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Hair Relaxer Litigation: Recent Discovery Updates

There have been several recent developments in the hair relaxer litigation following an October 1, 2026, status hearing. On October 6, Magistrate Judge Beth W. Jantz, the discovery judge overseeing the litigation, issued an order addressing ongoing discovery matters involving Defendant AFAM.

The court granted plaintiffs permission to continue depositions of two AFAM corporate representatives after receiving additional discovery materials. Plaintiffs may use their remaining deposition time to question the witnesses about newly produced information. These depositions must be completed by October 30, 2026.

The court also directed the parties to work toward resolving outstanding discovery issues, including AFAM’s production of safety data sheets and supplemental discovery responses. The court ordered that these materials be provided at least 48 hours before any related depositions.

Additionally, the court ordered that former AFAM employee Nhuy Tran, who reportedly handled regulatory matters, be deposed in October. Although the court declined to authorize depositions of two additional former employees at this time, plaintiffs may revisit the issue if Tran’s deposition does not occur or fails to sufficiently address regulatory matters.

The parties must submit an updated discovery status report by October 22, 2026, ahead of the next status hearing scheduled for October 29, 2026.

Beasley Allen continues to investigate and file hair relaxer cases on behalf of individuals diagnosed with ovarian, uterine, or endometrial cancer following the use of hair relaxer products. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Aigner Kolom, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section.

Four Overdose Deaths Linked To Kratom-like Products In Georgia

New information underscores the growing danger of synthetic Kratom products. This comes after the deaths of two Ole Miss students. According to Dr. Gaylord Lopez, the director of the Georgia Poison Center, his office has been flooded with emergency calls related to Kratom-like products, including synthetic Kratom. “This year alone, we are already at 315 calls, and we have already had four deaths. This has been alarming. And now, with this synthetic product on the market, it’s like 20 to 30 times more potent than just Kratom itself,” said Dr. Lopez.

Dr. Lopez told WSB-TV in Atlanta that eight out of every 10 calls are related to the hospitalization of an overdose patient. He stated:

You’re looking at people who have their nervous system and respiratory system affected. These people can end up dying because they stop breathing.

According to authorities, Robert Strand, a 20- year- old Ole Miss student from Atlanta, died last month of inhalation asphyxiation in an overdose death involving a retail synthetic Kratom product. Another student died the same day from an overdose also linked to a synthetic Kratom product. Dr. Lopez says the drugs are highly addictive and extremely dangerous. He added:

These are drugs being put on the market to basically harm and even kill our children.

Synthetic Kratom is illegal in Georgia but is still widely available in gas stations and smoke shops because of the lax enforcement and high profit margins on the products.

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

• FDA public health advisories warn that there are currently no drug products containing Kratom that are legally on the market in the U.S., and the FDA has not approved any prescription or over-the-counter drug products containing Kratom or its two main chemical components, mitragynine or 7-OH-mitragynine. Additionally, the FDA has warned consumers not to use Kratom because of the risk of serious adverse events
• including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorders, and in some cases, death.

If you have questions or need help with a Kratom or 7-OH injury case, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts section. She will have a lawyer respond to you.

GLP-1 MDL Concludes Week-Long Expert Hearings

The federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving Ozempic and other GLP-1 medications continues to move forward in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. According to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, there were 4,025 pending cases in the MDL as of October 1, 2026.

While the overall case count has remained relatively stable in recent months, the parties recently focused on a significant evidentiary issue that could shape the future of the litigation. During the week of September 14, 2026, the court conducted a Daubert hearing to evaluate the reliability of expert testimony concerning whether Ozempic and other GLP-1 medications can cause severe gastrointestinal injuries. The court’s eventual rulings on these expert opinions may influence which claims proceed and how the litigation develops moving forward.

The lawsuits generally allege that manufacturers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn patients and physicians about the risk of serious gastrointestinal complications associated with GLP-1 medications. Plaintiffs contend that they suffered injuries such as gastroparesis, bowel obstruction, and other severe digestive conditions after using the drugs. The parties now await the court’s decisions on the expert issues while the MDL continues to advance through the coordinated pretrial process.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Ryan Duplechin, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section. He will be glad to work with you.

The Dupixent Litigation

Dupixent (dupilumab), a biologic used for atopic dermatitis, asthma, and COPD, is now the subject of products liability litigation. Plaintiffs allege that Regeneron and Sanofi failed to warn that cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) can mimic eczema, so the drug may mask, accelerate, or delay diagnosis of an underlying lymphoma.

On June 4, 2026, the JPML centralized the federal cases as MDL No. 3180 in the District of New Jersey before Judge Zahid N. Quraishi. As of October 1, 38 federal suits were pending, and 12 more had been filed in New Jersey state court. The parties have jointly petitioned for a state multicounty litigation in Middlesex County. A separate medical monitoring class action has also been filed on behalf of users who have not been diagnosed with CTCL.

The parties’ proposed schedule, which the court has not yet approved, focuses first on general causation. Discovery would resume in November 2026, expert reports would follow in late 2027, and Daubert and summary judgment briefing would conclude in May 2028. Bellwether trials are not imminent, and early settlement is unlikely. Defendants dispute causation, pointing to the underlying skin disease and the difficulty of distinguishing early CTCL from eczema. Plaintiffs rely on a recent review of 51 studies covering 547 patients, which suggests the drug may unmask or worsen lymphoma.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Cade Crow, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section.

TOXIC TORTS LITIGATION

November 2026 Paraquat Litigation Update

The Paraquat litigation and related settlement program continue to move forward, although more slowly than Plaintiffs’ Leadership initially anticipated. The court, Plaintiffs’ Leadership, and the Special Master have made substantial progress and remain focused on completing the settlement process and advancing participating claimants toward payment. However, outstanding claim-administration matters and issues involving opt-out claimants continue to affect the timeline.

A significant challenge remains the number of settlement-eligible claimants who have elected to opt out. That issue was central to an October 14, 2026, in-person status conference concerning cases associated with The Smith Law Firm, PLLC, the firm’s alleged noncompliance with a June 2, 2026, limited-discovery order, and its pending motion regarding Case Management Orders 25 and 26.

At the conference, the court explained that it had selected certain Smith firm cases for limited discovery after learning that a disproportionate number of the firm’s clients had declined to participate in the settlement. The June 2 order required plaintiff fact sheets within 14 days and depositions within 60 days. According to the court, those requirements had not been completed as of October 14. The court also directed Smith to submit, for in-camera review, a list identifying all persons other than counsel and clients who hold a financial interest in the litigation. This directive reflects the court’s focus on understanding the full scope of the circumstances affecting claimant participation.

No definitive timetable has been announced for resolving the remaining issues. Nevertheless, the court’s expedited directives may help address participation concerns and move the settlement closer to finalization. Beasley Allen lawyers will continue monitoring developments and providing updates as additional information becomes available.

If you have questions, contact Khadiga Carr, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section. She will be glad to work with you.

Supreme Court Sends $28 Million Roundup Verdict Back To California Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a California court to reconsider a $28 million verdict awarded to Mike Dennis, a man who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer. The move follows the court’s June 2026 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, which found that certain state-law failure-to-warn claims involving Roundup are barred by federal pesticide law.

The high court’s ruling in Durnell held that because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not require a cancer warning label for Roundup, states cannot impose their own warning requirements through litigation. That decision overturned a Missouri verdict and strengthened Monsanto’s argument that many Roundup failure-to-warn claims are preempted by federal law.

Dennis originally sued Monsanto in 2021, alleging that Roundup’s glyphosate-based formula causes cancer and that the company failed to adequately warn consumers of the risks. Dennis also asserted a strict-liability design defect claim which did not prevail at trial. A San Diego jury awarded him $332 million in 2023, including punitive damages. The trial court later reduced the punitive damages award, lowering the total judgment to $28 million.

Monsanto appealed, arguing that federal law preempted Dennis’ failure-to-warn claims and that the punitive damages were unconstitutional. While California appellate courts previously upheld the verdict, the Supreme Court’s recent Durnell decision prompted the justices to send Dennis’ case back for further review.

The remand is one of several affecting pending Roundup cases across the country as courts determine how the Supreme Court’s federal preemption ruling impacts existing verdicts and future claims against Monsanto. Bayer, Monsanto’s parent company, said it will ask the California court to vacate the verdict based on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Dennis is represented by Jeffrey I. Ehrlich of the Ehrlich Law Firm, Shelley Chambers and Jason M. Milne of Clark Chambers PLLC and Paul R. Kiesel and Melanie Palmer of Kiesel Law LLP.

Source: Law360

ILLEGAL ONLINE GAMBLING LITIGATION

Update On The Kalshi Litigation

Previously we have written about Kalshi, a CFTC-registered prediction market platform that allows users to trade event contracts, including contracts tied to the outcomes of professional sporting events. Kalshi has contended that its contracts qualify as “swaps” under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Under that theory, the CFTC holds exclusive federal jurisdiction over its operations and state gambling laws cannot apply.

At least twenty states disagree and have moved to enforce their gaming laws against the platform. That dispute has produced a three-way split among the federal circuits and a pending petition for certiorari at the United States Supreme Court.

The Sixth Circuit’s Ruling

On September 25, 2026, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Kalshi in consolidated cases brought by Ohio and Tennessee. Writing for the panel, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons held that Kalshi failed to demonstrate that its sports-event contracts satisfy the CEA’s statutory definition of a “swap.” Without meeting that definition, the contracts do not fall within the scope of the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction. The panel went further, holding that even if the contracts qualified as swaps, the CEA neither expressly nor impliedly preempts state gambling laws. The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Ohio enforcement, vacated the injunction that had temporarily protected Kalshi in Tennessee, and remanded both cases for further proceedings.

The ruling deepens a serious conflict among the circuits. The Ninth Circuit reached the same conclusion in August 2026, likewise, holding that states may enforce their gambling laws against Kalshi’s sports offerings. Against those two decisions stands only the Third Circuit, which ruled in April 2026 that Kalshi’s sports contracts are likely swaps and that the CEA preempts New Jersey’s regulatory efforts. Kalshi is now 1-for-3 across the federal circuits.

The Supreme Court Cert Petition and the Amicus Briefs

New Jersey’s petition for certiorari in Flaherty v. KalshiEX, LLC, No. 26-299, seeks review of the Third Circuit’s ruling in Kalshi’s favor. The three-circuit conflict has made Supreme Court review widely anticipated, and the amicus activity on the petition has already been extraordinary.

On October 8, 2026, the final day for amicus filings, two architects of the statute at the center of this dispute filed briefs urging the court to grant the petition and correct the Third Circuit. Former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler, who led the agency from 2009 to 2014 and oversaw adoption of sixty-seven rules implementing Dodd-Frank, told the court plainly: “Congress did not transfer jurisdiction over sports betting from the States to the CFTC.” Gensler argued that Dodd-Frank was enacted to address the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, not to create a federal sports wagering regime, and that sports bets are not swaps. He also noted that the late Senator Harry Reid, who chaired the Nevada Gaming Commission before his Senate career and served as Senate Majority Leader during Dodd-Frank’s passage, would never have consented to legislation that displaced state gaming authority.

Former Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the lead Senate sponsor of the Dodd-Frank Act, filed a companion brief. Senator Dodd argued that the Third Circuit’s reading of the CEA’s swaps definition was never what Congress intended and would displace decades of established state gaming regulation without any textual basis in the statute. Dodd’s brief explained that Dodd-Frank was aimed at bringing transparency and accountability to the derivatives markets that contributed to the 2008 financial collapse, not at handing the CFTC authority over professional sports wagering.

The NFL, the American Gaming Association, and 145 Indian tribes and tribal organizations also filed briefs supporting New Jersey’s petition. The NFL reported that its games alone accounted for $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded on prediction market platforms on just the first Sunday of the 2026 season. The league argued that the CFTC and Kalshi have resisted the game-integrity safeguards the league has requested. In July 2026, forty-four state attorneys general separately wrote to the CFTC arguing the agency lacks statutory authority to regulate sports-related event contracts.

With two circuits empowering states to regulate prediction markets, one circuit protecting Kalshi from state enforcement, and the law’s own authors telling the Supreme Court the Third Circuit got it wrong, the case for certiorari is compelling. A decision on whether to grant review could come as early as the court’s next conference cycle. We will keep our readers updated as the petition progresses.

If you have questions or need help with a case involving prediction markets or consumer gaming issues, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She will have a lawyer on our litigation team respond to you.

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 in 1979, 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 28 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, Predatory Gaming, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Social Media and Dupixent. 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 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, Securities, Civil & Human Rights, Employment Law, Termite Damage and Whistleblower cases. There are 17 lawyers in the Section.

The Administrative Section

The Administrative Section consists of several departments: Accounting, Operations, Human Resources (HR), Information Technology (IT), and Marketing. Jackie Killough 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/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation Sections.

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 – Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD.
• Auto Accidents – Our firm handles life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks.
• Auto Defect Class Actions – Our team pursues auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks for occupants and others on the road. We seek to correct defects not addressed by recalls or warranty extensions through class action litigation.
• Auto Products – Beasley Allen lawyers will meticulously investigate your auto accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents – Our firm’s lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error, and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune – Beasley Allen handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires – Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures.
• Dupixent – We are investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)— a group of rare blood cancers that affects the largest organ in your body — your skin.
• Hair Relaxers – Our firm’s lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer.
• Kratom – Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula – Lawyers in our firm investigate cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security – Negligent security lawsuits occur when property owners fail to provide adequate security, putting visitors at risk of violent crimes like assault, robbery, or worse. Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases holding owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries – Beasley Allen lawyers investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic – Our firm investigates cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat – Beasley Allen handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Premises Liability – We investigate cases every day where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions. Catastrophic premises cases involve serious injuries that occur on someone else’s property. These cases can take many forms, and while the laws might vary from state to state, we are experienced in helping clients seek justice in these situations.
• Roblox – We are investigating claims involving online and in-person harm for children who have encountered adult predators on Roblox and/or Discord. These platforms put profits over children’s safety by failing to protect children from adult predators.
• Social Media – Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide. This litigation is rapidly increasing in volume and seriousness.
• Termite Damage – We represent businesses, churches, condominium associations, and other property owners in claims arising from termite infestations, and negligent termite inspection, treatment, and monitoring services. The firm has achieved substantial results in termite litigation and continues to pursue accountability against pest control companies that fail to protect properties from termite damage.
• Truck Accidents – Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods – Beasley Allen is actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction – Our lawyers are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

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 if you have any questions or believe we may need to include a recall.

The Jere Beasley Report

We 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

Why Pretrial Motions Deserve Your Best Work

Rylee Buzbee, a lawyer in our Toxic Torts Section, has some “trial tips” for us. She discusses the importance of pretrial motion practice. This is an area that some firms neglect. But that’s not the way Beasley Allen handles litigation. We consider our pretrial motion practice to be extremely important in the handling of a case. Let’s see what Rylee has for us.

In the weeks leading up to what would have been the country’s first state trial against TikTok, our litigation team was consumed by pretrial motions. We fought over what evidence the factfinder would hear, which defenses were available, and even who the factfinder would be. Days before trial, the case settled in a first-in-the-nation agreement worth up to $300 million for Alabama, with $100 million guaranteed. As a first-year associate on a large, talented team, I assumed trial would be where the case was won or lost. Looking back, I’m not so sure. By the time trial approached, many of the most consequential battles had already been fought on paper.

That’s what this case taught me about pretrial motions: they’re not just a lead-up to the main event. They often shape the main event itself. They set the terms of the battle, and sometimes they are the battle. The six lessons below are the drafting and strategy habits I saw repeatedly on the motions that mattered most.

Don’t argue for a result. Make it feel inevitable.

What I noticed on these filings is that the most effective motions began making the “materially indistinguishable” argument on page one, not in the argument section.

To do that, we treated favorable cases as drafting templates, not just citations. Before drafting, we pulled the operative phrases from the statute and the cases we wanted to control, then used that language throughout the motion, especially in the facts. The goal was simple: by the time the court reached the legal analysis, much of the comparison had already been made.

We often compared our facts to the controlling opinion’s facts side by side and looked for parallels in language, structure, and emphasis. In one motion, we described our requested relief in the same terms the Supreme Court had used and followed the same analytical structure. One of my final editing passes was simply looking for additional places to work those key terms into the motion. Only after several pages of that deliberate repetition did we argue that the cases were materially indistinguishable.

We also showed that the result was not tied to a single case. When moving to exclude a defense, for example, we pointed to a consistent line of Alabama decisions rejecting it across related claims before arguing that our statute fit squarely within that authority.

By the time we connected the dots, the court had usually already seen the picture. The argument was no longer, “You should rule for us.” It was, “You have seen these facts before, you have used this language before, and courts have reached this result before.”

Give the court more than one way to rule for you.

A judge who doubts your best argument shouldn’t be forced to rule against you. Give the court somewhere else to land: fallback grounds that stand on their own. On one evidentiary issue, we argued irrelevance first and prejudice as a backup: two independent paths to the same result. In another motion, we rested a threshold issue on three separate grounds: statutory text, precedent, and constitutional history; each strong enough to carry the ruling alone. Ask yourself: if the court rejects this point, is there still a clean path to ruling in our favor?

Make every concession do work.

Fighting every point doesn’t tell the court which ones matter. Instead, find the opposing arguments that are legally correct but not outcome-determinative, and concede them. Then, in the very next sentence, explain why the result stays the same. In our filings, the other side relied on a general rule and described it correctly. We said so. Then we showed that their own filing recognized a second rule that applies when the first one doesn’t, and in our case, that second rule controlled. That took the force out of their argument without a fight. The concession cost us nothing and allowed us to narrow the dispute to the one question we could win.

Write the order you want the court to sign.

When you can, in your motion, give the court clear, step-by-step instructions for exactly how to rule in your favor, in language the judge can lift straight into its order. The more specific your request, the less work the court has to do. Precision also reads as reasonableness: in our exclusion requests, we expressly preserved limited uses of the evidence and exempted genuine admissions. Define who is covered, what is excluded, and what remains permitted, and the court can grant the request without worrying about overreach.

Audit propositions, not just citations.

Cite-checking confirms a case exists and says what you quoted. It doesn’t confirm the case stands for what your sentence claims, and that gap is where opposing counsel will look first. Before filing, put every sentence that states a legal rule next to its pin cite and check for the usual drift. Is the quoted language a holding, dicta, or the court summarizing a party’s argument? Did the court apply the same standard of review? (An affirmance for abuse of discretion doesn’t mean the trial court had to rule that way.) And does the case support your sentence at the same level of generality, or did “the court declined to” quietly become “courts may not”? Run this audit before you file, or your opponent will run it for you in their response.

Ask pointed questions—of colleagues and of AI.

Specific questions get specific answers. After spending days researching one issue and finding nothing, I took the precise question to Stephanie Monplaisir, a seasoned attorney at our firm, and she immediately pointed me to case law that was directly on point. The same goes for feedback on drafts: “Can you look this over?” gets you a skim. Instead, ask where the argument first becomes hard to follow, which premise they’d least accept, or whether the relief matches the analysis.

AI rewards the same discipline, and it’s available when no one else is. Have it list every premise your conclusion depends on, then make the strongest opposing argument against your weakest one. That gets you substantive revisions, not just cosmetic ones. Don’t ask AI to improve a draft. Ask it to attack one.

Beasley Allen lawyers understand how important pretrial motions are to the outcome of a case. Rylee provides some good information. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Rylee.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Mike Andrews

Mike Andrews joined Beasley Allen in 1998 and is a Principal in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section. His practice focuses on complex product liability cases involving catastrophic injuries and wrongful death, including litigation involving aircraft, commercial trucks, automobiles, and heavy equipment.

For Mike, practicing law stems from a genuine desire to stand up for people who may not have the voice or resources to do so themselves. He believes attorneys have both an opportunity and a responsibility to seek accountability for those who have suffered as a result of others’ wrongdoing. Seeing that work improving a client’s life and easing a family’s burden remains the most rewarding part of his practice.

Mike believes Beasley Allen is unique because of the experience of its attorneys, the dedication of its staff, and the resources available to take on difficult cases wherever they arise. His work has taken him around the world, representing clients and families seeking answers and accountability.

Those experiences have reinforced what Mike values most about the legal system: the ability to give ordinary people a voice and help level the playing field that might otherwise be unfair.

Mike is a tremendously talented attorney who truly cares about his clients and is dedicated to them. We are blessed to have him at Beasley Allen.

Christine Colvett

Christine Colvett has been part of Beasley Allen’s Mass Torts Section since January 2019. She serves as a Medical Claims Analyst. Her work involves reviewing a large volume of medical records and other case documents, organizing data for legal teams and attorneys, transferring information between platforms, and analyzing medical information to help determine the appropriate categorization of cases. Much of her current work involves Talc and social media litigation.

Away from work, Christine enjoys spending time with her adult daughter, Lexi, and her American Staffordshire Terrier, Goobie. She and Lexi enjoy traveling to new places and attending concerts, while Christine and Goobie like to hit the hiking trails. Christine also enjoys photography and pickleball. Giving back is important to her as well, and she volunteers and participates in fundraising efforts with Special Olympics of Minnesota.

What Christine values most about Beasley Allen is the firm’s sense of community and culture, as well as its commitment to helping others. She is a dedicated hard-working employee and an asset to the firm. We are fortunate to have Christine with us.

Jennifer Emmel

Jennifer Emmel joined Beasley Allen in 2016 and is a Principal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section. She shares that her path to practicing law is somewhat unique, taking her from the medical lab to the courtroom and giving her a perspective that has helped shape her work on behalf of others.

Jennifer has long been driven by a desire to help people. Today, she puts that passion into action through complex mass tort litigation, advocating for individuals and families and working to hold companies accountable when their products cause harm. Her work has included the firm’s talc litigation involving Johnson & Johnson, which helped draw greater attention to consumer safety concerns surrounding talc-based products.

For Jennifer, the impact of that work extends beyond a single case. Her career reflects a commitment to helping people while bringing attention to issues that can ultimately affect many others.

Since joining Beasley Allen, Jennifer has brought together her scientific background, legal experience, and passion for helping others, making a difference in the lives of those the firm serves.

In addition to the Talc Litigation Jennifer has been involved in a number of important cases. She is well-respected by persons in and outside the firm. Jennifer is an extremely talented attorney whose background and skill has benefited the clients she has served. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

Jesse Ocana

Jesse Ocana is a Runner in Beasley Allen’s Operations Department and has been with the firm since May 2022. A graduate of Valiant Cross Academy, Jesse joined the firm while preparing to attend Alabama State University. He shared his goal of pursuing a bachelor’s degree in political science before ultimately attending law school.

Since joining the firm, Jesse has been part of the Operations team that supports the day-to-day needs of attorneys and staff. His role as a runner gives him the opportunity to assist people across different areas and contribute wherever he is needed.

Jesse’s time with Beasley Allen has given him firsthand insight into the legal profession as he works toward his educational and professional goals. His interest in political science and aspiration to attend law school make that experience especially meaningful. We appreciate Jesse’s dependable support, willingness to help wherever needed, and continued contribution to the firm. I predict that Jesse will wind up being a good lawyer who does things the right way and for the right reason.

Elizabeth Tenney

Elizabeth Tenney joined Beasley Allen in November 2024 and serves as a Staff Assistant in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. She helps keep cases moving by communicating with clients, gathering needed information and documentation, providing case updates, and maintaining client files. She especially enjoys finding different avenues that may help strengthen a client’s case.

Outside the office, Elizabeth is a devoted mother of two and caregiver to her father. She stays busy supporting her 15-year-old daughter’s club volleyball activities while embracing a different but equally rewarding stage of parenthood with her 21-year-old son. Two cats and two rescue dogs complete the household. Family is at the heart of Elizabeth’s life, and she would not have it any other way.

For Elizabeth, one of the most rewarding parts of her job is helping people when they may feel overwhelmed or uncertain about what comes next. She also appreciates the support of her coworkers and the family-like atmosphere at Beasley Allen. Elizabeth is a dedicated worker who does excellent work. She is an asset to the firm. We are fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

In Memory Of Ashley Pugh, A Dedicated, Well Respected And Loved Beasley Allen Employee

Ashley Pugh passed away on October 4, 2026, after a lengthy illness. She was only 48 years old. She will remain a deeply rooted presence in the people and places she loved — devoted to her family, generous in spirit, and unwaveringly honest in the way she cared for others and spoke her mind. Ashley had been with Beasley Allen for 27 years.

Ashley’s heart belonged to her family and farm. Her husband of 24 years, Patrick, was the love of her life, and her son, J.P., was her heartbeat. She also held her father, Wayne (PawPaw), especially close, caring for him with steady devotion and strength—his rock in every sense of the word. Her brother, Stephen, also held a special place in her life.

Ashley devoted her working life to Beasley Allen in many roles at the firm. She was an Administrative Assistant to the Section Head of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, Dee Miles, one of our best litigation technology specialists for trial presentation for 27 years, and was deeply entrenched in our eDiscovery technology working alongside Section Head Assistant Michelle Fulmer. She had a steadfast dedication and capability in all the areas she contributed. She was an excellent employee and was totally dedicated to the Beasley Allen clients she served. Ashley was involved in a huge number of important cases handled by our firm. She will be greatly missed by her friends and colleagues in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, as well the entire Beasley Allen Law Firm.

Ashley expressed her generous spirit through the beauty she created and shared. She loved making floral arrangements. She also enjoyed baking and sharing what she made, especially her pound cakes, given freely and warmly to others. She was a dedicated server to the Meals on Wheels project and a loyal supporter of the Montgomery Humane Society.

Her home reflected what she loved: her dog Charlie, her cat, M.F. (Mary Frances), and the brown cow print that surrounded her with familiar comfort.

Ashley was preceded in death by her mother, Mary Frances Age (MiMi) and father-in-law, George B. Pugh, Jr. She is survived by her husband, Patrick Pugh; son, J.P.; father, Wayne Age; brother, Stephen Age (Lindsey); mother-in-law who was like a second mother to her, Farley Pugh “Granny”; her beloved pets, Charlie and M.F. (Mary Frances); as well as a host of deeply loved in-laws, nieces, nephews, and cherished friends.

All of us at Beasley Allen will miss Ashley. She was part of our family. God blessed us when He sent Ashley to us 27 years ago.

Favorite Bible VerseS

In this month’s issue, one of our lawyers and one of our staff members, each being spotlighted, share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Mike Andrews

Mike offers three of his favorite verses.

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go. Joshua 1:9

Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. James 1:12

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I. Send me!” Isaiah 6:8

Elizabeth Tenney

Elizabeth’s favorite verse comes from Hebrews. See below:

Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it. Hebrews 13:2

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

The Political Season Comes To An End For Now

The American people have been through many political races this year that will affect their lives at the present and for years to come. I have never seen a harder battle nationwide in the mid-term elections than what we have experienced this year. This issue went to the printer before the outcome in the congressional races was known. The outcome in several key races affecting control of the House and Senate is critical for the future of our Republic. I won’t speculate on the outcome – stay tuned!

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