The Jere Beasley Report June 2026

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Fred Gray Luncheon

Bryan Stevenson and I have been selected to serve as Co-Chairmen of the Alabama Legacy Luncheon, which will be held on September 29 in Montgomery. The event will honor my longtime friend, Fred Gray, who will speak during the program. The event is being coordinated by David Fleer, Executive Director of the Institute. 

This special gathering, titled “The Wisdom of Fred Gray for Such a Time as This,” will take place at the Elevation Convening Center & Hotel. It will bring together leaders from across our region to celebrate a man whose influence on the law and on our country is simply unmatched. Guests will enjoy a luncheon followed by a thoughtfully designed program, including a video presentation and a moderated conversation with Fred in an intimate setting. 

Fred Gray’s career spans more than seven decades, and his work helped shape the modern Civil Rights Movement. He represented Rosa Parks and other leaders at a critical time in our nation’s history, and his legal efforts led to landmark decisions that helped dismantle segregation and advance equal justice under the law. 

I have known Fred for many years, and I can say without hesitation that he is one of the finest lawyers—and one of the finest men—I have ever known. His courage, integrity, and commitment to doing what is right have set a standard for all of us in the legal profession. This luncheon is not only a tribute to his extraordinary legacy, but also a reminder that the work he began must continue.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Update On Social Media Litigation

Beasley Allen lawyers are pursuing claims against Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube for injuries resulting from addiction to those social media platforms. Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of hundreds of injured individuals, adults and minors, arising out of their addiction to these social media platforms. 

In addition, Beasley Allen is representing a number of school districts for expenses that those school districts have incurred due to problems related to their students’ social media addictions. 

These lawsuits have been filed in two different courts in California – the federal district court for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles.

There have been two recently completed social media trials that resulted in verdicts against one or more of these social media defendants. In the first bellwether trial against the companies, Snapchat and Tik-Tok settled with the plaintiff just before trial began. Meta and YouTube did not settle. After a near month long trial, as we have reported, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amounts of $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages against Meta and YouTube. Meta and YouTube have filed post-trial motions challenging this verdict and will likely appeal if those motions are denied.

The second case was brought by the New Mexico attorney general and resulted in a verdict in the amount of $375 million against Meta. New Mexico is currently pursuing additional claims against Meta in a separate trial that is ongoing. The first bellwether case was scheduled for jury selection beginning June 12 in the Northern District of California. That case was settled. A full report will be set out below. 

We will keep you updated on this litigation and will have a report in the July issue.

Social Media Giants Settle Bellwether School District Case Ahead Of Trial

Meta, Snap, TikTok, and YouTube have reached settlements with a Kentucky school district resolving claims that were set to be tested in the first federal bellwether trial in the social media addiction multidistrict litigation. 

The case, brought by Breathitt County School District, was scheduled for trial this month in California. It was widely viewed as a key test case for more than 1,200 similar

lawsuits filed by school districts nationwide. The district alleged that the platforms were intentionally designed with addictive features that harmed students’ mental health and forced schools to spend significant resources addressing the resulting crisis.

Snap, YouTube, and TikTok reached settlements first, followed by Meta, which had been the final defendant heading toward trial. Financial terms of the agreements were not disclosed, but all parties described the resolutions as amicable.

The settlements cancel what would have been a high-profile, six-week trial featuring testimony from top executives and serving as a benchmark for valuing similar claims across the MDL. While the bellwether case is now resolved, plaintiffs’ counsel will continue pursuing claims on behalf of the many remaining school districts. The broader litigation continues to move forward, with thousands of related cases pending and future trials expected to shape how courts handle claims that social media platforms contributed to a youth mental health crisis.

The personal injury plaintiffs and school district plaintiffs are represented by Lexi Hazam, Previn Warren of Motley Rice LLC, Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP and Ronald Johnson of Hendy Johnson Vaughn PSC, among others. 

The federal bellwether case is Breathitt County School District by and through the Breathitt County Board of Education v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 4:23-cv-01804, and the MDL is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:22-md-03047, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Massachusetts’ TikTok Addiction Lawsuit Moves Forward

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp has ruled that the state’s lawsuit against TikTok over alleged social media addiction can move forward. The company’s argument that it is protected by federal law and the First Amendment was rejected by Judge Krupp.

The lawsuit, filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in 2024, claims TikTok is intentionally designed to keep teenagers hooked, contributing to mental and physical health harms. The state contends that TikTok’s design features—not user content—are the source of the alleged harm.

Judge Krupp said TikTok’s defenses are no different from those already rejected in a similar case against Meta’s Instagram. That earlier ruling was recently upheld by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which found that federal law does not shield social media companies from claims based on their own product design.

TikTok argued that its recommendation algorithm is protected because it deals with content selection. The company pointed to rulings in other states that have dismissed similar claims. Judge Krupp rejected those arguments, stating he is bound by Massachusetts’ high court and expressing doubts that TikTok’s algorithm is meaningfully different from Instagram’s challenged features.

With the judge’s ruling, the case against TikTok will now proceed. Attorney General Campbell said the decision confirms that the state’s concerns about TikTok’s practices deserve to be heard in court.

Massachusetts is represented by Ashanthi Seralathan, Megan Barriger, Jared Rinehimer and Christina Chan of the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. The case is Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. TikTok Inc. et al., case number 2484CV02638, in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts.

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.

Social Media Litigation Team 

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

TALC LITIGATION

The Talc Litigation: Where Things Stand

After Johnson & Johnson’s third bankruptcy attempt was rejected in 2025, the talcum powder cases have returned to the tort system. Trials are being set across the country and court-ordered mediation is underway. In December 2025, Beasley Allen, along with co-counsel Robinson Calcagnie, obtained a $40 million jury verdict in Los Angeles in favor of two talcum powder victims. This verdict reflects continued jury skepticism of J&J’s defenses.

On April 27 Beasley Allen, with co-counsel Robinson Calcagnie and Wisner Baum, began another talcum powder jury trial before Judge Theresa Traber of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The trial is expected to last through the first week of June. We will do a further update on the trial in the July issue. 

Additional trial settings are anticipated in state-court jurisdictions in the months ahead. We will keep our readers posted. 

For more than a decade, our talc team — led by Andy Birchfield, Leigh O’Dell, and Ted Meadows — has worked to hold J&J accountable for marketing a product the company knew was contaminated with asbestos. That work has helped drive J&J’s decision to remove its talc-based baby powder from the global market and has produced significant jury verdicts for the women and families that we have represented.

Talc Trial Results In $10.2 Million Mesothelioma Verdict

A Minnesota jury has awarded $10.2 million to a married couple who claimed long-term use of talc-based body powders caused the husband’s mesothelioma. The jury found that several companies—including Vi-Jon, Gold Bond, Johnson & Johnson, and Merck—failed to warn consumers about potential risks. Jurors also determined that talc products the husband regularly used directly contributed to his illness.

The husband was diagnosed with mesothelioma at age 43 in late 2024 and now requires oxygen and a wheelchair. According to the lawsuit, he used a range of talc products over the years, including Gold Bond Medicated Body Powder and other common brands, with exposure dating back to childhood.

Jurors assigned the largest share of fault to Gold Bond, followed by Vi-Jon, Perrigo, Merck, and Johnson & Johnson. Of the total award, $5 million was granted to the wife.

The case also included other possible sources of asbestos exposure, including work-related contact and exposure from family members. Still, the jury concluded that the talc products played a direct role in causing the disease.

This verdict is one of the largest mesothelioma awards in the state and reflects continued scrutiny of talc-based products and the risks they may pose.

The Heyers are represented by Shaina Weissman and Holly Peterson of Simon Greenstone Panatier PC, and Chad Alexander of Sieben Alexander PA.

The case is Heyer et al. v. Vi-Jon LLC, case number 62-CV-25-5182, in the Second Judicial District Court of Ramsay County, Minnesota.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team 

The ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson (J&J) continues. Beasley Allen took on J&J in the very beginning. I tried the first case in St. Louis in 2016, and our firm has been involved since that time. While J&J’s three fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims, our lawyers refused to back down. Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. Justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims and their families.

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

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Litigation Update

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to work on the Camp Lejeune litigation. Progress is being made, although not as fast as many had hoped. We continue to work hard with many other law firms to make progress towards bellwether trials and a global settlement. 

The Elective Option process remains painfully slow and is resolving only a very small fraction of claims filed. It is not the answer. 

Currently, plaintiffs are still working to provide documentation for claims that once had duplicates filed. Only about 180,000 of the 400,000 previously duplicated files include any supporting documentation. 13,000 contain three or more documents while alleging an injury that may qualify under the Elective Option. That means roughly 3% of the current inventory fits within the government’s early settlement framework.

Additionally, attorneys for Track 1 bellwether plaintiffs have moved to exclude the government’s future medical offset calculations offered by economic experts Dubravka Tosic, Tricia Yount, and Andrew Brod. The motion does not seek to wholly bar the testimony of these experts, instead it challenges the reliability of their lifetime offset estimates for Medicare, the VA, and TRICARE, arguing that the figures rest on untested and unvalidated assumptions.

The challenged calculations stem from a two-step process. The government’s health care costs expert Dr. Henry Miller identified current reimbursement rates for the relevant programs, providing a rate observed at a single point in time. Tosic, Yount, and Brod then projected those rates over each plaintiff’s lifetime and discounted them to present value. In doing so, they assumed continued program eligibility, unchanged coverage, and reimbursement growth aligned with the Consumer Price Index.

Plaintiffs’ motion contends that all these assumptions were not independently analyzed and that, in practice, these programs do not set their reimbursement rates based on general consumer price inflation. Rather these programs rely on a multitude of variables, such as statutes, program-specific market basket indices, and Congressional involvement.

Additionally, Brod conceded that eligibility and payer responsibility fall outside his expertise, and Yount admitted she has no opinion on whether plaintiffs will receive care through the programs assumed. Miller also testified that he could not determine what Yount had done with his rate data and that she had made assumptions unknown to him. All three experts confirmed their role was limited to running calculations using data supplied by others. For individuals potentially eligible for multiple programs, the experts produced materially different offset amounts without articulating a framework for selecting among them.

Beasley Allen’s Toxic Torts Team is dedicated to fighting for our veterans and their loved ones.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Litigation Team

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

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

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

SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION

Congress Used Taxpayer Dollars To Settle Sexual Harassment Complaints

Recently, a report from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights revealed that over half a million dollars of taxpayer money was spent to pay confidential sexual harassment settlements for members of Congress. The figure was disclosed after the department admitted it had initially reported a much lower total and had overlooked a $220,000 settlement paid in 2012 on behalf of a member of Congress. According to the same report, the complaint was lodged in 2010 and ultimately resolved in 2012 through a confidential settlement with a congressional staffer. These payments highlight a growing issue in the workplace.

Sexual harassment in the workforce is a serious and persistent problem that affects employees across many industries, including government. It can create a hostile and unsafe environment for victims, leading to emotional distress, reduced productivity, and serious setbacks to one’s career. When such misconduct occurs within powerful institutions like Congress, it not only harms individuals but also undermines public trust.

One of the most concerning aspects of these settlements is the use of taxpayer money to resolve claims. Instead of holding individuals personally accountable, these payments shift the financial burden onto the public. This type of arrangement allows those responsible for the misconduct to avoid direct consequences and shield them from accountability from their constituents. And, in this instance, citizens who had no role in the wrongdoing are left to cover the cost. 

This issue is not isolated to Congress, but reflects a wider pattern of sexual harassment across many workplaces. In corporate offices, educational institutions, and service industries, similar cases have emerged in which victims face misconduct from individuals in positions of power, often followed by confidential settlements, forced resignations, or inadequate internal resolutions. Like those in government, these cases frequently involve power imbalances that make it difficult for victims to speak out, allowing inappropriate behavior to persist. 

How The First Bellwether Trials Are Shaping The Uber Sexual Assault MDL

The Uber sexual assault litigation has grown into one of the largest rideshare-related proceedings in the country. The litigation is now centralized in the Northern District of California as a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Thousands of survivors have come forward describing sexual assaults and misconduct by Uber drivers, revealing patterns they say arise from systemic safety failures within the company’s business model. 

According to these accounts, Uber expanded rapidly by relying on largely unvetted drivers, conducting minimal background checks, and prioritizing growth over meaningful safety protections. At the same time, Uber marketed its service as safe and trustworthy—messaging survivors say did not reflect the realities they experienced, particularly for women and intoxicated riders who were disproportionately targeted.

Uber’s own data has become a central part of the litigation. The company publicly recognizes 21 categories of sexual misconduct and assault and has repeatedly claimed it “led the way” on safety. In its public safety reports, Uber highlights that “just .006%” of its trips between 2017 and 2022 involved any report of sexual assault or misconduct, calling such incidents “exceptionally rare.” 

But court filings reveal what that percentage represents in absolute terms: more than 400,000 reports of sexual assault or misconduct by Uber drivers during that period. And because the Department of Justice estimates that roughly 80% of sexual assaults go unreported, the true number of incidents could exceed two million.

These figures have reshaped the understanding of the scope of the problem and form a critical backdrop to the MDL. Within the litigation, survivors have detailed a range of legal claims, including negligent hiring and supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of nondelegable duties to provide safe transportation, strict products liability related to alleged defects or failures to warn in the Uber app, and vicarious liability based on the argument that drivers function as Uber’s agents. Together, these claims assert that Uber’s practices and representations contributed to a heightened risk of sexual assault and misconduct.

Two MDL bellwether trials have already gone to verdict, and both resulted in plaintiff wins. The first, in Arizona, produced an $8.5 million award. The second, in North Carolina, was a defense pick that resulted in a liability finding and a smaller damages award due to state law limitations, but it reinforced the core themes of the MDL and included a ruling that Uber qualifies as a common carrier with a heightened duty of care.

These early outcomes suggest that juries are receptive to survivors’ experiences and that the MDL is entering a pivotal phase. Beasley Allen lawyers handling this litigation are Elizabeth Walden, Tucker Osborne, Khadiga Carr, and Wesley Merillat. 

Mormon Church Child Sexual Abuse Litigation: What Survivors And Families Should Know

For many, places of worship are meant to provide safety, guidance, and community. Increasingly however, sexual abuse survivors across the country are coming forward with allegations that sexual abuse within religious institutions was ignored, concealed, or inadequately addressed for years. Among the institutions facing mounting scrutiny is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church or Mormon Church).

Civil lawsuits filed in multiple states allege that church leaders, clergy, volunteers, and affiliated members sexually abused children and vulnerable individuals, while institutional systems allegedly failed to properly respond to warning signs or reports of misconduct. This highlights a broader national reckoning involving abuse allegations against religious organizations and the systems that may have enabled abuse to continue unchecked.

Core Claims and Allegations

Allegations raised in these lawsuits widely vary, but many share common themes. Plaintiffs are alleging that the church failed to act after learning of suspected abuse, discouraged reporting to law enforcement, or handled allegations internally rather than prioritizing child safety.

Some lawsuits further contend that institutional policies or practices created environments where abuse could remain hidden. Survivors have described experiences involving religious pressure, manipulation, shame, and fear that allegedly prevented them from speaking publicly for years.

These lawsuits are not simply about individual acts of misconduct. Rather the focus centers on what institutions knew—or reasonably should have known—about abusive behavior and failed to take appropriate action to protect children and congregants. The LDS Church has publicly denied many allegations and has stated that it condemns abuse and encourages compliance with applicable laws regarding reporting and child protection.

Where Cases Have Emerged

Lawsuits involving alleged abuse connected to the Mormon Church have surfaced in numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States and internationally. Cases and investigations have included allegations arising from:

• Utah (including Ogden, Wasatch County, and Mapleton)
• Arizona
• California
• Oregon
• Hawaii
• West Virginia
• Australia

Because the LDS Church maintains a large global presence, attorneys expect additional claims and investigations may continue to emerge.

Legal Issues and Survivor Rights

One of the most significant legal issues in childhood sexual abuse litigation involves statutes of limitations (deadlines governing when a lawsuit may be filed). Historically, many survivors were barred from pursuing claims because trauma, fear, or manipulation delayed disclosure over a course of years and decades.

Many states have enacted “lookback window” legislation, temporarily allowing survivors to pursue otherwise time-barred claims. California, for example, previously implemented a three-year revival window that led to hundreds of childhood sexual abuse lawsuits against institutions, including claims involving alleged failures by church leadership to respond appropriately to abuse allegations.

Other states, including Utah, have also considered legislation aimed at strengthening protections for abuse victims and expanding reporting obligations. Because these laws differ significantly by state, survivors should speak with counsel promptly to understand what legal rights and filing deadlines may apply to their circumstances.

Who May Be Eligible to Bring a Claim?

Individuals who experienced sexual abuse involving LDS Church clergy, leaders, volunteers, teachers, missionaries, or affiliated members may have potential legal claims depending on the facts of their case and applicable state law. Potential claims may involve:

• Childhood sexual abuse
• Institutional negligence
• Failure to report abuse
• Negligent supervision or retention
• Concealment or cover-up allegations

Sexual abuse cases involving religious institutions are often emotionally complex and deeply personal. Survivors may struggle with feelings of fear, shame, isolation, or concern about speaking out against trusted institutions or community leaders. Beasley Allen lawyers are actively investigating potential sexual abuse claims involving the Mormon LDS Church. Individuals who believe they may have experienced abuse connected to the Church are encouraged to seek legal guidance to better understand their rights and available legal options. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Khadiga Carr and she will be glad to work with you.

GAMING LITIGATION

The Evolution Of Gambling: Part Four — How Illegal Online Casinos Deceive Consumers And Target Children

We have previously written about the class actions we have filed against illegal online casinos operating across the country, including filings in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, Georgia, and Oregon. One of the most troubling aspects of these operations is not just that they are unlawful, it is how aggressively they deceive consumers into believing they are not, and how deliberately they market their platforms to children.

Illegal online casinos like Stake.us have built their business model around the lie that what they offer is a legal sweepstakes, not gambling. By selling players a virtual currency redeemable for real money on a nearly one-to-one basis, these platforms operate functionally identical to Las Vegas casinos, offering slots, blackjack, roulette, and poker, while claiming their operations are no different from a McDonald’s Monopoly promotion. Courts across the country have repeatedly rejected this argument, recognizing it as the same scheme illegal gambling operators used two decades ago to hide behind internet cafés and phone card sales.

Equally alarming is how these platforms market themselves to children. Illegal online casinos like Stake.us rely heavily on Instagram and other social media and have built their brands around celebrity partnerships with figures like rapper Drake and television personality Ryan Seacrest. These are not discreet advertisements. They are front-and-center campaigns designed to normalize casino gambling as entertainment for a generation that grew up on smartphones and social media. 

Between five and fifteen percent of underage teenagers are estimated to gamble online illegally, and the New York Times has reported that teens as young as 14 gambling on platforms like Stake.us. Unlike brick-and-mortar casinos, these websites are accessible from any smartphone with no meaningful age verification.

The public health consequences are severe. From 2021 to 2022, calls to the National Problem Gambling Helpline increased by 45 percent. Up to 30 percent of problem gamblers have attempted suicide. Experts warn the country may be approaching an addiction crisis on the scale of the opioid epidemic, and these platforms are fueling it while hiding behind a legal fiction, targeting the youngest and most vulnerable members of the public in the process. 

Consumers who have lost money on Stake.us and similar platforms need to know that the law may provide a remedy. States across the country have enacted gambling loss recovery statutes allowing individuals to recover money lost through unlawful gambling. 

In many states, a claim must be brought within six months of the loss, and spouses, children, and next of kin may also be entitled to bring claims. These statutes exist precisely for situations like this, where an illegal operation has extracted money from consumers under false pretenses. 

The plaintiffs and class members in these cases are represented by Dee Miles, Mitch Williams, and Trent Mann of Beasley Allen. We will keep our readers informed on developments in this important litigation.

Child Safety Groups Urge FTC To Investigate Roblox

Two advocacy groups are asking the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Roblox, alleging the popular gaming platform puts children at risk through its design and business practices. Fairplay and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation claim Roblox uses features that encourage heavy engagement and spending, including a complex virtual currency system that can make it difficult for children to understand how much real money they are using. 

The groups also raised concerns about the platform’s chat functions, which they say can allow adults to communicate with children and may expose young users to inappropriate content. 

The filing by the groups includes examples of alleged harm, including grooming and abuse by other users, exposure to sexual or racist language, and cases where families reported thousands of dollars in unexpected charges. 

The advocacy groups argue these practices may violate federal consumer protection laws and are asking regulators to review whether Roblox complies with safeguards for children’s data and online safety. 

Roblox has denied the allegations, stating that it is designed to provide a safe and positive experience and that it has protections in place to support user safety, though it acknowledges no system is perfect. 

Source: Law360

Georgia Mother Sues Roblox Over Alleged Child Labor Practices

A Georgia mother has filed a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Roblox Corp. of unlawfully exploiting child labor by encouraging minors to work extensively as unpaid or underpaid game developers. The lawsuit, filed in New York federal court, alleges that Roblox’s business model relies heavily on children creating games, often under adult supervision, while receiving little to no real compensation.

According to the complaint, Roblox does not develop most of the games on its platform. Instead, children—who make up a large portion of its user base—create the content and are typically paid in Robux, the platform’s virtual currency, which has limited real-world value and is difficult or impossible for younger users to convert into cash. The suit alleges that Roblox intentionally designed this system to benefit from children’s labor while avoiding traditional labor protections.

The lawsuit claims some children worked long hours equivalent to full-time jobs, far exceeding legal limits for minors, without wages, labor protections, or parental oversight. It also alleges that adult developers recruited children through Roblox’s internal talent platform, offering minimal compensation and exercising significant control over their work.

Plaintiffs seek damages, including the return of profits Roblox earned from child-created content, and will ask the court to impose a constructive trust on revenues derived from games made by minors. The complaint notes Roblox generated $1.36 billion in revenue in the third quarter of 2025.

The lawsuit contends that regardless of its digital setting, the platform’s practices undermine child labor laws meant to protect children’s time, economic opportunity, and right to a childhood free from commercial exploitation.

The child and his mother are represented by Mazin A. Sbaiti of Sbaiti & Co.

 PLLC, by Christopher L. Ayers and Christopher J. Geddis of Sbaiti & Co. NJ LLC, by Sara D. Beller, Matthew A. Dolman and R. Stanley Gipe of Dolman Law Group, and by Aaron Freedman, Robert J. Quigley and James Bilsborrow of Weitz & Luxenberg PC. 

The case is John Doe B.D. et al. v. Roblox Corp., case number 3:26-cv-04405, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

VIDEO GAME ADDICTION LITIGATION

The Gaming Industry’s Addiction Problem

A growing number of lawsuits filed across multiple U.S. jurisdictions are highlighting an issue that parents have quietly wrestled with for years: are video game companies deliberately engineering their products to keep children hooked? The evidence continues to mount suggesting the answer is yes — and that the consequences for children are severe, leading to poor performance in school, depression, anxiety, self-harm and aggressive behavior. 

The lawsuits allege that firms retained credentialed mental health professionals — psychologists and psychiatrists — specifically to refine these systems, applying clinical expertise not toward player wellness but toward maximum engagement. None of this, plaintiffs argue, was disclosed to users or their parents. 

The human picture painted across these filings is a consistent one. Children begin playing at very young ages — often as young as five — and within months or years exhibit patterns that families describe as indistinguishable from addiction. Schoolwork deteriorates. Friendships dissolve. Children become emotionally volatile when access is restricted, and indifferent to nearly everything else when it is not. 

Beyond the behavioral consequences, some lawsuits raise neurological concerns, arguing that prolonged compulsive gaming during childhood may interfere with normal development of the prefrontal cortex — the region of the brain associated with impulse control, decision-making, and long-term planning.

These cases have similarities to social media litigation. In those cases, companies knew their products caused harm, choosing engagement over safety, and failing to warn users. Gaming litigation is similar, where the core claims — design defect, failure to warn, and negligence — are rooted in the idea that these products were unreasonably dangerous as designed, and that companies had both the knowledge and the means to make them safer.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Supreme Court Ruling Reinforces Rights Of Truck Accident Victims

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is reshaping trucking litigation and expanding the path to accountability in serious crash cases. The court unanimously held on May 14 that freight brokers can be held responsible under state law for negligently hiring unsafe motor carriers. This important decision could change how truck accident cases are handled across the country. The case is Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC (No. 24-1238).

This decision is a major step forward for people injured in truck accidents and for families seeking justice after a devastating loss.

What Is a Freight Broker?

Freight brokers claim to act as middlemen, working on behalf of a shipper to choose motor carriers to haul that shipper’s freight.

In reality, freight brokers have quite a bit of control over the trucking companies they hire, acting more like dispatchers and human resources for those trucking companies.

For years, many brokers argued they could not be held responsible if something went wrong. They claimed a federal law protected them from lawsuits tied to crashes. But the Supreme Court has now made it clear—that protection does not apply in cases involving safety.

What the Supreme Court Decided—and Why It Matters

The Court ruled that freight brokers can be sued under state law for negligent hiring—meaning they may be held responsible if they select a trucking company they knew, or should have known, was unsafe.

In simple terms, companies that help put trucks on the road must use reasonable care when selecting those carriers.

In the case before the court, the injured driver claimed the broker hired a trucking company with known safety problems, including issues with driver qualifications, maintenance, and crash history.

The court allowed that claim to move forward, reversing a lower court decision that had blocked it.

This ruling makes a real difference for victims because:

• It allows more complete investigations after a crash
• It helps ensure all responsible parties can be held accountable
• It encourages safer hiring practices across the trucking industry

The message is clear: safety comes first, and companies cannot ignore warning signs when choosing who operates on our highways.

Beasley Allen’s Experience in Trucking Cases

At Beasley Allen, we have spent decades representing individuals and families harmed by truck accidents.

We understand that these cases are rarely simple. Serious truck crashes often involve multiple parties, including:

• Trucking companies
• Freight brokers and shippers
• Maintenance providers
• Manufacturers

Our litigation team knows how to uncover safety failures and hold the right companies accountable.

This Supreme Court decision strengthens our work. It reinforces what we have long argued—companies involved in putting unsafe trucks on the road should be held responsible when their decisions lead to harm.

Talk to a Truck Accident Lawyer

The trucking industry plays a critical role in moving goods across the country, but safety must come first. When brokers overlook red flags or fail to properly vet carriers, the consequences can be devastating.

This ruling helps close a gap in accountability and gives victims a clearer path to justice.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a truck accident, you may have more legal options than you realize.

Beasley Allen’s trucking litigation team is prepared to:

• Fight for the compensation you deserve
• Investigate your case
• Identify all responsible parties

Electronic Log Device Companies Can Allow Trucking Companies To Circumvent FMCSA Hours Of Service Regulations

Truck driver fatigue is a leading cause of truck crashes in Georgia and across the country. In order for trucking companies to maximize profits and meet the demands of a supply chain that requires tight delivery windows, commercial carriers need their drivers to squeeze every mile out of their daily clocks. The FMCSA guidelines generally allow truck drivers to be “on duty” for up to 14 hours a day, with 11 hours spent driving the vehicle. The remaining 3 hours of “on duty” time can be spent performing a variety of tasks including vehicle maintenance, loading or unloading, or other work required by the motor carrier. 

In trucking litigation, discovery of hours-of-service violations establish strong presumptions of negligence that are difficult for carriers to overcome. These violations can also help pave the way for corporate liability and the awarding of punitive damages. Most modern carriers are using electronic log devices (ELDs) to track the duty status and driving hours of their drivers. However, trucking companies and drivers have discovered methods to beat the technology and keep drivers on the road longer than the FMCSA guidelines allow. 

Some ELD vendors permit the use of “ghost co-drivers” to exploit FMCSA’s technical requirements. The programs can allow for the creation of a fake account for the same driver to log additional hours above and beyond what is allowed. 

The current regulatory framework allows for the ELD manufacturers to self-certify their compliance with federal regulations. However, the FMCSA has begun to remove ELD companies from their list of approved ELDs and place them on a “Revoked Devices list.”

Negligent carriers and drivers will continue to develop new methods to circumvent safety regulations to maximize profits. Discovery into GPS data, telematics, and metadata associated with a carrier’s ELD can help uncover carrier and driver manipulation of ELD systems as we continue to seek justice for the victims of trucking accidents.

The Use Of Driverless Vehicles Is Increasing

Fully driverless Waymo robotaxis are operating all over Atlanta through the Uber app. Some interesting questions are raised if a crash occurs. When a Waymo crashes, there is no driver-defendant. That means these cases move out of standard auto litigation and into products liability, a more specialized area with different experts, different discovery demands, and a steeper learning curve. Liability shifts to the product and the people behind it.

If the autonomous system, such as the sensors, AI, or navigation software, performed incorrectly, there may be a design defect claim against Waymo. If a vehicle component failed, Jaguar Land Rover, which manufactures the I-PACE fleet, becomes relevant liability. Separating an autonomous system failure from a vehicle component failure is the first analytical consideration for a lawyer investigating a claim.

These vehicles generate enormous amounts of pre-crash data: sensor readings, camera footage, and AI decision logs. That’s a real advantage for plaintiffs as compared to a typical car wreck claim. The challenge is that Waymo will treat much of the information as proprietary. Early litigation holds and aggressive discovery by plaintiff attorneys will be essential.

Another consideration to be dealt with is comparative fault. Even where liability against Waymo is clear, Georgia’s modified comparative negligence framework gives juries room to apportion blame. A defense team will likely argue that a passenger who voluntarily chose to ride in a driverless vehicle assumed some level of risk. That argument could possibly resonate with a juror who believes the whole concept of a driverless car is foreign or reckless. Plaintiff’s counsel should be prepared to address the novelty head-on rather than let a defense narrative take hold that the client made an unusual or unreasonable choice. In other words, the plaintiff should take the initiative. 

So far Georgia hasn’t produced a major AV verdict, but a Florida jury awarded $243 million against Tesla in an Autopilot crash case in August 2025. The legal frontier is moving fast, and Atlanta is already part of it.

Notably, the complexity and cost of prosecuting an autonomous vehicle case, along with a novel legal landscape, means these cases are only doable when the injuries are catastrophic. If you have a client who has suffered serious injuries in an AV crash, getting experienced products liability counsel involved early on is essential. We are happy to discuss any cases you think may warrant that kind of attention, whether as a referral or co-counsel arrangement.

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS

May 2026 Motor Vehicle Recalls: What Drivers Need To Know

Motor vehicle recalls continued at a steady pace in May 2026, affecting a wide range of vehicles—from passenger cars and SUVs to pickup trucks and electric vehicles. Many of these recalls involve safety critical systems, including brakes, steering components, airbags, and electronic displays, reinforcing the importance of staying informed and acting quickly when a recall is issued.

Major Recalls Issued in May

Several high-profile recalls were announced throughout the month, impacting hundreds of thousands of vehicles across multiple manufacturers. One of the most urgent involved General Motors, which issued a “Do Not Drive” warning for certain 2026 SUVs and trucks, including Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Tahoe, and GMC Yukon models. A drivetrain defect could cause the wheels to lock unexpectedly, increasing the risk of a crash.

Mercedes-Benz also recalled more than 144,000 vehicles due to a software issue that can cause the instrument panel display to go blank while driving—potentially leaving drivers without critical information such as speed or warning indicators. 

Tesla issued a recall affecting more than 218,000 vehicles, including Model 3, Model Y, Model S, and Model X, because rearview camera images may be delayed, reducing driver visibility when reversing. 

Meanwhile, Ford recalled 2024–2026 Bronco and Ranger models due to a loose bolt in the front seat frame that could affect seat stability during a crash.

Common Defects Identified

While each recall is unique, several patterns emerged across May’s announcements. Many recalls involved software-related issues, including display failures, delayed camera feeds, and improperly programmed control modules. These types of defects can interfere with critical safety systems, even if the vehicle is otherwise mechanically sound.

Other recalls focused on mechanical failures, such as drivetrain defects, loose structural components, and potential fuel system issues. For example, Volkswagen recalled certain Taos models because a fuel tank could leak after a crash, while Hyundai recalled multiple models due to improperly assembled airbag sensors. In some cases, the risk involved loss of driver information or control, including blank instrument panels, steering or braking issues, and failure of seatbelts or airbags to perform properly. These defects highlight how both physical and digital systems now play a role in vehicle safety.

What Drivers Should Do

If a vehicle is subject to a recall, federal law requires manufacturers to provide repairs at no cost to the owner. Taking quick action is important, especially when recalls involve crash risks or loss of vehicle control.

Drivers can check for recalls by entering their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s database. If a recall is identified, owners should contact a dealership to schedule a repair as soon as possible.

AVIATION LITIGATION

Air India Flight 171 Crash: Ongoing Investigation

The investigation into the deadly crash of Air India Flight 171 is still ongoing as families search for answers and accountability. The June 12, 2025, crash, involving a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, became one of the world’s deadliest aviation tragedies in decades and has raised serious concerns about aircraft systems, safety procedures, and oversight.

At the same time, new safety incidents involving Boeing aircraft, including a recent electrical scare that grounded a United Airlines Boeing 787-9, are renewing public focus on aircraft design, maintenance, and regulatory responsibility.

Air India Flight 171 Crash: What We Know So Far

Air India Flight 171 took off from Ahmedabad, India, heading to London Gatwick, but crashed less than a minute after departure. The Boeing 787 struck a nearby medical college building, killing nearly everyone onboard and people on the ground. The aircraft was destroyed. What investigators have confirmed so far:

• The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder (“black boxes”) were recovered and are being reviewed.
• India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) says both engines lost power shortly after takeoff.
• The preliminary report does not assign blame and follows international aviation safety standards.

As the investigation continues, families of those killed are calling for transparency and accountability. For many, answers are not just about closure—they are about preventing another tragedy like Air India Flight 171.

Questions On Boeing 787 Safety

Concerns over aircraft safety go beyond Air India Flight 171. In April 2026, a United Airlines Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner was grounded after passengers and crew reported a strong electrical odor during flight. The plane turned back and landed safely after an emergency call.

United Airlines confirmed the incident involved a maintenance issue, though the exact cause has not been publicly disclosed. The aircraft had been delivered only months earlier.

While the incidents are unrelated, they have increased questions about electrical systems, aircraft reliability, and whether current safety measures go far enough.

Why These Incidents Matter

Commercial aviation depends on strict safety standards, strong oversight, and clear accountability. When crashes or serious inflight emergencies occur, passengers and families deserve honest answers about:

• Aircraft design and manufacturing
• Maintenance and inspection practices
• Regulatory oversight
• Corporate responsibility

Unresolved questions can point to the need for industrywide improvements, not just individual fixes.

Beasley Allen’s Commitment to Aviation Accountability

Beasley Allen has a long history of representing families affected by catastrophic transportation accidents, including aviation disasters. Our attorneys are committed to uncovering the truth, holding responsible parties accountable, and helping families navigate the legal process during an incredibly difficult time.

The investigation into Air India Flight 171 remains ongoing. As regulators continue their work, families and the public are watching closely for findings that could impact aviation safety worldwide. When companies put profits ahead of safety, bad things happen.

Beasley Allen will continue to monitor developments and advocate for transparency, safety, and justice for those affected.

Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team

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

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

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

PREMISES LIABILITY

When Silence Costs Lives: Holding Property Owners Accountable For Negligent Security

Every day across America, people are robbed, assaulted, shot, and sexually attacked in places they had every right to trust. In far too many of these cases, the attack was not only predictable, but it was also preventable. When property owners and managers fail to provide reasonable security measures that could have stopped a foreseeable crime, they can and should be held accountable. That is the foundation of negligent security law, and it is an area where our firm has been fighting hard for victims.

Over the last five years, our lawyers have obtained over $250 million in verdicts and settlements on behalf of victims of violent crime who were harmed on poorly secured properties. These cases represent real people — mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters — whose lives were shattered because a property owner chose profit over people. Holding these defendants accountable is not just about money. It is about changing behavior and saving lives.

What Is Negligent Security?

Negligent security is a subset of premises liability law. It holds property owners, managers, occupiers and operators legally responsible when a foreseeable criminal attack occurs on their property because they failed to take reasonable security precautions. The core legal principle is simple: if you invite people onto your property — whether as tenants, customers, or guests — you have a duty to keep them reasonably safe when you know the environment has a history of potential harm to those invitees. To succeed in a negligent security case, a victim generally must prove:

• The defendant owned, controlled, occupied or managed the property where the crimeoccurred
• The defendant owed the victim a duty of reasonable care
• The crime was reasonably foreseeable, often shown by prior similar incidents on or near the property
• The defendant failed to use adequate security measures under the circumstances, or caused or allowed a defect to exist on the property that exposed a risk of injury to the patron
• That failure was a proximate cause of the victim’s injuries and damages

Foreseeability is often the central battleground in these cases. Property owners frequently argue that they could not have anticipated a criminal attack, but in the cases our firm ultimately pursue, we find that to oftentimes not be the case at all. We dig into police call logs, prior incident reports, corporate knowledge through employees and data, and crime data for the surrounding area to show a jury that the defendant was on notice or intentionally chose to ignore the building risk on the property. When the evidence shows that violent crimes had occurred at or near the property repeatedly — and the owner did nothing — juries respond.

The Most Common Settings for Negligent Security Claims

Negligent security claims arise in a wide range of locations. These include apartment complexes and multi-family housing; hotels and motels; bars, nightclubs, and entertainment venues; shopping centers and retail stores; convenience stores; college campuses and dormitories; churches; camps; casinos; parking lots; healthcare facilities, rideshare programs; and so on. Of particular concern to us are instances where the vulnerable are present (e.g., children, medical patients, etc.). In fact, some of the worst cases imaginable have occurred when children were the victims are present, as we have seen some of the worst cases imaginable that involve the victimization of helpless children.

What Inadequate Security Looks Like

Security failures come in many forms. In our experience, the most common deficiencies we see in these cases include:

• Broken non-functioning, or non-existent exterior lighting in parking lots, stairwells, and walkways
• Malfunctioning propped-open, or non-existent access-controlled doors and gates

• Absence of security cameras, or cameras that are present but never monitored

• Failure to hire adequate security personnel, or failure to properly train or supervise those who are hired

• Ignoring prior criminal incidents on the property that put management on clear notice of the risk

• Failure to report prior incidents to police or maintain incident logs

• Permitting individuals known to be dangerous or banned from the property to return

• Failing to follow policies and procedures

• Poor or non-existent vetting of individuals that will come in close contact with invitees, and in particular, vulnerable persons such as children, the elderly, or the incapacitated

Courts across the country have consistently found property owners liable when these failures contribute to criminal attacks. Juries understand intuitively what a reasonable property owner should have done, especially when shown evidence that management was aware of the danger and chose to cut corners anyway.

A Word to Co-Counsel

Beasley Allen handles negligent security cases on a co-counsel basis and welcome referrals from lawyers across the country. These cases require significant resources — crime scene investigation, security expert witnesses, prior incident documentation, and often lengthy litigation against well-insured corporate defendants. Our firm has the experience and the resources to handle them correctly and achieve meaningful results for our clients.

If you have a client who was the victim of a violent crime on someone else’s property and you believe the property owner’s failure to provide adequate security contributed to the attack, we want to hear from you. We will evaluate the case at no charge and work with you to bring the responsible parties to account.

Victims of negligent security deserve justice. The businesses and property owners that create the conditions for crime to flourish need to know that the civil justice system is watching. That is what Beasley Allen is here for.

Premises Liability Update

This summer, Atlanta is set to host part of the World Cup over a four-week span. This event is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people into the city. Over the course of the event visitors can expect to spend time at fan zones, food trucks, restaurants, common areas, MARTA stations, Uber pick up lots, and the stadium. Many of these locations overlap physically and operationally, creating a complex question about who owes a duty to the invitees who are on or near these properties. 

Under Georgia law, when “an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.

In complex and overlapping environments like the world cup, it may be unclear who the “owner or occupier” of a particular area of land is. The upcoming games will likely involve landlords renting land to independent contractors, temporary fan zones or bathrooms being created, Uber pickup stations being established, and food truck zones being created with nearby eating areas. Maintenance, security, and other crowd control companies may also be present throughout these areas. When control over a property is divided among this many parties, identifying the owner or occupier becomes critical to understanding who may be liable if someone is injured.

Under Georgia law, “[l]iability under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 attaches by virtue of possession and control.” Spaziano v. United States, 2025 WL 3527282, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2025). “Possession may be defined as having personal charge of or exercising the rights of management or control over the property in question. Custody and control are the commonly accepted and generally understood incidents of possession.” Hodge v. United States, 310 F. Supp. 1090, 1098 (M.D. Ga. 1969), aff’d, 424 F.2d 545 (5th Cir. 1970); see also Stelly v. WSE Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 350 Ga. App. 627, 631 (2019). 

Establishing whether “the owner has surrendered possession and control is generally a question of fact.” Stelly, 350 Ga. App. at 631. Thus, obtaining contracts or other written policies during discovery will be helpful for establishing this important element. 

Parker Miller and Key Lamberth, lawyers in our Atlanta office, handle premises liability and negligent security cases across Georgia as well as in other states. They have experience in understanding these complex cases and identifying who the owner or occupier of land is – and thus who may be responsible for a plaintiff’s injury. 

FCA AND WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

DOJ To Launch FOCUS Initiative For Whistleblowing “Data Miners”

On April 30, the Justice Department announced an anti-fraud initiative with the goal of strengthening its relationship with whistleblowers. In recent years, the DOJ’s Civil Division has seen a spike in the number of qui tam complaints filed. The increase is due in large part to “companies or individuals who analyze publicly available government data for potential signals of fraud (data miners), rather than the insiders who have traditionally served as relators under the federal False Claims Act (FCA).”

The Civil Division will now specifically prioritize data miners that can apply their technological expertise to the relevant regulatory structure in order to identify fraud. To that end, the DOJ will launch what it named the Fraud Oversight through Careful Use of Statistics (FOCUS) initiative. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, stated: 

Sophisticated data analytics have become an increasingly important means of identifying fraud trends and uncovering patterns of misconduct across federal programs. The FOCUS initiative reflects our commitment to ensuring that the Civil Division is engaging with the strongest and most effective partners in the war against fraud.

The Civil Division clarified that data mining relators should be prepared to articulate how their approach is distinct from others, and to verify their methodology and conclusions.

Through the FOCUS initiative, data mining relators will have access to discuss their capabilities with the Civil Fraud Section before filing suit and explain how their data findings demonstrate fraud on the government. While these pre-suit meetings are not a requirement, the DOJ will prioritize working with data miners who demonstrate “an investment in pre-filing diligence and commitment to analytical rigor, familiarity with program rules, and legally sufficient allegations.”

Fraud continues to be a huge problem in many industries in this country. Our firm has increased its whistleblower practice for this very reason with lawyers Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Tyner Helms, Paul Evans, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Lauren Miles working in this area known as “qui tam” cases.

DC Circuit Says SEC Whistleblower Denial Doesn’t Pass Muster

The D.C. Circuit has criticized the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to adequately explain why it denied a whistleblower award to an anonymous individual who brought forth information leading to a successful enforcement action, ordering the commission to reconsider whether it was in the public interest to deny the man’s claim. 

On April 17, 2026, the DC Circuit issued an order sending John Doe’s whistleblower claim back to the SEC for further consideration in light of the court’s opinion in the case. Senior Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers’ opinion, explaining the court’s reasons for the order, was unsealed on May 1, 2026. The three-judge panel said the agency needed to more thoroughly explain why it failed to grant an exemption freeing Doe from a requirement that he provide the information “voluntarily” when it may have been in the public interest to grant him an award since the information he provided led to a successful enforcement action. Judge Rogers wrote:

The commission may not need to address every argument and all factual circumstances of every application for a whistleblower award. But where the commission receives an application for an award based on the submission of information leading to a significant and successful enforcement action by the commission, and the applicant even points to examples of the commission’s past grants of such exemptions, it is not enough for the commission to restate general policy goals underlying the requirements the applicant apparently failed to meet.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC is authorized to provide whistleblower awards to those who bring information forward that leads to sanctions of $1 million or more against the offending party. The awards range between 10% and 30% of the money collected, meaning the suing John Doe could have been denied a monetary judgment worth millions of dollars. 

The details of the case are slim, as the names of prospective whistleblowers are kept anonymous, as well as the details of the underlying wrongdoing that they allegedly helped reveal. But the SEC said in denying the whistleblower claim in March 2023 that the individual in question did not voluntarily submit information to the agency.

The court said the SEC was not wrong to conclude that Doe did not voluntarily submit information because the agency and Congress had to reach out to him first after he went to the media about the alleged misconduct. The judges rejected arguments from Doe that he met the voluntariness requirements, saying it did not matter if the SEC first learned of the information through the news reports if he didn’t also submit that same information to the agency before it approached him.

The court also rejected Doe’s arguments that the SEC’s rejection of his whistleblower claim risks discouraging other whistleblowers from going to the media with alleged misconduct and, therefore, could chill First Amendment speech rights. The judges said:

The Commission denied Doe’s submission because of his failure to ‘voluntarily’ tell the commission, not because he told the press. 

But the judges did say that Doe produced a “wealth of credible information” that there was a public interest in the SEC granting him an exemption to the voluntariness requirement. The opinion notes that the SEC did not dispute that the whistleblower “provided ‘original information’ that led to an enforcement action resulting in more than $1 million in monetary sanctions,” and that Doe even testified in public proceedings against the violator. Further, Doe argued that “the Commission had granted waivers in similar circumstances in the past.”

The commission failed to thoroughly address why it didn’t grant him such an exemption, however, and abused its discretion by “perfunctorily restating the statutory policy goals” in its denial, the court said. Even though the court noted it must be “highly deferential” to the SEC’s denial of an exemption based on statutory requirements, it held that the denial’s “reasoning is ‘so insubstantial’ that it fails even” that standard. 

The judges sent Doe’s case back to the SEC for reconsideration “and an adequate explanation of its determination.”

For whistleblower programs, clarity and predictability in the payment of awards are critical to encouraging those with critical information to come forward with it. The thought of putting substantial effort into reporting violations, only to have potential incentives denied on the back end means less people will be willing to report financial fraud. Whistleblowers face real risks of retaliation in their careers and professions, so a sufficient explanation of the reasons why a reward is not paid or why an exemption is denied to a particular whistleblower are essential. 

U.S. Circuit Judges Cornelia Pillard, Florence Y. Pan and Judith Rogers sat on the panel for the D.C. Circuit. and the case is John Doe v. SEC, case number 23-1124, at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims are being made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. 

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  

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

SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Antitrust In 2026: What To Watch

Antitrust cases are increasingly showing up in everyday client issues. For plaintiff lawyers, the opportunity is not just litigating these cases but recognizing them early. Most antitrust cases start with a familiar pattern: a client is being priced out, shut out, or forced to accept unfair terms. When those issues repeat across an industry, the problem may not be that there is competition, but rather that there is none.

Although headline antitrust suits often feature Big Tech, many of the most promising plaintiff-side matters are developing in healthcare (where consolidation and pricing structures can restrict competition), labor markets (including no-poach agreements, wage suppression, and overly restrictive contracts), agriculture and supply chains (such as information sharing or coordinated pricing behavior), and other consumer-facing industries where pricing or access appears to be controlled rather than competitively set.

For lawyers evaluating potential cases, these sectors are worth watching because the underlying client stories tend to look familiar: a patient, employee, or consumer is boxed into “take-it-or-leave-it” terms, sees prices rise in lockstep, or loses meaningful choices as fewer players control the market.

One of the biggest developments heading into 2026 is the expanding role of algorithms in pricing decisions. Plaintiffs are increasingly testing whether companies are using shared or similar pricing tools to coordinate indirectly, feeding competitor data into systems in ways that reduce competition, or using technology to produce outcomes that resemble traditional price-fixing even when there is no explicit agreement on paper. This shift matters because algorithmic coordination can be harder to spot at first glance, yet it can still create the same practical harm: higher prices, reduced output, and fewer choices. 

For practitioners, that means intake questions should include not only what the market looks like, but also how prices are being set and whether a platform or third-party tool is shaping those decisions across multiple competitors.

For intake purposes, pay close attention to patterns that suggest coordination rather than coincidence. Red flags include price increases that occur across competitors in the same time frame without a clear market explanation, reports of identical or nearly identical pricing throughout a market, and situations where a technology platform or shared pricing tool appears to be influencing how multiple sellers set their prices.

When those indicators show up, the goal is not to turn every pricing complaint into an antitrust case, but to recognize when the facts may point to a broader market structure problem, and to preserve the right documents, data points, and competitor comparisons early. Most importantly, private plaintiff cases are poised to play an even larger role in shaping antitrust enforcement in the years ahead. Building an eye for these issues at intake can do more than expand your docket; it can help drive systemic change in markets where competition has eroded.

At Beasley Allen, we continue to evaluate emerging antitrust theories and investigate patterns of harm across industries. If you believe your client may be experiencing the effects of anticompetitive conduct, whether in employment, healthcare, technology, or consumer markets, our lawyers welcome the opportunity to work with you.

Fire Truck Antitrust Litigation

The Fire Apparatus Antitrust Litigation is a multidistrict lawsuit involving cities and fire districts across the United States that purchased, or agreed to purchase, fire trucks for public use from the defendants listed in this case. The plaintiffs in this litigation currently include the Cities of La Crosse, Ann Arbor, Onalaska, Milwaukee, Ridgeland, Middletown, as well as the Commack and Claverack Fire Districts (plaintiffs).

The plaintiffs allege that as a result of a series of acquisitions, three fire truck manufacturers, the REV Group, Oshkosh Corporation, and Rosenbauer America, LLC, and the Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA) (defendants), control the U.S. fire truck manufacturing industry by roughly 70–80% and have used their market power to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of fire trucks sold in the United States from January 2016 through the present, violating federal and state level antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs also allege that the manufacturers consolidated competitors, eliminated intrabrand and geographic competition, shared granular, nonpublic pricing and production data through FAMA, and coordinated supply restraint rather than expanding capacity, all while imposing “floating price” clauses that enabled mid-contract price hikes.

As a result, prices allegedly doubled (e.g., pumpers to about $1 million and ladder trucks to $2 million+), delivery times stretched from about 18 months to four or more years, backlogs ballooned, and manufacturers achieved record profit margins. Plaintiffs contend they overpaid billions, were forced to keep aging, unsafe trucks in service or divert funds from other municipal needs, and that these shortages and delays overall impaired emergency response and public safety.

Beasley Allen lawyers Rhon Jones, Wesley Merillat, and Rylee Buzbee, are investigating claims arising from a nationwide lawsuit alleging that major fire truck manufacturers illegally conspired to purposely inflate prices and restrict the supply of fire trucks sold in the United States. If a government entity, such as a town, city, county, or a fire district, has entered into a contract with the REV Group, Oshkosh Corporation, or Rosenbauer America, LLC since the year 2016 with the intent of purchasing a fire truck or a similar fire apparatus product, that entity may be eligible to participate in this lawsuit. 

Jury Awards $885 Million In Landmark “Pay-for-Delay” Drug Case

A federal jury in Boston found that Takeda Pharmaceuticals illegally delayed generic competition for its constipation drug Amitiza, awarding $885 million to drug purchasers. Under federal antitrust law, that amount is expected to be tripled, potentially increasing the total damages to a much higher number.

After a five-week trial, jurors agreed that Takeda worked with a generic company to delay a lower-cost version of the drug from entering the market. As a result, buyers—including major retailers and health plans—paid inflated prices for years.

The case centered on a 2014 agreement that allowed the generic drug to enter the market only after 2021, despite claims that it could have been launched sooner. Plaintiffs argued this was a classic “pay-for-delay” deal designed to protect profits and block competition.

This verdict is significant because it marks the first time purchasers have won at trial in a generic drug delay case, after several similar claims previously failed before juries. Takeda will appeal. 

Overall, the decision underscores growing efforts to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for practices that limit competition and keep drug prices high.

The direct purchasers are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Roberts Law Firm US PC and Radice Law Firm PC.

Premera and the end-payor class are represented by Tucker Dyer & O’Connell LLP, Lowey Dannenberg PC and Getnick & Getnick LLP.

The case is In re: Amitiza Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:21-cv-11057, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Source: Law360

WORKPLACE LITIGATION

Mobile Office Investigates On-The-Job Crane Injury

Modern manufacturing facilities are layered ecosystems: employees work alongside maintenance contractors, equipment vendors, logistics providers, and others—often in tight quarters and under production pressure. When an injury occurs “on-the-job,” Alabama workers’ compensation may cover medical care and wage benefits, but it may not be the end of the story. If a non-employer’s negligence or a defective product contributed to the incident, the case can expand into a traditional tort claim with a different damages profile and a different set of defenses.

Alabama’s Workers’ Compensation Act is designed as a no-fault system: benefits are generally available without litigating negligence. In exchange, the employee’s remedies against the employer are typically limited. But the exclusivity tradeoff does not eliminate claims against everyone else. Alabama expressly preserves the employee’s right to sue non-employers whose conduct created “legal liability for damages” in connection with an on-the-job injury. See Ala. Code § 25-5-11.

Practically, this means the workers’ compensation claim and the third-party tort claim may proceed on parallel tracks. The statutory structure also creates reimbursement/subrogation issues—often central to settlement strategy—because the employer or carrier may have an interest in the recovery from the third party under § 25 5-11’s framework. 

Because workers’ compensation benefits are limited, a third-party tort claim can be the vehicle for pursuing the full range of compensatory damages recognized in civil litigation—particularly non-economic harms that workers’ compensation does not typically address—making third-party identification a case-dispositive step in high-severity manufacturing injuries.

Third-party injury cases arising from Alabama manufacturing facilities reward fast, disciplined issue-spotting. The attorney who quickly identifies the non-employer actors, locks down time-sensitive evidence, and anticipates Alabama’s fault defenses is positioned to convert a “standard” workers’ compensation claim into a comprehensive recovery strategy consistent with § 25-5-11’s third-party pathway. 

Lawyers in our Mobile, AL office are currently investigating a third-party on-the-job case involving a worker who was injured after a crane accident occurred in a manufacturing facility.

Workplace Injuries

Unfortunately, millions of American workers are injured and thousands more lose their lives every year in job-related incidents. It is important to investigate these incidents and document them to understand why they occur so that steps can be taken to improve workplace safety. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the source for information regarding reportable workplace injuries and deaths.

According to the BLS, there were 5,070 on-the-job fatalities and 2.49 million non-fatal workplace injuries in 2024. When a worker dies in an on-the-job injury, the loss extends beyond the workplace to the family that lost a loved one and a provider. 

Likewise, serious nonfatal injuries either require significant time from work, and in some instances, reduce the injured employee’s earning capacity. For non-fatal injuries, the worker’s income and ability to earn income will be negatively affected temporarily. Some injuries are severe enough to negatively affect a worker’s earnings for their entire work life expectancy. 

Because many of the deaths and serious nonfatal injuries are caused by interactions with some form of industrial machinery, it is important for manufacturers to ensure that robots and other machines are designed with adequate safety devices in place. In turn, the employer has a responsibility to properly train employees and ensure that manufacturer provided safety devices are installed and properly maintained.

Safer industrial machines will result in a reduction of deaths and nonfatal injuries requiring days off work.

OSHA’s purpose is to emphasize worker safety and many of the rules apply specifically to safeguarding industrial machinery. Without OSHA’s constant oversight, manufacturers and employers can be tempted to sacrifice worker safety for profits. That can lead to more deaths and serious injuries. Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to monitor workplace injury statistics and use them to inform our readers about workplace safety.

Class Action Litigation

Attorneys’ Fees In Consumer Class Actions: A Market-Based Approach

Our law firm is involved in numerous nationwide class actions, and we often are called upon for advice on how to handle the issue of attorney’s fees in the class action world. While it would appear to be a simple concept, it clearly is not and requires some experience in navigating the dangers that exist with this issue in a settlement class and fee petition to the court in which a class action is pending. We address some of those issues here.

After a consumer class action litigation is successfully resolved – whether by settlement or verdict/appeal – courts generally award attorneys’ fees under the percentage of the fund method or by conducting a lodestar analysis. 

Under the first method, courts will award attorneys’ fees as a percentage of the monetary fund available to the class and, sometimes, when there is no monetary fund, but counsel have secured future economic benefits to the class, by the value of the benefit, which is usually determined by an expert. 

Under the second method, a court will consider counsel’s lodestar – the number of hours billed to the case at counsel’s hourly rates – and determine whether a multiplier is warranted to account for the risk undertaken by counsel, opportunity costs, and the result obtained in the litigation. 

Often, when awarding fees under the percentage of the fund method, courts will also conduct a lodestar “crosscheck” to determine whether the fee is reasonable.

Underlying the percentage of the fund approach – at least in the common fund context – is that attorneys’ fees awarded to counsel and the monetary relief to be provided to the class is a zero-sum game—every additional dollar paid to lawyers is a dollar taken away from the class. 

Recently, however, plaintiffs in class settlements have supported their fee applications with expert reports disputing this view, including in the historic $2.7 billion Blue Cross Blue Shield consumer antitrust settlement in the Northern District of Alabama in which the court awarded $667 million in attorneys’ fees.

The theory is that the zero-sum approach to awarding fees misses something essential about how contingent litigation works and is contrary to the policy underlying class actions, which is to secure the best relief for a large group of similarly situated consumers affected by the same corporate wrongdoing. If attorneys’ fees are set too low, qualified counsel will not take the case so the lawsuit will never happen in the first place, leaving the harmed group with no remedy.

Further, there is no partial victory at a lower fee; there is simply no recovery. From the perspective of class members, any arrangement that produces a meaningful recovery is preferable to one that produces none, even if it requires sharing a substantial percentage with counsel. The goal should not be to minimize fees awarded to counsel, but to maximize the net benefit that claimants receive after fees are paid.

The question then becomes what fee structure is most likely to generate the best outcome for the class. The best and most economically rational guide is the private market for legal services. In the real world, clients and lawyers negotiate contingency fees before a case begins, when risks are uncertain and the outcome of the case is unknown. These agreements reflect a balance between risk, expected return, and incentives. The terms are set up front, so there are no unexpected results, and the interests of the clients and lawyers are aligned.

Relatedly, experts and many courts do not favor the lodestar approach to awarding fees precisely because it can encourage inefficiency by rewarding additional time spent by counsel at the expense promoting the best outcome for the case.

In using the market rate approach, courts should try to approximate the fee that would have been set during that initial negotiation—what a well-informed client would have agreed to pay for a lawyer to take on the risk and pursue the case aggressively. In consumer class litigation, courts generally set fees between 15% and 30%, with a benchmark of 25% in many circuits. In mega-fund settlements, some courts will lower the percentage of fees awarded as recoveries grow so as to avoid, in their view, counsel getting a “windfall”. These cases account for the lower range of fees awarded.

In private class action litigation, however, sophisticated clients, including large corporations—routinely agree to pay between one-third and forty percent of any recovery, even in cases involving huge sums of money. Counsel should encourage courts to “mimic” the market in awarding fees to promote the goal of attracting quality counsel to take on consumer class action litigation to vindicate the rights of harmed consumers.

Judge Approves Up To $1.2 Billion Discover Financial Services Settlement In Merchant Fee Class Actions

A federal judge in Illinois has granted final approval to a major class action settlement requiring Discover Financial Services to pay between $540 million and $1.2 Billion to resolve claims it improperly classified certain credit card accounts.

The case involves allegations that Discover miscategorized some consumer credit cards as commercial accounts, placing them in a higher fee category and causing merchants to pay excessive interchange fees for years.

The settlement covers a broad class of businesses—including merchants, payment intermediaries, and acquirers—that processed affected transactions between 2007 and 2023. Millions of entities are eligible to participate.

Under the approved deal, eligible businesses can recover 100% of their estimated damages plus interest. Total payouts will depend on the number of claims submitted but are guaranteed to reach at least $540 million and could exceed $1.2 billion.

The agreement resolves three consolidated class actions and is notable for offering full recovery to claimants—a rare outcome in large-scale class settlements.

The litigation followed Discover’s 2023 disclosure that it had misclassified certain accounts, which prompted lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, and a broader review of its internal controls. The company has denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle to resolve the claims and compensate affected businesses.

The approval brings closure to years of litigation while setting a high-water mark for recovery in payment-processing class actions.

The plaintiffs are represented by Catherine Pratsinakis and Nina C. Spizer of Dilworth Paxson LLP, Roger N. Heller and Michael K. Sheen of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and Taras Kick and Tyler Dosaj of The Kick Law Firm APC.

The cases are Support Animal Holdings LLC et al. v. Discover Financial Services et al., case number 1:23-cv-15297, Capp Inc. et al. v. Discover Financial Services et al., case number 1:23-cv-04676, and Lemmos Pizzeria LLC v. Discover Financial Services et al., case number 1:23-cv-14250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Depo-Provera Litigation Update

A Georgia woman has filed a lawsuit against Pfizer alleging their failure to warn of brain tumor risks that she later suffered after taking the popular birth control medication Depo-Provera. The plaintiff was prescribed Depo-Provera injections for contraception in Atlanta in the early 1990s and later suffered an intracranial meningioma that required surgical removal in 2022. The meningioma led to additional complications such as headaches, vision impairments, seizure-like activity, and other injuries. This lawsuit is one of thousands that have been filed against Pfizer since studies confirmed the link between Depo-Provera and meningiomas.

Depo-Provera was originally approved by the FDA in 1992. Since that time, studies have consistently shown that progesterone and progestin hormones stimulate meningioma growth, with synthetic progestins, namely medroxyprogesterone acetate, stimulating meningioma growth at a much higher rate, especially when used long term. One study conducted in 2024 found that taking Depo-Provera injections for a year or longer could result in a 555% greater risk of developing meningiomas.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith and Mary Cam Raybon are honored to advocate for women affected by Depo-Provera use who later suffered a cerebral meningioma. These lawyers have filed several cases in the MDL, with several more filings to come very soon.

Dupixent Lawsuit Update

Litigation involving Dupixent is accelerating as more patients allege a connection between the drug and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). Below is a summary of the key developments to date. In March 2025, the FDA added Dupixent to its Potential Signals of Serious Risks list after receiving more than 300 reports of CTCL and announced it was evaluating whether regulatory action was necessary.

Later that year, in October 2025, the first wrongful death lawsuit was filed in Tennessee, alleging that Dupixent triggered or accelerated a woman’s T-cell lymphoma, leading to her death. The pace of filings increased in early 2026. In January, a Florida man sued Sanofi and Regeneron, claiming he developed CTCL after using Dupixent for eczema and that the companies failed to warn of known risks. 

In February, attorneys asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate all federal cases into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Georgia. By March 2026, awareness of the alleged CTCL connection drove continued filings, bringing the total to 18 federal cases, including a new complaint in Florida. In April 2026, Sanofi and Regeneron agreed consolidation was appropriate, but they argued for venue in the Southern District of New York. The JPML’s decision remains pending.

Hair Relaxer Litigation: MDL And State Court Momentum Continues

Hair relaxer litigation continues to progress in both federal and state courts, with several notable developments over the past month. In the federal MDL pending in the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Mary M. Rowland entered a series of procedural orders addressing expert and class certification briefing. The court approved page limits for the parties’ Rule 702 motions and granted motions to seal exhibits therein. Of particular significance, the court modified the class certification schedule by stipulation, setting June 2, 2026, as the deadline for defendants’ opposition and expert reports, with plaintiffs’ reply and rebuttal expert reports due August 3.

State court proceedings are likewise active. In DeKalb County, Georgia, plaintiffs completed general causation expert disclosures under CMO No. 3. Defendants asked to extend the expert schedule, but plaintiffs opposed delay, citing existing trial conflicts and the clear language of the current case management order. Expert discovery closes July 1, with Daubert motions and bellwether selection due August 1 under the existing order.

In Cook County, Illinois, discovery disputes and coordinated scheduling issues continue, including supplemental defendant responses and ongoing discussions regarding sequencing of fact discovery, dispositive motions, and expert disclosures. The court is still pushing for a multi-plaintiff trial by the end of this year with additional multi-plaintiff trials in the first half of 2027.

Taken together, these developments underscore that the hair relaxer litigation is moving steadily toward merits and bellwether phases across multiple jurisdictions, with key expert and class certification rulings on the near horizon.

Federal Court Rejects Bid To Halt Enforcement Of Utah’s Kratom Regulation Act

A federal judge in Utah has denied a request by the maker of a dietary supplement that contains a combination kratom leaf and noble kava root to block partial enforcement of Utah’s new Kratom Regulation Act, which Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed into law on March 26, 2026. The Act bans the sale of enhanced or synthesized kratom products in the state starting in May 2026.

U.S. District Judge Howard Nielson Jr. denied the bid for a preliminary injunction brought by Botanic Tonics LLC and the Global Kratom Coalition. The court found that the state law banning the sale of enhanced or synthesized Kratom products was not preempted by federal laws, particularly the U.S. Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, that regulate dietary supplements.

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

Philadelphia Judge Denies Pause In Zantac Case Amid Recusal Appeal

A Philadelphia judge overseeing the Zantac mass tort declined to halt the litigation while his refusal to step aside is appealed. The request came from plaintiffs’ firm Keller Postman, which argued the judge could be biased because his spouse is a partner at a law firm representing a defendant in one of the more than 550 cases.

Judge Joshua Roberts rejected those arguments, finding any potential financial interest tied to his spouse’s firm was too remote to matter. He also noted that the firm’s involvement is limited to a single case in the broader litigation.

Keller Postman said allowing the case to move forward during the appeal could force plaintiffs—many of whom are cancer patients—to expend significant time and resources on proceedings that might later be undone. But the defense opposed further delay, arguing the case has already been stalled and should move toward resolution.

This marks the second unsuccessful attempt to have the judge recuse himself, with the appeal now pending. 

The plaintiffs in the recusal matter are represented by John Snidow, John Masslon II and Benjamin C. Charlton of Keller Postman LLC. The case is In re: Zantac Products Liability Litigation, case number 220601364, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

$495 Million Verdict Against Abbott Stands In Infant Formula Appeal

A Missouri appellate court has upheld a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories, including $95 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages, in a case alleging its premature infant formula caused a baby to develop a devastating condition. The ruling affirms a July 2024 trial outcome involving claims that Similac Special Care 24 led to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious and often life-threatening gastrointestinal illness.

The court found no legal error in the trial, concluding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence linking the formula to the child’s illness. Judges also upheld the admission of expert testimony and rejected Abbott’s “learned intermediary” defense, noting that the product at issue is classified as food rather than a medical product. The child at the center of the case now faces lifelong disabilities, including significant intestinal loss and the need for around-the-clock care.

Abbott, which is facing thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide, has said it plans to continue appealing and maintains that scientific evidence does not support a connection between its formula and NEC. The decision adds to a growing number of high-stakes verdicts in ongoing litigation over infant formula products.

Judges John P. Torbitzky, Thomas C. Clark II and Roy L. Richter sat on the panel for the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Gill is represented by TorHoerman Law LLC and Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC.

The case is Gill v. Abbott, case number ED113162, in the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District.

Source: Law360

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Supreme Court’s Monsanto Company v. Durnell: Why The Roundup Case Could Reshape Paraquat Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s review of Durnell v. Monsanto is becoming one of the most closely watched product-liability cases in the agricultural chemical industry. Although the case directly involves Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, its outcome could significantly affect the pending Paraquat litigation and other pesticide lawsuits nationwide.

The case is before the Supreme Court after a Missouri jury awarded approximately $1.25 million in compensatory damages to farmer John L. Durnell, who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after years of Roundup use and exposure. Monsanto was found liable for failing to adequately warn Durnell about the cancer risks linked to glyphosate-based products.

At the center of the dispute is not whether Roundup causes cancer, rather a fundamental legal question: When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approves a pesticide label under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), can injured plaintiffs still bring state-law “failure to warn” claims alleging the warning label was inadequate?

Oral arguments were heard on April 27, 2026, and several justices appeared skeptical of allowing juries to effectively create labeling obligations beyond those approved by the EPA. That questioning has raised concern throughout the toxic tort community.

While Durnell focuses on Roundup, the decision could have major implications for Paraquat litigation. Similar to Roundup, many Paraquat claims rely on allegations that manufacturers failed to adequately warn users about serious health risks — specifically the alleged link between Paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. There is concern that Syngenta may delay resolution of pending Paraquat lawsuits while awaiting clarity from the Supreme Court on the scope of federal preemption. The court’s eventual ruling may not only determine the future of Roundup litigation, it could also shape the next chapter of Paraquat and the overall landscape of agricultural chemical liability for years to come.

A Look At 1,4-Dioxane Exposure Litigation

Beasley Allen lawyers are currently investigating 1,4-dioxane contamination on behalf of public utilities. 1,4-Dioxane is a chemical that was commonly used as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents and is also found in many other products. The EPA has determined that 1,4-dioxane presents an unreasonable risk to human health. It has been classified as a likely human carcinogen. 

1,4-Dioxane is very mobile once it enters the environment. Additionally, it can bypass commonly used water treatment methods. Even more specialized systems, such as granular activated carbon and reverse osmosis, are ineffective at treating 1,4-dioxane due to its low sorption properties and molecular size. Given that 1,4-dioxane is resistant to biodegradation in water, it poses as a potential health risk in public water systems.

Beasley Allen lawyers have extensive experience representing local governments and water systems in similar cases. Lawyers in our Toxic Torts Section are available to investigate 1,4-dioxane cases and would be honored to work with you.

Continental Carbon Company Litigation

Continental Carbon Company operates carbon-black manufacturing plants in three locations across the United States – Ponca City, Oklahoma; Sunray, Texas and Phenix City, Alabama. These facilities produce a variety of rubber products – such as tires, weather stripping, conveyer belts, and industrial rubber products. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines carbon black as “a fine carbonaceous powder used as a structural support medium in tires and as a pigment in a variety of products such as plastic, rubber, inkjet toner, and cosmetics.” 

The process of manufacturing carbon black creates large amounts of sulfur dioxide, and significant amounts of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter. Additionally, the plants emit particulates that are black, sticky, and difficult to clean off vehicles, buildings, or even human skin. 

In 2004 a federal jury in Alabama ordered Continental Carbon to pay more than $20 million to the City of Columbus, Georgia and local business owners related to property damage caused by emissions from the company’s Phenix City, Alabama plant located just across the river. In the late 2000’s, they settled two class-action lawsuits alleging that emissions from their Ponca City, Oklahoma plant were damaging nearby properties.

In 2015, Continental Carbon entered into a Clean Air Act Settlement with the United States EPA and the three states where their plants are located over allegations of Clean Air Act violations. A portion of the settlement agreement required the company to reduce its emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other particulate matter at the manufacturing plants. It also agreed to install “pollution control technology” intended to cut emissions of harmful air pollutants from their facilities. 

In 2022, the Phenix City plant was shut down after the Alabama Department of Environmental Management informed the company it must cease operations due to their failure to make the required upgrades.

Continental Carbon continues to operate their manufacturing plants located in Texas and Oklahoma. Currently, Continental Carbon is facing additional lawsuits related to emissions from their plants. A civil suit filed by Ponca City, Oklahoma property owners in 2025 claims that their property has been subjected to a continuous nuisance and the trespass of carbon black dust particles and other fine particulate matter coming from the plant.  

NCAA Case Update

In recent weeks a jury in Texas State Court returned a verdict against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) totaling $140 million in the case of a former Southern Methodist University football player from the 1950’s. Former lineman J.T. Davis passed away after a two-decade battle with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) dementia. He was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2001 and died in 2016. The District Court of Dallas County jury awarded Mr. Davis’s family and estate $30 million in compensatory damages and $110 million in punitive damages. 

In the 2010’s, advances in concussion science and front-page news stories related to the side effects of concussions on players forced the NCAA to change some of their rules related to head injuries. The plaintiffs in this case alleged the NCAA failed to warn former college football players about the long-term risks associated with repetitive head trauma. 

They claimed the NCAA has been aware of the long-term consequences of repetitive head injuries for decades. The plaintiffs presented evidence that as early as 1933, the NCAA’s medical handbook distributed to schools “recommended that players with concussions should receive rest and constant supervision and not be permitted to play or practice until symptom-free for 48 hours.” 

The NCAA contended there is a lack of real evidence establishing that CTE is caused by repeated head impacts. They characterized CTE as a “hypothetical” disease. Further, they claimed the risk of head injuries is known to all football players before they play. While CTE can only be officially diagnosed posthumously, there are certain indicators that an individual may be dealing with it or something similar.  

At trial, the son of J.T. Davis testified about the toll that CTE took on his dad. He said, “players like my dad should have been warned about the risks of playing college football, and the NCAA should have done more to study the issue.” Additionally, evidence produced of internal communications from the NCAA’s former Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Brian Hainline, related to CTE’s clinical symptoms and the risk profile of college football players proved vital for the plaintiff. 

Ultimately, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs as they noted the NCAA failed to follow their own recommendations for the treatment of repeated head injuries they originally published in 1933 for many decades. 

CONSUMER CORNER

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Monsanto’s Preemption Argument

On April 27, 2026, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments which could significantly impact the landscape of roundup personal injury lawsuits filed nationwide.   

Monsanto appealed a $1.25 million jury verdict in favor of John Durnell, arguing that Durnell’s state-law failure-to-warn claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Specifically, Monsanto argues that the EPA-approved labeling precludes these claims and makes additional label warnings legally impossible.   

Durnell countered that his claims do not impose different labelling requirements but, instead, parallel FIFRA’s requirement that labels should not be misleading or inadequate. Durnell also asserts that the EPA’s registration decisions do not create binding federal “requirements” which constitute preemptive force. 

State-law failure-to-warn claims are an important accountability check on harmful products sold by powerful corporations.  They are especially vital because the EPA’s decision-making process starts with data provided by these corporations. 

On the other hand, a ruling in favor of Durnell would preserve the current landscape which includes approximately 65,000 cases pending in various state courts across the country or in the federal MDL in California. A court ruling in favor of Monsanto could significantly impact current and future litigation which relies heavily on the viability of failure-to-warn claims.   

These current and future cases could also be resolved by the proposed $7.25 billion global settlement filed in Missouri state court in February 2026.  The court preliminarily approved the settlement on March 5.  Notices have been sent to potential class members and a deadline is set for June 4, 2026 to either opt out or object to the settlement.  The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2026.   

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to monitor these developments. Rhon Jones, Wesley Merillat, Elizabeth Walden, and Ryan Kral, lawyers in our Toxic Torts Section, handle the firm’s roundup litigation.

U.S. Supreme Court Says “Last-Mile” Drivers Can Avoid Arbitration

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that “last-mile” delivery drivers—those who make local deliveries of goods that have traveled across state lines—may fall within a key exemption to federal arbitration requirements. The decision clarifies that workers do not have to personally cross state lines to be considered engaged in interstate commerce under the Federal Arbitration Act.

The case involved delivery drivers for Flowers Foods, the maker of Wonder Bread, who brought a proposed wage-and-hour class action alleging they were misclassified as independent contractors. The court found that because the goods they deliver move through interstate commerce, the drivers qualify for the Section 1 exemption—allowing their claims to proceed in court rather than being forced into arbitration.

This ruling resolves a long-running legal dispute and builds on the court’s prior decisions addressing the scope of the FAA exemption. It signals that companies may face greater difficulty requiring arbitration for certain transportation-related workers, particularly those involved in the final stages of delivering goods that originate out of state.

Flowers Foods Inc., Flowers Bakeries LLC and Flowers Baking Co. of Denver LLC are represented by Traci L. Lovitt, Amanda K. Rice, David K. Suska, Matthew J. Rubenstein and John Brinkerhoff of Jones Day.

The case is Flowers Foods Inc. et al. v. Angelo Brock, case number 24-935, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Source: Law360

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients

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

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

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

The Personal Injury & Products Liability Section 

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

The Mass Torts Section 

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

The Toxic Torts Section 

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

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section 

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

The Administrative Section 

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

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

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

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

The Latest Look At Case Activity At Beasley Allen

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

Practices

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

Cases

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

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

  

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

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

   

Recalls Update 

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

  

The Jere Beasley Report 

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Modern ESI Sources: Targeting Collaborative Platforms And In-House Gen AI Programs

Nick Kohrs, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, writes this month on discovery relating to the storage of Electronically Stored Information (ESI). Nick will tell us how important this is and how to handle the discovery. 

As we have seen with the recent explosion and adoption of Generative AI (Gen AI) programs and other technologies, sources of electronically stored information (ESI) continue to evolve far beyond email. So too must discovery requests. Defendant corporations routinely store critical ESI across platforms boilerplate discovery requests may never reach. Here are two sources to consider asking for. Fail to specify them, and you risk leaving discoverable data you are entitled to on the table.

If you do not know what platforms or systems a defendant corporation uses, ask. A Rule 26(f) meet and confer is the appropriate forum to request that information from opposing counsel. Should opposing counsel be unwilling or unable to provide it there, consider noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition designating a witness with the most knowledge of the defendant’s IT systems and data infrastructure. That deposition can be a powerful tool for mapping the ESI landscape before, or in support of, your discovery requests.

Collaborative Platforms

Tools like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Google Workspace have replaced the conference room for many organizations. These collaborative platforms generate rich ESI. From threaded conversations and shared files to edit histories and integrated task logs — all of which can be devastating to a defendant’s narrative. When drafting requests, specifically identify each platform by name, if known, or collaborative platform exemplars. Also request associated metadata, deleted message logs, and any third-party integration data (e.g., Jira, Asana, or Salesforce connections within Slack).

In-House Generative AI Programs

Defendant corporations are now developing in-house, internal Gen AI tools to search document repositories, summarize internal records, flag risk, help product development, assist with decision-making, and much more. These emerging sources have the potential to be an ESI goldmine. Employee prompts entered into these systems can reveal what information a party was actively seeking, when they sought it, and what the AI returned — potentially exposing knowledge, intent, or document destruction. Request all prompt logs, query histories, AI-generated summaries, and any outputs tied to the relevant subject matter. Also inquire whether the company’s AI tool retains interaction data and where that data is stored, as retention policies vary widely.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Five Attorneys Named Southeastern Legal Awards Honorees, Finalists

Beasley Allen is pleased to announce that five of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized as honorees or finalists in the Southeastern Legal Awards, which honor outstanding attorneys across the region for their leadership, skill, and dedication to clients.

This recognition marks the fifth consecutive year Beasley Allen attorneys have been honored by the Southeastern Legal Awards, reflecting the firm’s continued commitment to strong advocacy and client service. It is also the third time a Beasley Allen attorney has been named an Attorney of the Year finalist, highlighting the firm’s consistent presence among leading law firms across the Southeast.

Together, these honors reflect Beasley Allen’s longstanding mission of helping those who need it most and the dedication of attorneys who work every day to achieve meaningful results for individuals and families.

Beasley Allen’s 2026 Honorees

The following Beasley Allen attorneys were recognized in this year’s Southeastern Legal Awards:

Clay Barnett – Attorney of the Year – Finalist

This prestigious honor recognizes attorneys who show excellence, integrity, and leadership. Clay’s nomination reflects his reputation as a trusted advocate for clients and a leader in the legal community.

Chris Glover – Distinguished Leaders – Honoree

This award recognizes experienced attorneys who lead both in and out of the courtroom. Chris is honored for his leadership, guidance, and work on complex cases.

Key Lamberth – Most Promising Newcomer – Finalist

This honor recognizes attorneys early in their careers who show strong skill and potential. Key’s nomination reflects his dedication to clients and his growing impact as a lawyer.

Parker Miller – Best Mentor – Finalist

The Best Mentor category honors attorneys who invest in helping others succeed. Parker is recognized for his dedication to mentoring younger lawyers and strengthening the firm.

Davis Vaughn – On the Rise in Alabama – Honoree

The On the Rise recognition highlights attorneys quickly making a name for themselves in Alabama. Davis is honored for his commitment to clients and continued professional growth.

Each recognition reflects exceptional professional achievement, leadership in the legal community, and a strong commitment to client advocacy.

Recognizing Excellence at Every Stage of a Legal Career

The Southeastern Legal Awards celebrate attorneys at all stages of their careers—from emerging leaders to seasoned advocates and mentors. Being named a Most Promising Newcomer or On the Rise highlights attorneys who are already making an impact early in their careers. Honors such as Distinguished Leader, Best Mentor, and Attorney of the Year recognize lawyers whose influence extends beyond the courtroom through leadership, guidance, and service to others. Together, these awards demonstrate the depth of experience and talent in Beasley Allen’s Litigation Sections.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Dristin Johnson

Dristin Johnson is a paralegal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section, where she supports lawyers and case teams in complex litigation matters. She began her journey with Beasley Allen nearly eight years ago, an anniversary she will celebrate this July. In her role, Dristin works under the direction of the section’s lawyers to assist with case development, organize and review documentation, communicate with clients, and help ensure cases move forward efficiently. Through her attention to detail and commitment to client service, she plays an important part in supporting the section’s overall success.

In her personal time, Dristin enjoys spending time with family and friends and values opportunities to relax and recharge. She stays active with a variety of hobbies and enjoys finding ways to unwind, whether it’s through outdoor activities, personal interests, or simply enjoying quiet time at home.

Dristin says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the supportive, team-oriented environment. She appreciates working alongside dedicated, collaborative colleagues, and she values being part of a firm that promotes both professional growth and a positive workplace culture.

Dristin is a dedicated, hard-working employee who has an important position at the firm. We are most fortunate to have her at Beasley Allen. 

Ryan Kral

Ryan Kral is a principal in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. He represents clients in complex litigation involving harmful exposures and environmental hazards, helping individuals and families navigate difficult circumstances while advancing cases through strategic analysis and advocacy. Ryan has been with Beasley Allen for over ten years and will celebrate 11 years with the firm in December. 

Ryan collaborates with clients and litigation teams to address legal challenges and drive cases toward resolution. Ryan says he was drawn to the legal profession by his passion for problem-solving and the opportunity to think creatively through complex issues, combined with a desire to use his skills to serve others and make a meaningful impact.

Outside of work, Ryan enjoys spending time with his wife, Claire, and their three children, Hank (6), George (3), and Betsy (7 months). Much of his free time is dedicated to family activities, including teaching his sons how to play sports and enjoying games together, which has turned his backyard into a lively hub, as Ryan describes. He also enjoys music and dancing with his youngest daughter. When time allows, Ryan likes mowing the yard or getting in a round of golf.

Ryan says his favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s unique balance of high-level litigation with a supportive, close-knit environment. He values the accessibility of experienced attorneys, the strength of the support staff, and the sense of community that makes the firm feel collaborative and grounded.

Ryan is a tremendously talented lawyer who is a definite asset to the firm. He is a dedicated lawyer who cares about his clients. We are most fortunate to have Ryan at Beasley Allen.

Amanda Tindall

Amanda Tindall is a legal secretary in the firm’s Mass Torts Section and will celebrate seven years with Beasley Allen in September. In her role, she works under the direction of the Section’s lawyers and Director, supporting case operations by preparing case-related correspondence, including various client letters, and ensuring documents are properly filed and tracked in the firm’s case management system. She also manages electronic signature requests, updates case records, and assists with special projects to help keep matters organized and running efficiently.

Away from work, she is a proud mother to her 19-year-old daughter, Kindsey, who recently joined the United States Air Force as a medic and is currently stationed in San Antonio, Texas. While the distance has been challenging, Amanda is incredibly proud of Kindsey’s accomplishments. She also enjoys spending time with her close-knit family. In her free time, Amanda loves gardening, being outdoors, and spending time with her dogs at the creek or dog park. She is also passionate about photography, enjoys working out, and is exploring kickboxing as a new activity. 

Amanda says one of her favorite things about working at Beasley Allen is the strong sense of support and connection she experiences daily. She is especially grateful for the firm’s leadership and appreciates the family-like culture, where colleagues genuinely care for one another and take time to celebrate milestones and special occasions together.

Amanda is a dedicated employee who works hard in her important role at the firm. We are most fortunate to have Amanda with the firm.

Monica Villarreal

Monica Villarreal is a paralegal in the firm’s Toxic Torts Section, where she has worked for over two years since joining Beasley Allen in November 2023. In her role, she supports the Camp Lejeune litigation team by conducting detailed case and pattern data reviews, identifying exposure and injury links, and maintaining proactive communication with clients. Working under the direction of the section’s lawyers, she also assists with a range of essential case management tasks to ensure matters move forward efficiently.

Outside of work, Monica is a proud mother to her 17-year-old son, Jimmy, who graduated with honors in May and is preparing to attend college this fall. She is creative at heart and enjoys staying busy with drawing, painting, writing, and reading. Monica is especially passionate about music production and songwriting. She also finds balance through yoga, cooking, meditation, and other activities that help her stay energized and inspired.

Monica says her favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the strong team dynamic and supportive environment. She values being surrounded by colleagues who are both dedicated and easy to work with, and she appreciates the firm’s work-life balance and flexibility.

We are most fortunate to have Monica at Beasley Allen. She is a hard-working, dedicated employee and is definitely an asset to the firm. 

Soo Seok Yang

Soo Seok Yang is a principal in the firm’s Mass Torts Section. He represents individuals harmed by defective products, dangerous drugs, and medical devices. In his role, he works closely with clients and litigation teams to advance complex cases and ensure each client’s voice is heard. 

Soo Seok has been with Beasley Allen for nearly 17 years and will celebrate his work anniversary in September. Soo Seok says he was inspired to become an attorney at a young age after learning about leaders who used the law to bring about meaningful change. That calling was later reinforced through personal experiences serving others, which solidified his desire to pursue a career focused on justice and advocacy.

Outside of work, Soo Seok places a strong emphasis on family life. He and his wife, Doh Ah, have five children—Abraham, Johanna, Elijah, Hannah Grace, and Nehemiah—and have built their life together in Montgomery after meeting in law school. Soo Seok earned his legal education at Handong International Law School, where he and his wife both studied law and began their professional journeys. In his spare time, Soo Seok enjoys music, including singing and playing the guitar and piano, often alongside his children. He is also actively involved in supporting his children’s robotics team, which has been a meaningful family activity.

Soo Seok shares that what he values most about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s strong sense of purpose and commitment to helping others. He appreciates working alongside colleagues who are not only highly skilled but also genuinely care about their clients and one another, creating a supportive and mission-driven environment.

We are blessed to have Soo Seok at Beasley Allen. He is an exceptionally talented lawyer, dedicated to his clients and to the firm, and he is a definite asset. 

Favorite Bible Verses

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

Amanda Tindall

Amanda said this verse makes her feel better when she reads it.

The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles. 18 The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit. Psalm 34:17-18

Soo Seok Yang

Soo Seok offers three of his favorite verses.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5–6

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Ephesians 2:10

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8

Monica Villarreal

Monica shares three of her favorite verses with us. The first is extremely special to her. She says during the most difficult seasons of her life, these words have been a constant reminder that she doesn’t have to carry everything on her own and that God has her, and He is the one directing her path.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5–6

The second verse serves as another reminder that she can trust in Him even when she can’t see the plan yet.

For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Jeremiah 29:11

Monica’s final verse highlights that God’s love is not temporary and that it has always been there and it will always be there.

The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with unfailing kindness. Jeremiah 31:3

Ryan Kral

Ryan’s favorite verse is from Luke. He says that humility is an extremely important characteristic that he tries to exemplify each day. It’s easy to focus on “keeping up with the Joneses” these days, when everyone seems to compare their personal lives to others.

For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” Luke 14:11

Dristin Johnson

Dristin shares three of her favorite verses. The first is a reminder of hope and that present struggles and problems are temporary and future glory is eternal.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. Romans 8:18

The second verse encourages faith during uncertain times.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

The third verse is a message that promotes resilience, helping her to stay positive in difficult times.

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

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Reflecting On Memorial Day

The American people celebrated Memorial Day on May 25. Unfortunately, many simply took the holiday without realizing what the holiday stands for. For that reason, we should all reflect on the holiday and its real meaning. I am including a piece written a few years back by my friend, Dr. John Ed Mathison, a retired Methodist preacher. John Ed will get our attention as he puts Memorial Day in the proper perspective.  

Memorial Day

What is the meaning of Memorial Day? It’s appalling how few people realize the depth of its meaning for the freedoms we enjoy today.  They thought about it, and together they said, “It’s the day that the pool opens.”  That’s sad. Studies have shown that only about 25% of Americans know the meaning of Memorial Day. Memorial Day is about remembering. It has ‘memory’ in it. It’s easy to forget the price that was paid for our freedoms. We can casually sit back and enjoy backyard barbecues, boat rides, and beach bashes, but the meaning of Memorial Day is that almost 1.5 million men and women have died so that you and I might enjoy our freedoms. 

We look to Thanksgiving as a day when we pause to give thanks for the things that we have. Memorial Day is a day when we pause to give thanks to the people who fought and died for the things we have.  Peter wrote to the church, saying, “This is now the second letter I am writing to you in which I’m stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder that you should remember…” (II Peter 3:1,2) We need to have our minds stirred. We need to remember. 

It started during the Civil War when women began decorating the graves of soldiers who had died in that war. On May 30, 1868, the day was designated as ‘Decoration Day’ – a day for placing flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers throughout the United States.

‘Decoration Day’ gradually became known as Memorial Day, and soldiers who died in other wars were honored. It quickly became a day to remember all people who had died in defense of our country. In 1971, the United States Congress declared Memorial Day a national holiday to be observed on the last Monday of May. We must remember that freedom isn’t free. People died so that we could live. We have the opportunity to make decisions today because of the sacrifice of people yesterday! 

Remember the bravery of soldiers like Marine Sergeant John Basiloni, who was awarded a Medal of Honor for his bravery at Guadalcanal. He commanded two sections of machine guns against three thousand enemy soldiers for more than forty-eight hours before reinforcements arrived. You add the names of people you know to John Basiloni’s name. Spend some time thanking people and God for their bravery. People who have died in all the wars form an elite group that must never be forgotten. We must remember. 

How do you plan to celebrate Memorial Day? What difference will Memorial Day make during the rest of the summer and the rest of life? Spend some time thinking about the price for freedom. We think freedom is free. Freedom isn’t free! It’s the most expensive gift we enjoy! Share conversations about the price of freedom. Remember!! Freedom isn’t free!! 

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

  I encourage all Americans to get involved in the electoral process in our country. The right to vote is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. We all should exercise that right. Involvement in the process includes offices at every level of government. Voting is a necessity. The recent voter turnout in Alabama was slightly above 20%. The lack of interest across the state was apparent. For that reason, I wasn’t surprised at the very low turnout. However, the turnout definitely got my attention. 

Regardless of our political affiliation or personal feelings, we must get involved in the political arena. Support qualified candidates who make the country’s best interests their top priority. 

Low turnouts reflect not only a lack of interest by ordinary citizens, but they give large corporations a definite advantage in elections. We have seen multiple examples over the years of that reality. The American people have a shared responsibility to make a reality the statement that government serves all of the people. We have a responsibility to make it happen. 

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

This is an advertisement.