The Jere Beasley Report May 2026

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Leigh O’Dell Receives Valkyrie Justice Award From Mass Torts Made Perfect

Beasley Allen is proud to announce that Leigh O’Dell has been selected as the recipient of the Valkyrie Justice Award from Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP). This is an honor recognizing exceptional women trial lawyers who are shaping the future of mass tort litigation.

Inspired by the powerful women of Norse mythology, the Valkyrie Justice Award celebrates female leaders who embody courage, strength, and conviction. In legend, Valkyries chose the bravest warriors and helped determine the course of history. Today, the award reflects that same spirit by recognizing women who lead the fight for justice and help guide the direction of the legal profession.

The Valkyrie Justice Award honors a lawyer whose impact extends beyond individual case results. Recipients are recognized for their leadership, integrity, and commitment to advocating for others—along with their influence on the industry through mentorship, collaboration, and elevating standards within the profession.

Leigh has long been at the forefront of complex litigation involving defective and dangerous products, with a particular focus on cases affecting the health of women. She has been a true champion in this field of litigation.

Throughout her career, Leigh has been a steady and determined advocate for individuals and families who have been harmed, ensuring their voices are heard and wrongdoing is brought to light.

In addition to her courtroom work, Leigh is widely respected for her leadership within the mass tort community. She is known for her thoughtful approach to litigation, her willingness to mentor and support others, and her unwavering commitment to doing what is right—qualities that align closely with the mission of the Valkyrie Justice Award.

Beasley Allen congratulates Leigh on this well-deserved recognition from Mass Torts Made Perfect. We celebrate the lasting impact of her work on clients, colleagues, and the broader legal community.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

The Profound Effect Of The Verdict In The First Meta Personal Injury Trial

As has been widely reported, a jury in Los Angeles found for the plaintiff in a trial against Meta and YouTube in the first personal injury bellwether trial for addiction of minors to social media. The wrongdoing of both Meta and YouTube (a subsidiary of Google) was found to be a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, K.G.M., who was a minor at the time the injuries began, and that both companies additionally failed to adequately warn of the dangers of the social media platforms.

The trial, which was held in Los Angeles County Superior Court in front of Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl, lasted over a month and included testimony by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, with the verdict reached on the ninth day of deliberations.

The jury awarded $3 million in compensatory damages, with Google 30% responsible and Meta 70% responsible, and an additional $900,000 in punitive damages for YouTube and $2.1 million for Meta. Snapchat and TikTok were also defendants but settled prior to trial.

The lawsuits against the social media platforms are based on the “addictive design” of the platforms, which maximize engagement on social media by keeping users on the platforms with features like endless scroll, autoplay, recommendations and metrics such as likes and comments on posts, and drawing them back to the platforms with features like notifications.

The platforms essentially act like slot machines by giving intermittent variable rewards, which children and adolescents are more susceptible to. Their brains, particularly the “reasoning” frontal lobe, is not fully developed until age 25, and social media causes harms such as anxiety, depression, eating disorder and suicidality in children and adolescents. Internal documents shown at the trial indicated the social media platforms were aware of the vulnerability of children to social media, and that the companies targeted kids to boost user engagement.

The K.G.M. case was the first case to be tried in an initial bellwether pool of 9 cases in the consolidated state JCCP in Los Angeles. The next personal injury trial is anticipated to begin this summer as early as June. There is also litigation proceeding on behalf of school districts, with the first of those cases set in mid-June in federal court in the Northern District of California, as well as cases brought by state attorneys general for violations of consumer protection laws. As we reported last month, the first of those cases was decided in New Mexico the day before the K.G.M. verdict, finding Meta liable for $375 million in damages.

Beasley Allen partner Joseph VanZandt is a co-lead attorney for cases in the JCCP in California state court, and Beasley Allen continues to take these cases and work to move them forward to trial to obtain justice for our clients.

State Of Alabama V. TikTok: Case Setting Signals Momentum For Plaintiffs

The State of Alabama’s consumer protection case against TikTok has reached an important procedural milestone, with the Montgomery County Circuit Court entering a comprehensive scheduling order that firmly positions the case for resolution on the merits.

The court has set the case for jury trial on September 28, 2026. The scheduling order establishes a structured path to that trial date. Fact discovery must be completed 40 days before trial, with expert disclosures due 90 days before trial and rebuttal experts due 60 days prior. Dispositive motions are due 60 days before trial, with responses due 15 days after filing and replies due 15 days after that. A pretrial conference is scheduled for August 11, 2026. In addition, Judge Monet M. Gaines has ordered mediation to occur on or before July 1, 2026, appointing Honorable Eugene W. Reese as mediator.

The case, filed by Attorney General Steve Marshall on behalf of the State, alleges that TikTok engaged in deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting the platform’s safety and age-appropriateness to Alabama consumers, including minors. The State asserts claims under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as counts of wantonness and negligence. The State seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and civil penalties.

With a firm jury trial date on the calendar and a fully structured discovery schedule in place, the case is moving steadily forward. This is a most important case, and it will be watched closely by the media, the legal community, and other companies.

Meta Must Face Massachusetts Lawsuit Alleging Instagram Addicts Children

Massachusetts’ highest court has ruled that Meta Platforms Inc. must face a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell alleging the company illegally designed Instagram to addict children. The Supreme Judicial Court unanimously denied Meta’s attempt to dismiss the case, allowing the claims to move forward.

In an opinion written by Associate Justice Dalila A. Wendlandt, the court held that the lawsuit focuses on Meta’s own conduct rather than content created by users. The justices rejected Meta’s argument that it is merely a content publisher protected from liability under the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The court said the Attorney General plausibly alleged that Meta intentionally designed Instagram features—such as infinite scroll, autoplay, variable reward systems, and ephemeral content—to keep young users engaged for longer periods. According to the ruling, the harm alleged stems from those design choices themselves, not from the substance of third-party posts.

The court also ruled that Section 230 does not shield Meta from claims that it misled consumers. The opinion pointed to allegations that Meta publicly portrayed Instagram as safe and non-addictive for young users despite internal research and communications suggesting awareness of harmful effects on children’s mental health.

The case will now proceed toward summary judgment, with a hearing scheduled for June in Massachusetts Superior Court. The decision adds to a series of recent legal setbacks for Meta, as courts and juries increasingly scrutinize the role social media platforms play in youth mental health.

The case is Commonwealth v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number SJC-13747, in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Source: Law360

Court Limits Juror Research Ahead Of Social Media Addiction Bellwether Trial

A California federal judge has barred Meta and other social media companies from using nonpublic or internal data to investigate potential jurors ahead of the first bellwether trial in nationwide multidistrict litigation brought by school districts over the alleged harms of social media addiction.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued the ruling during a pretrial hearing for the upcoming bellwether trial involving the Breathitt County School District. Jury selection is set to begin June 12, with the trial expected to last six weeks. The parties did not oppose the restriction, agreeing that any juror research should be limited to publicly available information.

The MDL includes claims from more than 1,000 school districts, along with personal injury plaintiffs, attorneys general, and Native American tribes, who allege that social media companies contributed to youth mental health crises, forcing schools to divert limited resources to address those harms.

During the hearing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers also addressed a range of pretrial issues, including potential live streaming of the high-profile trial, which is expected to feature testimony from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Snap CEO Evan Spiegel. While defense counsel raised concerns about security and confidentiality, the judge noted growing media interest and said the proceedings could be streamed if court rules are updated to allow it.

The judge declined to expand trial time for the plaintiffs, signaled limits on proposed juror questioning, and said she may ban Meta smart glasses from the courthouse. Additional rulings remain pending, with the next MDL hearing scheduled to address motions in the states’ cases against Meta.

The personal injury plaintiffs and school district plaintiffs were represented during the hearing by Khaldoun A. Baghdadi of Walkup Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, by Previn Warren of Motley Rice LLC, by Andre Michel Mura of Gibbs Mura LLP, and by Michael M. Weinkowitz of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP.

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.

The state bellwether case is P.F. et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23SMCV03371, and the Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings case is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255 and lead case number 22STCV21355, all in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

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.

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

TALC LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Prepares For Second California Talc Bellwether Trial

Beasley Allen is in California for the second ovarian cancer bellwether trial in California’s Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings (JCCP) against Johnson & Johnson in Los Angeles Superior Court.

We represent Harold Williams, Jr., who lost his wife of nearly 30 years, Geneva, to ovarian cancer. Mrs. Williams had used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products for many years. Jury selection began last month, and the trial started on May 1st.

This is the third Beasley Allen case to be heard after Johnson & Johnson’s third failed bankruptcy attempt was dismissed on March 31, 2025.

In December 2025, Beasley Allen secured a landmark $40 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson in the same California court on behalf of Monica Kent and Deborah Schultz, two California women who developed ovarian cancer after decades of using Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products, including Johnson’s Baby Powder. The jury awarded $13.5 million in compensatory damages for Deborah Schultz, $8.5 million in loss of consortium claims for Albert Schultz, and $18 million in compensatory damages for Monica Kent.

We will report on the current trial in the June issue. The trial is expected to last for several weeks.

There are several matters in other states that Beasley Allen is currently dealing with. We will write on that activity in the June issue.

If you have any questions, contact Melissa Prickett, Director of our Mass Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer in the section respond to you.

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.

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team: Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Ryan Beattie, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, Caty O’Quinn, Leanna Pittard, Matt Teague, Margaret Thompson, Kelli Alfreds, Alexa Wallace, Cristina Rodriguez and Brittany Scott.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Litigation Update

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced the approval of 649 Elective Option offers. Since January of last year, the DOJ has approved 2,531 Elective Option offers. While this is a helpful step for those relatively few clients, it does not help the more than 400,000 victims still awaiting justice.

The PLG successfully argued multiple pretrial motions for the bellwether trials, which resulted in excluding one of the Government’s key expert witnesses, ensuring that general questions about causation will be determined at trial, and that expert witness challenges can be resolved at trial to avoid unnecessary delays.

While there is still a long fight ahead, the PLG’s success in these pretrial motions provides a strong foundation for the bellwether trials. There are a few remaining issues before the court, such as clarification of the burden of proof under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act as well as additional clarifications for damages. Once these issues are determined, the court can move forward with officially setting dates for these bellwethers.

While the stay order is still in place for majority of Camp Lejeune claims, at Beasley Allen, we are tirelessly working to substantiate our clients’ Camp Lejeune claims so that when the stay order is lifted, we can move swiftly and strategically to ensure the best possible outcome for our clients.

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. Our lawyers will be available to answer any questions you may have about the litigation. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have one of the lawyers on the Litigation Team respond to you.

SEXUAL ASSAULT LITIGATION

Los Angeles County Approves $4 Billion Sexual Assault Settlement For Survivors Of Sexual Abuse In Juvenile Facilities

Just over a year ago, Los Angeles County approved the largest aggregate sexual abuse settlement in U.S. history, authorizing $4 billion in compensation for survivors of abuse in county juvenile facilities. The settlement will provide relief to nearly 7,000 individuals who suffered sexual abuse while in custody, with cases dating as far back as 1959.

In an unprecedented unanimous vote, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the settlement, marking a significant moment in the county’s efforts to address years of institutional abuse. Many of the claims stem from abuse that occurred at the MacLaren Children’s Center, a county-run facility that operated for nearly four decades before closing in 2003.

The historic settlement was made possible by Assembly Bill 218, a California law that took effect on January 1, 2022. The legislation established a three-year “lookback window,” allowing survivors to file civil claims that had previously been barred by statutes of limitation. The bill opened the door for thousands of individuals to seek accountability and financial compensation for abuse they suffered as minors. County officials have described the settlement as a necessary step toward acknowledging harm, providing restitution to survivors, and addressing systemic failures within the juvenile justice system.

It’s well established that sexual abuse can have long-lasting impacts on survivors, affecting mental health, physical wellbeing, relationships, and overall quality of life. Many survivors experience trauma-related conditions such as anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, and chronic stress. The effects of the abuse often last for years, particularly when abuse occurred during childhood or adolescence. If you or someone you know are a survivor of sexual abuse, you may have legal rights, even if the abuse occurred many years ago.

Consider reaching out to Beasley Allen to learn about your options, protections, and any deadlines that may apply to your situation. The following Beasley Allen lawyers stand ready to work with you as you seek justice: Leon Hampton, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, and Jessi Haynes. They will be glad to work with you.

Uber Sexual Assault Cases

An MDL in the Northern District of California involves thousands of actions that allege sexual assault and related misconduct by Uber drivers. Plaintiffs in this MDL assert that Uber’s business model and safety practices created foreseeable and systemic risks to passenger safety.

According to the plaintiffs’ allegations, Uber rapidly expanded its ridesharing platform by relying on largely unvetted drivers, conducting minimal background checks, and prioritizing growth over comprehensive safety measures. Despite this, Uber marketed its services as safe and trustworthy, using representations that plaintiffs allege were misleading or false.

Plaintiffs further claim that Uber targeted vulnerable populations, including women and intoxicated riders, while failing to implement meaningful safety measures such as mandatory in-vehicle cameras, robust monitoring systems, or effective reporting and response protocols.

Against Uber, plaintiffs are asserting negligence (including negligent hiring, supervision, and retention), fraud and misrepresentation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of non-delegable duties to provide safe transportation. Plaintiffs also assert vicarious liability for drivers’ conduct, strict products liability related to alleged defects and failures to warn associated with the Uber app, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Collectively, these claims assert that Uber’s practices and representations contributed to a heightened risk of sexual assault and emotional harm to passengers.

If you have questions or need help with a Uber case, contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

GAMING LITIGATION

Class Action Filed Alleging Illegal Sports Gambling By Kalshi

Beasley Allen and two other law firms have filed a first-of-its-kind nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that Kalshi Inc. and related entities illegally operated a sports gambling platform in violation of federal law. The class was filed in the Federal District Court in Northern Georgia.

Generally, the lawsuit alleges that Kalshi knowingly listed and cleared sports-based “event contracts” that are expressly prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), causing consumers across the United States to lose money on unlawful wagers.

While other Kalshi cases have been filed on similar allegations, this new class is uniquely crafted to address the CEA issues. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Kalshi operates an online “prediction market” that allows users to trade binary contracts tied to future events.

While federal law permits certain event contracts tied to legitimate economic activity, it prohibits contracts that involve, relate to, or reference “gaming,” including sports betting.

Despite this prohibition, the lawsuit asserts Kalshi began offering contracts tied to sporting event outcomes in early 2025. These contracts allegedly included wagers on game results, point spreads, and individual player performance—offerings that mirror traditional sportsbook bets and constitute illegal gambling under federal regulations.

The complaint further contends Kalshi’s conduct was undertaken in bad faith. It asserts that Kalshi previously acknowledged in federal court that Congress did not intend derivatives markets to be used for sports betting. Despite those admissions, the lawsuit claims Kalshi expanded aggressively into sports-based markets after experiencing significant growth, prioritizing revenue over compliance.

The lawsuit states that by late 2025 the majority of Kalshi’s trading volume resulted from sports-related contracts. Public reports cited in the lawsuit indicate that Kalshi announced more than $1 billion in trading volume related to the Super Bowl alone.

The lawsuit also asserts Kalshi marketed its platform as “legal in all 50 states,” including in jurisdictions where sports gambling is illegal or highly restricted. According to the complaint, Kalshi allowed users as young as 18 to participate, even though most states restrict sports betting to those 21 and older. The plaintiff alleges Kalshi targeted college students and young adults through digital advertising and campus-focused marketing efforts.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who lost money trading sports-based contracts on the Kalshi platform, and asked the court for class certification, damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The plaintiff and class are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Mitch Williams, and Trent Mann, along with co-counsel from Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC and Smith Krivoshey, PC.

The case is Kaiserman v. Kalshi Inc., et al., Case No. 1:26cv01525, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

Alabama Attorney General Marshall Announces $12.2 Million Settlement With Roblox To Ensure Child Safety

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall announced last month that the state has reached a substantial settlement with the popular interactive gaming platform Roblox, securing meaningful improvements to online child safety and boots-on-the-ground resources for Alabama’s schoolchildren. Under the settlement terms, Alabama will receive $12.2 million to be used for funding school resource officers across the state via the Attorney General’s Safe School Initiative. Attorney General Marshall stated:

Alabama stepped in where others failed to act. This settlement sends a clear message to every platform operating in this space—you cannot turn a blind eye to the exploitation of children and expect to avoid consequences. We have now established a framework that other states can and should use. Platforms that host child consumers must do their part to give parents a fighting chance to shield their children from harm. While parents will always play the primary role in protecting their children online, we are raising the bar on what we expect from gaming platforms—parents need a partner, not a black box. This is the beginning of a new standard, and Alabama will aggressively enforce it.

As a part of the agreement with Roblox, all users must undergo age verification to ensure children have access only to age-appropriate content on the platform. Roblox has committed to using facial age estimation technology and government-issued ID for age confirmation and will use behavioral monitoring to identify users who may have been aged incorrectly. The settlement also explicitly addresses privacy concerns related to age verification.

Parents will also have expanded control over their children’s use of the platform under the agreement. The expansion of parental controls allows parents to decide who their children are talking to and the games they are playing on the platform as well as restrict the transfer of in-game currency (Robux) from adults other than trusted connections. In the absence of a parent account, the default content mode provides protections to minor users.

Adult users and users under 16 will not be able to chat unless they are identified as a “trusted friend” on the platform. Trusted friends for users under 13 require parental consent. Unless a parent elects otherwise, users between 13 and 15 years old may add trusted friends through a QR code or phone contact importer.

Under the agreement, Roblox will not allow communication involving minors to be encrypted. Unencrypted communication allows law enforcement to be able to more easily combat child exploitation networks, trafficking, and the distribution of illegal and harmful content.

Roblox has committed to conducting workshops and awareness campaigns for the state of Alabama and local law enforcement, as well as establishing a liaison position that will provide state law enforcement with communication channels to quickly investigate and address safety concerns like online child exploitation.

Attorney General Steve Marshall was joined at the announcement by the Office’s Chief Counsel Katherine Robertson. Also in attendance were representatives from across Alabama’s education and law enforcement communities.

Alabama’s settlement announcement is significant. The settlement is one of the first in the nation to be reached with Roblox and is the result of negotiations over the last several months.

Alabama will receive 100% of the funds secured by the settlement with no fees owed to outside firms. The ‘most favored nation’ clause included in the agreement ensures that Alabama is entitled to any improved terms that are later agreed to by Roblox with any other state.

The Alabama case highlights the increasing legal scrutiny of online platforms’ responsibilities to protect minors. The Roblox Litigation Team at Beasley Allen remains committed to pursuing justice and accountability for children and families harmed by Roblox.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Leighton Johnson, a lawyer on the litigation team, and he will be glad to work with you.

Texas Attorney General’s Child Safety Lawsuit Against Roblox Moves Forward

A Texas state judge has ruled that the lawsuit filed against Roblox will proceed. The lawsuit was brought by the Texas Attorney General alleging the company misled parents about child safety on its gaming platform. In a March 2026 order, the court denied Roblox’s attempt to dismiss claims related to consumer protection and misrepresentation, dismissing only common nuisance allegations.

The lawsuit, filed in November 2025, alleges that Roblox falsely advertised its platform as safe despite knowing that adults could pose as minors, groom children, and move conversations to other platforms such as Discord. Texas alleges that Roblox failed to implement meaningful safeguards or take sufficient steps to protect young users from these known risks.

Texas is not alone. We mentioned the Alabama settlement above. In addition to Texas, several other states—including Kentucky, Florida, Louisiana, Iowa and Nebraska—have also filed lawsuits against Roblox, underscoring growing nationwide concern that the company prioritized growth and engagement over child safety.

In addition to these state actions, Roblox is also facing consolidated federal litigation, MDL No. 3166, involving allegations that children were groomed, abused, and sexually exploited on the platform and, in some cases, later died by suicide.

VIDEO GAME ADDICTION LITIGATION

Video Game Addiction Litigation Update

Video games might seem like harmless entertainment, but for some pre-teen and teenagers, they have become a most serious problem—one that exacerbates anxiety and depression, derails academic performance and cuts young people off from meaningful real-world relationships. Experts in the field are seeing this issue more, and they want families to understand what’s really going on.

Video games today are nothing like the simple, pixelated experiences of past decades. Modern titles feature richly detailed worlds, cinematic storytelling, and multiplayer networks that connect players around the globe—making them far harder for young minds to walk away from. Psychiatrists who work with adolescents believe these advances are directly fueling higher rates of addiction.

At one California youth clinic, screen-related concerns (including both gaming and social media) now account for roughly a third of all patient referrals, a dramatic shift from what providers originally expected when the clinic opened. Gaming disorder has been officially recognized as a mental health diagnosis. It involves a pattern of behaviors such as an inability to stop gaming even when you want, intense irritability or distress when access is taken away, and a growing neglect of other life responsibilities.

Unlike some other behavioral issues, gaming addiction is one that teenagers almost never recognize in themselves. Teens who are hooked on games almost universally deny there’s any issue at all. In fact, when clinicians ask teens how many hours they spend gaming, their estimates and their parents’ estimates are often worlds apart.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Chad Cook, a lawyer in our Mass Torts Section, and he will be glad to work with you.

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Lawsuit Filed Against Amazon After Fatal I-75 Truck Crash

A new wrongful death lawsuit filed by Beasley Allen lawyer Chris Glover alleges that safety failures within Amazon’s delivery and logistics system played a role in a devastating tractor-trailer crash that killed David Jeffrey Huggins and left multiple vehicles burning on a Tennessee interstate.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Heather Marie Huggins, David’s wife, who is now seeking answers—and accountability—for a crash that her family says never should have happened. The case names Amazon and the truck driver as defendants and was filed in Broward County Circuit Court.

A Normal Drive Turns Deadly

On May 11, 2025, traffic slowed in the northbound lanes of Interstate 75 in East Ridge, Tennessee—a routine backup on a busy highway. Drivers slowed and stopped as they often do, expecting the flow of traffic behind them to follow. One truck did not.

A tractor-trailer hauling Amazon freight barreled forward at highway speed, never slowing as traffic ahead came to a stop. The impact set off a violent chain-reaction crash, slamming multiple vehicles together and igniting fires across the roadway.

David Jeffrey Huggins was one of the drivers caught in the collision. He was driving his Ford F150, obeying traffic laws, when the crash unfolded around him. He was killed at the scene.

Investigators later determined that the truck driver had been driving erratically before the crash and failed to brake, despite clear daylight conditions, dry pavement, and open visibility. The driver has since been criminally indicted on multiple charges, including vehicular homicide.

What began as an everyday drive ended in irreversible loss—one more family changed forever by a crash that didn’t have to happen.

A Broader Look at Amazon’s Delivery System

The crash did not happen in a vacuum. It unfolded within a delivery system built around speed, rigid schedules, and relentless deadlines—one that placed enormous pressure on how freight is moved and who is trusted to move it. Amazon tightly controlled the movement of its shipments, dictating when loads were picked up, how they were routed, and how quickly they were expected to arrive, while relying on trucking companies that were unequipped to operate safely under those demands.

Despite having access to federal safety data, Amazon continued to allow motor carriers with known safety problems to haul its freight. Those warning signs were visible well before this crash, yet the system allowed unsafe trucks to remain on public highways, sharing the road with families just trying to get home.

One of those carriers was Valparaiso Trucking Corp. In the months leading up to the collision, the company accumulated safety violations that revealed ongoing risks. Those risks ultimately became reality on Interstate 75—where routine delivery pressure turned into a violent, life-ending crash.

Why Trucking Lawsuits Matter

Large commercial trucks can weigh up to 80,000 pounds, and when something goes wrong, the results are often catastrophic. This lawsuit seeks to expose how delivery pressure, poor oversight, and unsafe trucking practices can come together—with deadly consequences for everyday drivers. Families sharing the road should not pay the price for corporate delivery shortcuts.

At its core, the lawsuit is about responsibility—who is accountable when decisions made far from the highway put dangerously large trucks on public roads.

Beasley Allen represents families across the country who have lost loved ones in preventable trucking crashes. These cases are not about speed or efficiency; they are about safety, accountability, and protecting lives. When delivery deadlines outweigh human lives, families deserve answers—and when safety failures lead to tragedy, companies must be held responsible.

If you have questions or need help with a trucking case, contact Chris Glover and he will be glad to work with you.

Inside The Chameleon Trucking Network Linked To 15,000 Safety Violations

On Sunday, April 12, 60 Minutes ran an intriguing investigative piece on chameleon carriers. As you may recall from our previous articles, chameleon carriers are commercial trucking operations that deliberately shed their identities—changing company names and federal DOT numbers—to erase bad safety records and evade regulators. Safety consultant Rob Carpenter estimates that 10–20% of the roughly 700,000 U.S. trucking companies operate this way, and they are four times more likely to be involved in crashes than compliant carriers.

The 60 Minutes segment centered on Super Ego Holding, a Serbian-founded trucking network with U.S. hubs in Illinois and Florida. It has hauled freight for major companies like Amazon, Walmart, Costco, and the U.S. Postal Service. According to DOT data, carriers tied to Super Ego have accumulated nearly 15,000 safety violations and 500 accidents in just two years, including a crash where one of their trucks—traveling 72 mph—struck a school bus and critically injured two children.

How does the Super Ego Scheme Work? Drivers are instructed to physically cover truck names and DOT numbers with duct tape and replace them with new ones to disguise their identity. Dispatchers in Serbia remotely reset federally mandated driving-hour clocks, pressuring drivers to stay on the road well beyond the legal 11-hour limit.

One driver admitted to driving up to 18 hours in a day. Drivers were financially exploited through excessive fees and falsified delivery contracts, with some taking home negative paychecks despite driving 600–800 miles a day. A whistleblower revealed that skimming from drivers’ pay was a competitive sport inside Super Ego’s Belgrade office, with top dispatchers earning bonuses for how much they extracted. Super Ego could net between $1–2 million per week from this fraudulent scheme alone.

There are only 350 federal investigators overseeing all 700,000 trucking companies nationwide. The FMCSA’s administrator acknowledged a “front door problem” and said they are trying to hire 40 more investigators and modernize their 40-year-old registration system. Driver Daniel Sanchez lost his job, his truck, and the $35,000 he had invested toward owning it. He is one of more than 800 truckers who have joined a class action lawsuit against Super Ego for fraud and breach of contract. Super Ego denies any wrongdoing.

A combination of lax startup requirements, outdated federal systems, and severe understaffing has allowed dangerous foreign-operated trucking networks to operate largely unchecked on American roads. Super Ego is just one example of the many chameleon carriers who are operating in total disregard for the safety of others. Until federal regulators, shippers, and brokers get serious about weeding out these bad actors, Super Ego has little incentive to change.

Beasley Allen lawyers are experienced in investigating and holding chameleon carriers accountable for their fraudulent schemes. If you have any questions regarding chameleon carriers or need help with a trucking case, contact Stephanie Monplaisir, and she will be glad to work with you.

Source: CBS News

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

April Motor Vehicle Recalls

Each month, automakers issue recalls to fix safety-related defects that can increase the risk of crashes or injuries. In April 2026, several major recalls affected hundreds of thousands—and in some cases millions—of vehicles on U.S. roads.

Below is a snapshot of some of the most significant motor vehicle recalls announced during April and what drivers should know.

Ford Recalls Nearly 1.4 Million F-150 Trucks Over Transmission Issue

Ford issued a recall of approximately 1.4 million F-150 pickup trucks after a federal investigation found a transmission problem that can cause unexpected downshifting while driving. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the issue may briefly lock the rear wheels, increasing the risk of losing control and crashing.

The recall affects certain 2015–2017 Ford F-150 trucks equipped with a six-speed automatic transmission. Ford has reported at least two injuries and one crash potentially linked to the issue and plans to fix the problem through a software update and, in some cases, part replacement at no cost to vehicle owners.

Honda Odyssey Minivans Recalled Over Airbag Deployment Risk

Honda announced a recall of more than 440,000 Odyssey minivans after discovering a software issue that could cause side and curtain airbags to deploy unexpectedly during everyday driving.

Federal filings indicate the airbags could deploy if the vehicle strikes a pothole, speed bump, or road debris—situations that should not trigger an airbag. The recall affects 2018–2022 Honda Odyssey minivans. Dealers will update the airbag control software or replace the control unit if necessary.

Ram Recalls 2026 Heavy-Duty Trucks Over Stability Control Failure

Chrysler has issued a recall for certain 2026 Ram 2500 trucks due to a defect that may disable electronic stability control, an important safety system designed to help drivers maintain control during emergency maneuvers or slippery conditions. The problem stems from a faulty steering column control module. Without a functioning stability control system, the risk of a crash increases, especially during sudden steering or braking. Dealers will replace the affected module free of charge.

Wide Range of Additional Recalls Reported by NHTSA

Beyond these high-profile recalls, NHTSA issued numerous additional recall notices in April involving a wide range of vehicles and safety systems. These included defects related to:

• Airbags that may fail to deploy properly
• Windshield wipers that can stop working
• Rearview camera malfunctions
• Fuel system leaks that increase fire risk
• Steering, braking, and electrical system failures

These recalls affected vehicles from multiple manufacturers, including Ford, General Motors, Audi, Jeep, Isuzu, and others, spanning model years from 2021 through 2026.

What Drivers Should Do If Their Vehicle Is Recalled

If you own or lease a vehicle, experts recommend checking for recalls regularly—even if your car seems to be working fine. Drivers can:

• Search their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at nhtsa.gov/recalls to see if their vehicle is affected
• Follow manufacturer instructions for scheduling free repairs
• Avoid delaying recall repairs, especially when defects involve steering, braking, airbags, or transmission systems
• Recall repairs are performed at no cost to the vehicle owner

AVIATION LITIGATION

Air India Flight 171: Ongoing Investigation, Search For Accountability

The crash of Air India Flight 171 remains one of the most devastating aviation disasters in recent history—and questions about how and why it happened are still being investigated.

On June 12, 2025, the London-bound Boeing 787 Dreamliner crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India. The aircraft struck a medical college hostel complex, killing nearly everyone on board and multiple people on the ground. Families across several countries were left grieving sudden and unimaginable losses.

As investigations continue, aviation safety experts, courts, and families are seeking clear answers and accountability.

What We Know So Far About the Air India Flight 171 Crash

India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) has released a preliminary report, but officials have emphasized that the investigation is ongoing and that final conclusions have not yet been reached. Publicly released information confirms:

• The aircraft lost power seconds after takeoff
• Both engines stopped producing thrust
• The crash occurred before the plane reached a safe recovery altitude

Authorities continue to analyze flight data, cockpit recordings, and aircraft systems. Courts in India have also stressed that early findings should not be treated as final and that technical investigations must be left to qualified experts. For families, this uncertainty has only deepened the need for transparency and independent review.

Why Aviation Accident Investigations Take Time

Aviation accident investigations are complex by design. Unlike car crashes, aviation disasters often involve:

• Aircraft design and manufacturing issues
• Engine and software systems
• Maintenance and inspection records
• Human factors and training
• Regulatory oversight

Investigators must determine what failed, why it failed, and whether the failure was preventable. This process can take months—or longer—but it is critical for both accountability and future passenger safety.

Beasley Allen’s Role Representing Air India Flight 171 Families

Beasley Allen is representing the families of more than 140 victims of the Air India Flight 171 crash, including passengers and individuals who lost their lives on the ground.

The firm’s aviation litigation team is led by Mike Andrews, a nationally recognized aviation attorney and the author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation. Mike has extensive experience handling complex international aviation cases, including representation of families affected by the Boeing 737 MAX 8 disasters.

Beasley Allen lawyers have:

• Met directly with families impacted by the crash
• Conducted onsite investigations
• Worked with aviation engineers and safety experts
• Closely monitored developments in the official investigation

Our firm’s focus remains on following the evidence, protecting families’ rights, and ensuring that no responsible party escapes accountability.

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 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.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

PRODUCTS LIABILITY

A Change In The Law In Georgia Relating To Seatbelts

For decades, Georgia prohibited evidence about the non-use of seatbelts. This rule applied to product liability cases, prohibiting automotive manufacturers from introducing evidence of an individual’s non-use of a seatbelt even as part of its defense. But the rule changed on April 21, 2025, when Governor Kemp signed S.B. 68 into law. The new law permits the introduction of evidence concerning seatbelt non-use on issues like comparative negligence, causation, assumption of the risk, and apportionment of fault. Prudent product liability practitioners should note two important aspects of the new law.

First, admission of seatbelt non-use evidence is still subject to traditional evidentiary challenges like Rule 403 (i.e., the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect). In other words, the evidence doesn’t automatically come in.

Second, and more importantly, the new seat belt law is not retroactive. It only applies to cases commenced on or after the effective date of the law—April 21, 2025. Defendants will undoubtedly argue that the new law is retroactive, but that is wrong. Another bill passed last session, S.B. 69, makes that very clear. In Section 4 of S.B. 69, the General Assembly expressly stated that the new seatbelt law “shall not apply to causes of action pending on the effective date of this Act” and that “any causes of action commenced prior to the effective date of this Act shall be governed by prior law.” Ga. L. 2025, Act 10, § 4, eff. Apr. 21, 2025. The General Assembly’s unambiguous language will quickly dispel any retroactivity argument.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Stephen Mulherin, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, and he will be glad to work with you.

Beasley Allen’s Mobile Office Files Defective Commercial Pressure Fryer Lawsuit

Our firm’s Mobile office is pursuing a product liability lawsuit on behalf of a man who suffered catastrophic burn injuries when a commercial pressure fryer released scalding cooking oil across the upper half of his body.

Our client was assisting a co-worker in opening the lid of the commercial pressure fryer at a convenience store when the lid released while the unit remained under pressure. Pressurized hot oil violently discharged from the fryer, causing severe and permanent burn injuries to our client’s hands, wrists, forearms, chest and face.

A properly designed pressure fryer should not permit its lid to open while the vessel remains pressurized. The lawsuit alleges the fryer’s lid assembly and pressure relief system were defectively designed, defectively manufactured, and accompanied by inadequate warnings—and that safer, technologically and economically feasible alternative designs were available to the manufacturer. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages under the Mississippi Product Liability Act and common-law negligence theories.

Lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section routinely litigate product liability cases arising from on-the-job injuries, representing workers catastrophically harmed when defective commercial and industrial equipment fails in the workplace.

Beasley Allen lawyers Evan Allen and Wyatt Montgomery are handling this case, which was filed in Mobile County Circuit Court.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

THE WEST COAST WILDFIRE LITIGATION

Appeals Court Vacates PacifiCorp Verdict And Sends Case Back To Trial Court

An Oregon appeals court has overturned a jury verdict that held utility company PacifiCorp responsible for damage caused by the Labor Day 2020 wildfires. The appeals court ruled that the trial judge gave the jury an incorrect instruction, which affected how responsibility was decided for a large group of property owners.

A jury had found PacifiCorp negligent for failing to manage vegetation near power lines and for not shutting off power during extreme wind conditions. That decision in 2023 opened the door to hundreds of damages claims worth nearly $1 billion.

On appeal, PacifiCorp argued that the jury was wrongly told it could assume the same evidence applied to all class members, even though different fires, locations, and causes were involved. The appeals court agreed, noting that evidence—especially evidence about what caused each fire—did not apply evenly to every plaintiff.

As a result, the appeals court reversed the verdict and sent the case back to the trial court. The judges said the trial court may reconsider whether the case should proceed as a single class action or whether it should be restructured.

It should be noted that the ruling does not clear PacifiCorp of wrongdoing. The property owners emphasized that the decision was procedural, not a finding that PacifiCorp was not negligent or that victims were not harmed. The court also rejected PacifiCorp’s broader arguments challenging the merits of the case.

It came as no surprise that PacifiCorp welcomed the ruling. It said that the previous process was unfair and not suited for wildfire litigation. The company said it remains open to resolving valid claims while continuing to defend against unsupported claims.

The property owners are represented by Nicholas Rosinia and Alexander Tievsky of Edelson PC.

The case is Jeanyne James v. PacifiCorp, case number A183140, in the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon.

Source: Law360

FCA AND WHISTLEBLOWER LITIGATION

Qui Tam Cases: How Whistleblowers Help Stop Fraud Against The Government

Fraud against the government is often uncovered because an insider chooses to speak up. Qui tam cases exist to give whistleblowers a lawful and protected way to expose fraud and help recover taxpayer dollars.

Under the federal False Claims Act, a private individual, known as a relator, may hire a law firm to file a lawsuit on behalf of the United States against companies that knowingly submit, or cause the submission of, false or fraudulent claims for government payment. These cases commonly arise in healthcare, defense contracting, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other industries that receive federal funds.

What Is a Qui Tam Case?

In a qui tam action, the government is the real party in interest, but the case begins with the relator’s inside knowledge. Qui tam complaints are filed under seal, meaning they remain confidential while the Department of Justice investigates the allegations, reviews documents, and interviews witnesses. At the end of that process, the government decides whether to intervene.

If the case is successful, whistleblowers may receive 15% to 30% of the recovery. Even when the government declines to intervene, relators may still pursue the case with experienced counsel.

Common Qui Tam Fraud

Many qui tam cases involve healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the VA. Fraud schemes often include:

• Billing for services not provided
• Upcoding
• Charging for medically unnecessary or non-covered services
• Paying illegal kickbacks
• Causing false claims through billing or marketing practices

These cases usually involve patterns of misconduct rather than a one-off “mistake” or “error.” Another area of abuse of government funds often occurs in the defense contractor’s arena. The allegations in those cases typically mirror the above outlined schemes we see in the healthcare qui tam cases.

Why These Cases Matter

Qui tam cases recover billions of dollars for taxpayers each year and play a critical role in deterring fraud and protecting public programs. In 2025 alone, qui tam cases accounted for $5.3 billion in recoveries for the federal government. The law also prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers, giving them critical protection from any backlash for reporting fraud.

Beasley Allen is honored to represent whistleblowers in complex qui tam cases involving fraud against the government. Our litigation team stands ready if you have questions about potential qui tam cases. Feel free to contact any of our whistleblower lawyers: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Leon Hampton, Tyner Helms, Lauren Miles or Jessi Haynes.

Judge Allows FCA Claims Against Novartis

Novartis will have to defend against a False Claims Act lawsuit accusing the company of illegally inducing doctors to prescribe its multiple sclerosis drug, Gilenya. U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood denied Novartis’ motion to dismiss, finding that whistleblower Steven M. Camburn adequately alleged the company knowingly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. Thus, the case will proceed.

Camburn, a former Novartis sales representative, alleges that the company ran a nationwide scheme beginning in 2010 that paid doctors through sham speaking engagements and other incentives to boost Gilenya prescriptions. According to the complaint, Novartis then submitted claims for reimbursement to government healthcare programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare.

Judge Wood concluded that Camburn sufficiently pleaded scienter, noting allegations that Novartis closely tracked how many prescriptions its paid speakers wrote and evaluated whether those payments generated a favorable “return on investment.” The judge emphasized that the False Claims Act does not require proof of intent to defraud, only that the defendant knowingly submitted false claims.

The judge also rejected Novartis’ argument that the relator failed to identify specific false claims, finding that a two-year sample of allegedly tainted claims from 2013 and 2014 was representative of the broader, decade-long scheme. That sample allegedly showed more than $3.6 million paid to doctors, nearly 14,000 tainted Medicare claims, and more than $80 million in Medicare reimbursements.

This ruling follows a remand from the Second Circuit, which held that a plaintiff sufficiently alleges an Anti-Kickback Statute violation by plausibly claiming that at least one purpose of the conduct was to induce prescriptions. With all elements of the FCA claim now adequately pleaded, the case will move forward.

The relator is represented by James E. Miller, James C. Shah, Bruce D. Parke, Laurie Rubinow, Alec J. Berin, Anna K. D’Agostino, Madison A. Gregg and Eric L. Young of Miller Shah LLP and Steven A. Schwartz and Timothy N. Mathews of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP.

The case is United States of America ex rel. Steven M. Camburn et al. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., case number 1:13-cv-03700, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

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 you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

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

SECURITIES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Boeing Investors Secure Class Certification In 737 Max Fraud Suit

An Illinois federal judge granted class certification in March to investors who alleged Boeing harmed them by misrepresenting the safety of its 737 Max aircraft, finding that the investors established a common method for measuring damages that could apply class wide.

Boeing argued that the investors couldn’t meet the class action requirement that common questions of law or fact predominate over individual ones, taking aim at their securities expert, David Tabak, who, it said, provided no details about the methodology he intended to use to calculate class-wide damages in this particular case.

But U.S. District Judge Franklin U. Valderrama disagreed, finding that Tabak’s proposed methodology “is capable of measuring class-wide damages and is consistent with plaintiffs’ theory of liability.” Judge Valderrama wrote in a 62-page opinion and order that plaintiffs presented a viable, internally consistent, and truly classwide approach to damages.

However, Judge Valderrama did trim roughly two months off the proposed class period from Dec. 16, 2019, to Oct. 18, 2019. Courts, he explained, are required to cut off the class period on the date of a statement or event that cures the market. Boeing had argued that the “truth” about the 737 MAX not returning to service in 2019 had been “disseminated to the market” before Dec. 16, 2019, when Boeing announced it was suspending production on the aircraft.

Investors have accused Boeing and former CEO Dennis A. Muilenburg of making “audaciously misleading” public statements about the integrity of the certification process for the 737 Max 8, as well as pilots’ ability to safely fly the aircraft by concealing the true nature of an automated flight-control software feature known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.

The 737 Max 8 was grounded globally for 20 months after being involved in the October 2018 crash of Lion Air Flight 610 in the Java Sea that killed 189 people and the March 2019 crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 that killed 157 people. Beasley Allen lawyers represented families who lost loved ones in the Ethiopian Airlines crash, and is representing hundreds of families affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash, which involved another Boeing plane, the 787-8 Dreamliner.

Judge Valderrama ultimately certified a class comprising “all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Boeing common stock and/or call options or sold put options between November 7, 2018, and October 18, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.”

Beasley Allen’s James Eubank, along with Dee Miles and Paul Evans, monitor and participate in securities litigation for our firm. Should you have any questions about securities or general investment fraud, feel free to contact our team of lawyers in this area of litigation. Contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have a lawyer respond to you.

Apartment Rent Price Fixing Class Preliminarily Approved

Two recent orders in In re Yardi Revenue Management Antitrust Litigation highlight the core allegations that major multifamily housing operators unlawfully coordinated to inflate rental prices through the use of algorithmic pricing software.

Plaintiffs allege that Yardi Systems and participating landlords engaged in a horizontal price-fixing scheme by pooling competitively sensitive data and relying on Yardi’s RENTmaximizer and Revenue IQ software to generate rent recommendations. According to the complaint, participating landlords allegedly ceded independent pricing judgment to a shared algorithm that used proprietary, real-time market data from competitors, resulting in artificially elevated rents across numerous multifamily markets.

As alleged, this conduct constitutes a per se violation of federal antitrust law—the defendants replaced competition with coordinated conduct under the guise of “revenue management.”

One of the two recent orders grants preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement with Balke Brown Transwestern, Inc. and 2B Residential, LLC. While the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, the court approved the reasonableness of the settlement. The settlement reflects plaintiffs’ contention that participating landlords profited from the shared pricing scheme by collectively raising rents to supercompetitive levels, harming tenants.

In contrast, the second order dismisses claims against several non-resident LLC defendants on jurisdictional grounds. The court did not reach the merits of the antitrust allegations but noted that plaintiffs contend these defendants joined the same nationwide pricing conspiracy. The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that claims based on the alleged anticompetitive conduct could be refiled in an appropriate forum.

Together, the two orders underscore the litigation’s focus on whether algorithm-driven rent coordination unlawfully displaced competition in the multifamily housing market.

Paul Evans, a Beasley Allen lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, is actively involved in the Yardi class and our firm is pursuing claims like these and others alleging anticompetitive behavior and illegal agreements impacting commerce. In addition to Paul Evans, Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Rebecca Gilliland, and Lauren Miles are also handling these cases.

If you have questions or need help with a case involving anticompetitive behavior, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have one of the lawyers named above respond to you.

INSURANCE LITIGATION

Class Action Filed Against GEICO Over Illusory Underinsured Motorist Coverage

Beasley Allen has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against GEICO Advantage Insurance Company and GEICO Secure Insurance Company, alleging that GEICO has been collecting separate premiums for underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage that is incapable of ever paying benefits in a common accident scenario. Namely, GEICO policies in numerous states will never pay UIM benefits when the insured’s limit is equal to the statutory minimum amount of insurance.

The plaintiffs are two Ohio residents who each purchased GEICO policies carrying UIM limits of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence, the same amount as Ohio’s statutory mandatory minimum bodily injury liability coverage. Under GEICO’s own definitions, an “underinsured motor vehicle” is one whose liability limits are less than the insured’s UIM limits. Because every Ohio driver must carry at least $25,000/$50,000 in liability coverage, no lawfully insured tortfeasor can ever qualify as “underinsured” under a statutory minimum-limits policy. Nor is such a tortfeasor “uninsured” under the policy, leaving the insured in an undisclosed coverage gap.

Both class representative plaintiffs experienced this gap firsthand. After separate accidents in which the tortfeasors each carried the Ohio statutory minimum, GEICO denied their UIM claims on identical grounds, stating that “the tortfeasor’s limits are equal to/greater than our limits.” The complaint contends these uniform denials confirm a predetermined policy of denying all statutory minimum-limits UIM claims, and that GEICO has charged premiums for coverage it knows will almost certainly never pay.

The complaint alleges that selling and collecting premiums for illusory coverage violates GEICO’s contractual duty to provide genuine UIM protection, and alternatively that the interplay between the policy’s “underinsured” and “uninsured” definitions creates an ambiguity that must be construed in favor of coverage. The fraud counts allege GEICO knowingly presented UIM as a discrete, separately priced protection without disclosing it could never be triggered.

The proposed nationwide class covers all GEICO policyholders whose declarations pages show UIM coverage equal to the applicable state’s statutory minimum, for which GEICO charged a separate premium. The plaintiffs seek policy reformation, return of all premiums paid for illusory coverage, payment of wrongfully withheld benefits, and punitive damages.

Beasley Allen lawyers Paul Evans and Rebecca Gilliland, along with Christopher Nace of the Nace Law Group in Washington, D.C., are representing the plaintiffs and proposed class. If you have any questions or would like to discuss potential claims arising from similar UIM coverage issues in other states, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have one of these lawyers respond to you.

Workplace Litigation

On-The-Job Injury Case

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, is currently investigating a serious on-the-job injury involving a warehouse employee who was pinned against a wall by a runaway electric pallet jack at his place of employment. The incident raises significant questions about product safety and liability under Georgia law.

Ben’s client had returned from his lunch break and was standing near an unmanned electric pallet jack when the jack abruptly and without warning accelerated toward him, pinning him against a wall. The jack was equipped with a safety mechanism—a raised steering handle designed to function as a parking brake—and that brake was engaged at the time of the incident.

Despite the brake being set, the jack moved under its own power and struck the client. A co-worker was required to physically disengage the parking brake in order to move the jack and free Ben’s client. Under Georgia law, product liability claims may be brought against manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of defective products when those defects cause injury.

Georgia recognizes three primary categories of product defects: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects (failure to warn). Ben’s investigation will focus on whether the pallet jack’s brake and safety system suffered from a design or manufacturing defect, or whether the equipment lacked adequate safety warning.

Ben is also evaluating whether third-party maintenance providers or component part manufacturers may share liability. Georgia law permits multiple entities in the supply and maintenance chain to be held accountable if their actions contributed to the defect, or if they failed to identify and correct a known hazard before it caused injury.

This case highlights the serious dangers posed by malfunctioning powered industrial equipment and the critical importance of reliable braking and safety mechanisms in warehouse environments.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Ben Keen and he will be glad to work with you.

Class Action Litigation

Volkswagen-Audi EA888 2.0-Liter Turbocharged Engine Class Action Lawsuit Filed

Beasley Allen, along with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C., represent plaintiffs and class members in a proposed class action lawsuit against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc., filed in the District of New Jersey on January 23, 2026. Plaintiffs assert claims against defendants for breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent omission and for violations of various state consumer protection statutes.

As alleged in plaintiffs’ class action complaint, defendants designed, manufactured, sold and leased 2.0-liter turbocharged engines with defective piston rings, which allow excessive oil to enter the combustion chamber where it burns, causing carbon buildup, positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) system failure, crankcase over-pressurization, and damage to engine components such as engine seals, oil pan, and spark plugs, resulting in misfires, rough running, power loss, and possible engine failure.

The engines are installed in some of defendants’ most popular Volkswagen and Audi models: 2018–2021 Volkswagen Tiguan, model year 2018–2023 Volkswagen Atlas, model year 2018–2022 Volkswagen Passat, model year 2018–2024 Volkswagen Jetta GLI, 2018–present Audi Q3, Audi Q5, and Audi Q7 vehicles.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants knew of the defect as early as 2017, based on its pre-release design and testing of the engines, consumer complaints of the defect reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), warranty claims for repairs associated with the defect, and defendants’ technical service bulletins acknowledging the defect.

Neither defendants have recalled the class vehicles for the defect, nor have defendants determined its root cause or offered an extended warranty for all class vehicles. Instead, defendants issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) acknowledging excessive oil consumption and crankcase over-pressurization for certain class vehicles’ engines, but they do not provide a remedy for the defect.

The plaintiffs and the proposed classes are represented by Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin and Trent Mann of Beasley Allen, along with James Cecchi and Caroline Bartlett of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Brody & Agnello, P.C.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

The Volkswagen-Audi Engine case is Reece, et al., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et al. and is filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Preliminary Approval Requested In Honda Fuel Pump Class Action

A group of Honda vehicle owners has asked an Alabama federal court to give preliminary approval to a proposed settlement resolving a six-year class action lawsuit over allegedly defective fuel pumps made by Denso and installed in certain Honda vehicles.

Under the proposed settlement, Honda would extend warranty coverage for affected fuel pumps to 15 years or 150,000 miles, covering an estimated 6.2 million vehicles nationwide, including both previously recalled vehicles and others that were not part of earlier recalls.

Owners whose vehicles are already outside those limits would still be eligible for coverage for 90 days after final approval, with replacement pumps covered by a one-year warranty. Honda would also provide loaner vehicles when needed during repairs and allow reimbursement for qualifying out-of-pocket expenses incurred before final approval.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleged that certain Honda vehicles were equipped with Denso fuel pumps containing defective plastic impellers that could warp during normal use, potentially causing vehicles to stall while driving. The case was later consolidated with similar class actions and follows settlements involving Toyota, Subaru, and Mazda.

Beasley Allen lawyer Dee Miles, who heads up our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section and who is involved in the case, had this to say: The agreement is intended to make vehicle owners whole and would resolve the final lawsuit tied to this fuel pump issue.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dee Miles, Demet Basar, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin and Rebecca Gilliland of Beasley Allen; Adam J. Levitt, John E. Tangren and Daniel R. Ferri of DiCello Levitt LLP; Christopher A. Seeger of Seeger Weiss LLP, Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon LLP; and James E. Cecchi, Caroline F. Bartlett and Zachary S. Bower of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello.

The case is Oliver v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. et al., case number 5:20-cv-00666, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Source: Law360

Judge Gives Preliminary Approval To $72.5 Million Bank Of America Settlement Tied To Epstein Case

A federal judge in Manhattan has granted preliminary approval to a $72.5 million settlement in which Bank of America agreed to resolve claims that it facilitated Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking by ignoring red flags tied to his banking activity. U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff found the proposed settlement to be adequate. An August 27 hearing was set to consider final approval. The agreement could compensate up to 75 women, including an anonymous class representative identified as Jane Doe, an Epstein survivor who now lives in Florida.

Plaintiff Doe alleged that Bank of America maintained accounts in her name that Epstein used for trafficking-related payments and other suspicious transactions, and that the bank failed to act despite warning signs. Bank of America denied the allegations.

Judge Rakoff emphasized that the court would continue to closely review the settlement to ensure fairness, particularly because many class members are not directly involved in the proceedings. He noted that the size of the settlement appeared reasonable given the relatively small class and the fact that some victims have already received compensation through prior litigation.

The court approved the initial settlement step with only minor changes and ordered that notice be widely distributed in the United States and Eastern Europe, where some potential claimants may live.

During the hearing, one woman identifying herself as an Epstein survivor addressed the court, describing ongoing harassment. Judge Rakoff encouraged her to seek legal assistance and invited her to submit her account in writing for the court’s review.

The settlement follows a February ruling in which Judge Rakoff refused to dismiss the case, allowing it to move toward trial before the parties reached the agreement.

Plaintiff Doe is represented by David Boies and Sigrid McCawley of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, and Bradley Edwards and Brittany Henderson of Edwards Henderson LLC.

The case is Doe v. Bank of America NA, case number 1:25-cv-08520, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Hair Relaxer Litigation Update: New Medical Monitoring Class Action Filed

A significant new front has opened in the hair relaxer litigation. On March 25, 2026, a group of 11 plaintiffs representing seven different medical monitoring class actions asked Judge Rowland to certify those claims so they could proceed on a class-wide basis.

The motion argues that former hair relaxer users, who have not yet been diagnosed with cancer, still face an elevated long-term risk and should be entitled to court-supervised medical monitoring. In short, these plaintiffs are not waiting until they get sick—they want the manufacturers to pay for ongoing screening now.

This matters because it creates a potential second track in the litigation alongside the primary cancer injury claims. Plaintiffs are pushing for these claims to be resolved in a single class trial, which would separate them from the main personal injury track. No hearing date has been set yet.

Medical monitoring claims have been recognized in many jurisdictions as a valid remedy when a defendant’s conduct places a person at a measurably elevated risk of serious disease. If certified, this class could encompass a substantial number of women who used chemical hair relaxers for years but have not yet received a cancer diagnosis—potentially expanding the scope of this litigation considerably.

We will continue to monitor this development closely as briefing proceeds before Judge Rowland. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Navan Ward and he will be glad to work with you.

FDA Issues Warning Letter To Novo Nordisk Over GLP-1 Adverse Event Reporting

On March 5, 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) issued a warning letter to Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, citing serious violations of federal postmarketing adverse event reporting requirements.

The FDA concluded that Novo Nordisk failed to comply with Section 505(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and related regulations governing postmarketing adverse drug experiences (ADEs). According to the FDA, Novo Nordisk did not develop or implement adequate written procedures to ensure the timely surveillance, evaluation, investigation, and reporting of serious and unexpected adverse events associated with its products, including semaglutide and liraglutide.

The warning letter identifies multiple reporting failures. In one instance, Novo Nordisk did not submit a report involving a patient who suffered a disabling stroke while taking a GLP-1. In another, the company failed to timely report cases involving suicidal ideation and suicide in patients using semaglutide. The FDA emphasized that federal regulations require reporting of adverse events regardless of whether the reporter believes the drug caused the event.

The FDA also found that Novo Nordisk improperly rejected valid adverse event reports due to alleged missing patient identifiers, even when identifiers were available in source documents. In addition, the FDA cited delays in medical review that caused serious adverse events to miss mandatory 15-day reporting deadlines.

Although Novo Nordisk submitted multiple written responses and described corrective actions, the FDA found those responses inadequate. The FDA stated that Novo Nordisk failed to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that its actions would prevent similar violations in the future and expressed concern about systemic failures across the company’s pharmacovigilance program.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Ryan Duplechin and he will be glad to work with you.

A Year In Review – The Depo-Provera Litigation

In March, the Depo-Provera MDL located in the Northern District of Florida surpassed its first year. Since its formation, the MDL has climbed to nearly 4,000 plaintiffs, all claiming to have suffered injuries such as meningiomas, or benign brain tumors, equating to around 650 new lawsuits each month.

The hallmark of the litigation thus far was in December 2025 when the FDA approved a new warning label pertaining to these exact types of injuries. The litigation continues to move forward with supplemental briefing and general causation proceedings, which are scheduled to be fully briefed by the end of this month.

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication that 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.

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

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Roger Smith or Mary Cam Raybon and they will be glad to work with you.

Influx Of Lawsuits Continue Involving Dupixent

A Georgia woman and her husband have filed suit against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis in federal court, alleging that the companies failed to warn that Dupixent (dupilumab) could cause the development or rapid progression of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). Donareen Oakley is said to have experienced accelerated disease after receiving Dupixent injections for atopic dermatitis.

According to the complaint, the companies knew or should have known about the risk based on early case reports and growing medical literature. The plaintiffs cite a 2018 report describing CTCL following dupilumab treatment and a 2019 report showing rapid progression of mycosis fungoides, a form of CTCL.

By the end of 2024, at least 29 studies involving 124 patients allegedly documented lymphoproliferative disorders associated with dupilumab use. The suit also claims that clinicians had raised concerns with the manufacturers before publication of those studies.

Despite this information, the plaintiffs allege that Regeneron and Sanofi failed to update Dupixent’s labeling to warn physicians and patients, even though FDA regulations allow manufacturers to strengthen safety warnings without prior approval when new risks emerge.

Ms. Oakley began Dupixent treatment in July 2019 and was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides in August 2020 after nearly a year of injections. She has since required multiple cancer-related treatments. The lawsuit alleges that the lack of warnings prevented timely diagnosis and monitoring and directly contributed to her illness.

Beasley Allen lawyers Ryan Duplechin and Cade Crow continue to advocate for individuals who took Dupixent and later suffered from CTCL. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Ryan Duplechin or Cade Crow and they will be glad to work with you.

Verdict Including Punitive Damages Reached In Illinois Baby Formula NEC Trial

A Cook County jury awarded $53 million in damages to four mothers who claimed Abbott Laboratories’ preterm baby formula contributed to their infants developing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), a serious and potentially fatal gastrointestinal condition. This is the first NEC-related baby formula case to go to trial in Illinois. The $53 million was in the first phase of the trial and was for compensatory damages.

The jurors awarded compensatory damages to the four plaintiffs: Antonia Mendez ($15 million); Eboni Williams ($15 million); Casie Thompson ($7 million); and Kara Sharpe ($16 million). The awards were to compensate the families for their children’s pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of a normal life, risk of future harm, and disfigurement.

Each infant was born prematurely and later diagnosed with NEC after being fed Abbott’s Similac Special Care 24 formula at hospitals in the Chicago area. While all four children survived, they continue to experience long-term health complications, and three required bowel surgery shortly after birth.

Following the initial verdict, Cook County Judge John Ehrlich ruled that jurors would next consider punitive damages, finding sufficient evidence that Abbott’s conduct could be considered willful and wanton. The judge cited evidence showing Abbott concealed the risk of NEC associated with its formula from both the public and regulators and stated that warnings should have been placed on product labels.

In the second phase, jurors then added $17 million in punitive damages to the $53 million already awarded. This makes the total verdict $70 million.

Judge Ehrlich had sharply criticized testimony from Abbott’s expert witness, who suggested it would be “cruel” to discuss NEC risks with frightened mothers, calling the testimony astonishing and rooted in outdated assumptions about women’s ability to handle difficult information.

Abbott denied that its formula causes NEC and argued that premature birth and low birth weight were the primary risk factors. Jurors rejected those arguments.

The verdict is the latest development in thousands of similar lawsuits nationwide against Abbott and competitor Mead Johnson, maker of Enfamil. Previous jury trials have produced mixed outcomes, including verdicts exceeding $400 million. Both companies continue to face state court litigation and federal multidistrict litigation, where results have also varied.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ashley Keller, Ben Whiting, Amelia Frenkel and Jamie Price of Keller Postman LLC and Sean Grimsley, Kenzo Kawanabe, Abigail Hinchcliff and Samara Hoose of Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC.

The cases are Mendez v. Abbott Laboratories, case number 2022L005377, Williams v. Abbott Laboratories, case number 2022L005401, Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories, case number 2022L005393 and Sharpe v. Abbott Laboratories, case number 2022L005381, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Source: Law360

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Roundup Settlement Receives Preliminary Approval

A Missouri state court has granted preliminary approval to a proposed $7.25 billion national class settlement intended to resolve current and future claims arising from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) associated with Roundup exposure. The order, issued by Judge Timothy J. Boyer, pauses Missouri Roundup cases and sets a final approval hearing for July 9, 2026. Class members will have until June 4, to opt out or object.

The settlement seeks to create up to a 21-year compensation program covering individuals already diagnosed with NHL after Roundup exposure, as well as those who used Roundup in the past and may develop NHL in the future.

While the proposed settlement represents a major structural step toward resolving Roundup litigation, it is expected to face objections and legal challenges on the path to final approval. One of the most significant issues is whether a class settlement can lawfully bind individuals who have no present injury, no existing claim, and no reason to know they must opt out now to preserve their rights. Courts have historically scrutinized such attempts closely.

This tentative class settlement—its benefits and its concerns—is developing against a shifting legal backdrop. That includes a case the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear. Durnell v. Monsanto is a case with potentially far-reaching implications for federal preemption, including whether state-law failure-to-warn claims are barred by federal pesticide-labeling rules. The appeal was being heard as this issue went to the printer.

A ruling for Monsanto could sharply limit or even eliminate future Roundup litigation nationwide by closing off state-law pathways that have historically supported these claims. A ruling against Monsanto would preserve those pathways but would not change the fact that millions of consumers may be swept into a class settlement that could significantly compromise their potential recovery.

Beasley Allen lawyers will continue to monitor developments closely. Rhon Jones, Wesley Merillat, and Elizabeth Walden are involved in all aspects of this litigation and are available to work with other lawyers on potential claims. They are also available to answer any questions about the litigation or the class settlement. If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have one of the lawyers respond to you.

PFAS Water Systems Updates

Beasley Allen represents a number of public water systems that have been contaminated with PFAS. As discussed in the March report, the case for Centre, Alabama was recently settled, but many more are ongoing in different stages of litigation.

Notably, the Town of Pine Hill has a case with oral arguments in front of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. These arguments were set to take place on May 5, 2026. The issue before the court is whether federal officer removal is appropriate in certain PFAS cases. Federal officer removal allows a case to be removed if a defendant in a case is a federal officer or if they were acting under the direction of a federal officer.

The decision in this case will have far reaching impacts. Recently, defendants in PFAS cases have successfully transferred water system cases into the AFFF Multi-District Litigation (MDL) after the cases were removed from state court under federal officer removal. If the Eleventh Circuit holds that these cases should not have been removed to federal court, the cases will then be transferred back to the state court in which they were originally filed.

A Northwest Georgia PFAS Case

Beasley Allen represents numerous property owners with PFAS contamination in Northwest Georgia. Dalton, Georgia is known as the “Carpet Capital of the World.” PFAS is a class of chemicals that make carpet stain resistant, among other things. PFAS chemicals have been linked to numerous health issues. Alarmingly, once they are in the environment, these chemicals are extremely difficult to get rid of and they degrade extremely slowly. This slow breakdown process has led to them being dubbed “forever chemicals.”

Defendants in these cases include both the chemical companies that designed and sold forever chemicals as well as the companies that used the chemicals.

In one ongoing case in Gordon County, Georgia, Beasley Allen is currently deposing defense experts, which will wrap up in the next month. The trial for that case will take place in the spring of 2027. There are additional cases that are at various stages of the litigation process.

Thousands of acres downstream of Dalton, Georgia, have been contaminated through no fault of the owners. This contamination decreases property values and can lead to the residents being exposed to these harmful chemicals. Beasley Allen has extensive experience helping people who are facing these issues. The Beasley Allen PFAS Litigation Team consists of these lawyers: Matt Griffith, Jeff Price, Will Sutton, Elliot Bienenfeld, Connor Chase and Will Jones.

If you have questions or need help with a case involving PFAS contamination, our lawyers will be honored to have the opportunity to work with you. Contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer on the Litigation Team respond to you.

Stone’s Throw Landfill Litigation Update

Beasley Allen continues to represent both individual plaintiffs and local governmental entities arising out of operations at the Stone’s Throw Landfill and the resulting impacts on surrounding properties and communities in Tallapoosa County, Alabama.

The cases are currently proceeding through the discovery phase. The parties have actively exchanged written discovery, and depositions of key witnesses—including corporate representatives and relevant third-party entities. Ongoing discovery efforts are focused on landfill operations; waste acceptance practices; regulatory compliance; leachate collection and management; and the effects of the landfill’s operations on neighboring residents, properties, and public resources. In addition, our lawyers are working closely with qualified environmental experts to further develop the evidentiary record as these matters progress toward trial.

The courts have set trial dates that reflect the scope and complexity of the litigation. A trial involving claims brought by a local property owner is currently scheduled for the fall of 2026. A separate trial, which includes claims brought on behalf of local governmental entities, is set for the spring of 2027. These trial settings provide a clear framework for completing discovery, expert development, and dispositive and evidentiary motions.

Beasley Allen remains fully committed to aggressively pursuing these cases on behalf of those harmed by the landfill’s operations and to keeping impacted communities informed as the litigation progresses. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this matter, would like additional information about the current posture of these cases, or are experiencing problems with a landfill in your community. Contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have one of the lawyers on the Litigation Team respond to you.

EPA Puts Microplastics On The Radar – What It Means For Water Utilities

The EPA took a historic step on April 2 by including microplastics as a priority contaminant group in its draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List under the Safe Drinking Water Act—a first for the program. Pharmaceuticals were also added as a priority group. The announcement coincided with the launch of STOMP (Systematic Targeting Of MicroPlastics), a $144 million federal research initiative focused on measuring and removing microplastics from the human body.

What This Means for Utilities

A Contaminant Candidate listing signals that the EPA considers a substance worthy of further study and potential future regulation, but it does not impose any immediate requirements on water systems. No new monitoring mandates, treatment standards, or compliance deadlines accompany this action. The draft list is open for a 60-day public comment period and is expected to be finalized by late 2026.

Historically, the EPA has rarely moved from Contaminant Candidate listing to enforceable standards, and advocates have noted the process could take a decade or longer. However, several governors and environmental groups are separately pushing to add microplastics to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which would require utilities to begin collecting data much sooner.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

Update On The TES Litigation

Beasley Allen is currently investigating cases involving Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome (TES), which is the clinical criteria used to diagnose suspected Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) in living patients. CTE is a progressive neurodegenerative disease associated with repetitive head impacts, including those sustained in contact sports. CTE symptoms include cognitive decline, behavioral changes, memory loss, and aggression.

If you or a family member has been diagnosed with TES, has suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI), or sustained multiple concussions while playing collegiate athletics, our litigation team is available to help you. Beasley Allen lawyers Gavin King, Elizabeth Walden, Sarah Grace Strength, and Will Jones comprise the Litigation Team handling these cases.

If you have questions or need help with a TES case, contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have one of the lawyers on the litigation team respond to you.

The Invisible Threat Next Door: Ethylene Oxide And The Fight For Accountability

Ethylene oxide (EtO) has long been used to sterilize medical devices and equipment, but mounting evidence—and a wave of litigation—has exposed the serious health risks this invisible, odorless gas poses to people in surrounding communities. Since the EPA reclassified EtO as a known human carcinogen in 2016, thousands of claims have been filed across the country against sterilization facilities and chemical manufacturers.

The litigation landscape continues to evolve rapidly. Cases are now active in multiple states, including Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, and others. In Illinois alone, litigation against Sterigenics resulted in a landmark $363 million jury verdict for a single plaintiff and a $408 million settlement covering hundreds of claimants.

In Georgia, claims tied to the Sterigenics facility in Smyrna continue to move forward, with cases going to trial and new claims still being identified in the Metro Atlanta area. Meanwhile, the EPA’s 2024 emissions regulations face uncertainty after the current administration extended compliance deadlines for some facilities.

Plaintiffs in these cases allege that companies knowingly released hazardous levels of EtO into the air without warning nearby residents, many of whom have since been diagnosed with breast cancer, leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other serious illnesses.

Do You Have a Potential EtO Case?

If you are working with clients who lived or worked near a commercial sterilization facility and have been diagnosed with cancer or another EtO-linked illness, and you have questions or need help with a case, Beasley Allen is available to work with you. Our lawyers are actively evaluating ethylene oxide exposure cases. They are available to discuss potential referral or co-counsel opportunities. Contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section who is handling these cases respond to you.

An Update On The Merck Litigation

Beasley Allen and the firm of Malone Law have filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of an Albany family against pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. The case involves allegations that toxic exposure from Merck’s former Flint River Plant led to brain cancer diagnoses in two sisters, Saville and Lilia Sullivan.

The Flint River Plant operated from 1952 until 2007 and was demolished in 2011. The EPA and Georgia’s Environmental Protection Division have confirmed that Merck released chemicals, including toluene and dichloromethane, at levels sufficient to negatively affect the surrounding soils and groundwater. In the complaint it’s alleged that the Flint River Plant’s manufacturing process involved other hazardous chemicals, such as benzene, formaldehyde, aniline, cyanide, and ethyl acetate.

Colleen Sullivan, the mother of Saville and Lilia, worked at the plant for 12 years, during which time she became pregnant with both daughters, Saville in 1997 and Lilia in 1999. Sixteen years later, both sisters were diagnosed with pediatric brain cancers within three weeks of each other. Saville tragically passed away in October 2023 after her cancer returned.

The complaint accuses Merck of releasing several carcinogenic chemicals into the environment, including substances especially harmful to pregnant women and unborn children. In response, Merck filed a motion to dismiss the case on procedural grounds. The parties are currently waiting for a decision from the federal court.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Will Sutton, one of the Beasley Allen lawyers handling the case, and he will be glad to work with you.

The case is Chandler Lark and Colleen Sullivan, et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC and Merck & Co., Inc., case number 1:25-cv-00136 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The Future Of Paraquat: State-Level Phase-Outs And What They Mean For Syngenta

As 2026 unfolds, both the regulatory landscape and ongoing Paraquat litigation continue to shift. Meaningful steps are needed to restrict or phase out the herbicide amid the backdrop of a multi-billion-dollar settlement. We will take a look at several states.

Vermont

Under H.739, Vermont would largely ban the sale and use of paraquat, with limited exceptions. The Secretary may issue permits only for use in fruit-producing tree orchards through November 1, 2030. Certified applicators must also complete all required EPA and state training within one year prior to receiving a permit, reflecting a tightly controlled, phased approach.

Minnesota

Minnesota’s phase-out is proceeding in two stages. Beginning January 27, 2027, HF 3965 would prohibit the sale and distribution of paraquat. Effective January 1, 2028, it would further ban its application. The law also requires the Commissioner of Agriculture to report to legislative committees on paraquat use over time and its status within the pesticide supply chain.

California

Effective April 10, 2026, Syngenta voluntarily canceled registration of its paraquat product, Gramoxone SL 3.0, in California—the largest user of paraquat in the U.S. (over five million pounds applied between 2017–2021). The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will reevaluate risks using updated data, consistent with Assembly Bill 1963.

DPR-licensed dealers may continue selling existing stock through April 1, 2028. This cancellation applies only to Syngenta’s product and does not impact paraquat-containing products registered by other manufacturers.

These state-level actions reflect a primary goal, eventual phase-out of paraquat in key jurisdictions. For Syngenta, these developments, coupled with ongoing litigation, present both legal and commercial challenges as the future of paraquat becomes increasingly uncertain.

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Toxic Torts Section are available to answer any questions or to work with other lawyers in their cases. Contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

Sources: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Vermont General Assembly, Minnesota Legislature

Delaware Court Dismisses Over 80,000 Zantac Cancer Lawsuits

A Delaware state court has dismissed more than 80,000 lawsuits alleging that the discontinued heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer. The ruling applies to cases filed before December and follows a Delaware Supreme Court decision that excluded the plaintiffs’ expert testimony on general causation.

The litigation began after the FDA announced a probable link between cancer and ranitidine, Zantac’s active ingredient. But in July, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court ruling and held that plaintiffs’ experts failed to properly connect the drug itself to specific cancers.

Superior Court Judge Francis J. Jones Jr. ruled that prior case-management orders made clear that any general causation decision would apply to all cases—not just a small group of bellwether cases. He rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the orders were ambiguous, noting that plaintiffs had previously acknowledged that an adverse causation ruling would lead to dismissal of tens of thousands of cases.

As a result, the court dismissed all affected cases with prejudice. The decision follows multiple defense verdicts in Zantac jury trials and earlier rulings dismissing additional claims as time-barred.

It was no surprise that Boehringer Ingelheim welcomed the decision. Sanofi said it has resolved most of its remaining cases through settlements without admitting liability and will continue to defend any remaining claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by John J. Snidow of Keller Postman LLC, Raeann Warner of Collins Price Warner Woloshin, Bernard G. Conaway of Conaway Legal LLC, Patrick C. Gallagher of Jacobs and Crumplar PA, and Joseph J. Roades and Stephen T. Morrow of Rhoades and Morrow LLC.

The case is In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Litigation, case number N22C-09-101 ZAN, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.

Source: Law360

Albertsons Reaches $773 Million Settlement Over Opioid Claims

Albertsons Cos. Inc. has agreed in principle to pay $773 million to resolve opioid-related claims brought by states, local governments, and Native American tribes. A joint announcement was made last month by the company and Attorneys General from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the settlement follows negotiations with a coalition of states and would provide funds to eligible states and local governments, though key terms—including potential injunctive relief—are still being finalized. Albertsons noted that the agreement does not include an admission of wrongdoing and said the company remains committed to patient safety and responsible pharmacy practices.

This settlement is one of many nationwide settlements aimed at addressing the opioid crisis, which has generated more than $50 billion in recoveries from drugmakers, distributors, and pharmacies. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul said the agreement builds on prior settlements intended to support ongoing efforts to combat opioid addiction.

In Colorado, settlement funds will be distributed under an existing framework requiring the money to be used for opioid treatment, recovery, prevention, and harm reduction programs, according to Attorney General Phil Weiser.

Source: Law360

Saraland Arbitration Update

Beasley Allen has filed an arbitration demand on behalf of the City of Saraland. The dispute arises from the construction of The Land Sportsplex. There have been numerous delays and budget overages throughout the life of the project. Additionally, the presence of toxic substances was missed during a critical site evaluation. These factors have combined to cause Saraland to spend much more than originally anticipated. The city is seeking to recover damages based on the increases in costs and the costs associated with having to extend the project.

The City of Saraland is represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Matt Griffith and Connor Chase. If you have questions or need help with a case involving a construction dispute, contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section, and she will have a lawyer in the Section respond to you.

CONSUMER CORNER

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall Cracks Down On Kratom Sales And Use In The State

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall issued direct warnings last month to Alabama store owners not to sell Kratom, a substance banned in the state since 2016. Throughout Alabama, there have been growing concerns that Kratom is returning to shelves in improperly labeled products. 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.

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

According to the Attorney General, independent lab testing shows Kratom has resurfaced in Alabama through products that may not clearly disclose their contents. He had this to say: What we discovered through independent lab testing is that Kratom has made its way back to Alabama through improperly labeled products.

The Attorney General also remarked that Kratom was once a substitute for opioids like heroin and fentanyl for people who could not access them legally, contributing to its ban.

The Attorney General’s office is now sending cease-and-desist letters to businesses selling Kratom. Additionally, doctors in Alabama are urging people who may have purchased a product containing Kratom to stop using it immediately. Consumers can also contact their local health department or the Attorney General’s office to report sales.

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

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients 

Beasley Allen is organized in a structure that benefits the clients we represent. The firm operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked extremely well for the firm. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients. Lawyers have also brought 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/). The following are the current case activity listings for the Beasley Allen Litigation Sections.

Practices

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

Cases

The cases in the categories listed below are handled by lawyers in the appropriate Litigation Section at Beasley Allen. The list can be found on our homepage, on the top navigation, or on the Cases page of our website (BeasleyAllen.com/Recent-Cases/).

• Acetaminophen
• Auto Accidents
• Auto Defect Class Actions
• Auto Products
• Aviation Accidents
• Camp Lejeune
• Defective Tires
• Depo-Provera
• Dupixent
• Hair Relaxers
• Kratom
• NEC Baby Formula
• Negligent Security
• On-the-Job-Injuries
• Ozempic
• Paraquat
• Premises Liability
• Roblox
• Roundup
• Social Media
• Talcum Powder
• Truck Accidents
• Ultra-Processed Foods
• Video Game Addiction

We will give a brief explanation below for each of the listed categories:

• Acetaminophen
  Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases of mothers who took acetaminophen while pregnant and gave birth to a child later diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Cases also include children treated with the drug during the first 18 months of life who developed autism or ADHD.
• Auto Accidents
  Our firm handles life-altering and deadly automobile accident cases caused by defective products and driver negligence. Crashes may involve single vehicles, multiple vehicles, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, transit vehicles or trucks.
• Auto Defect Class Actions
  Our team pursues auto manufacturers and their suppliers for vehicle defects that create safety risks for occupants and others on the road. We seek to correct defects not addressed by recalls or warranty extensions through class action litigation.
• Auto Products
  Beasley Allen lawyers will meticulously investigate your auto accident, examine vehicles for defects or product liability issues, identify responsible parties, file lawsuits, manage legal documents, and strive to maximize your compensation.
• Aviation Accidents
  Our firm’s lawyers investigate aviation accidents resulting from mechanical failures, human error, and other causes. Crashes injure hundreds, sometimes thousands, of victims onboard aircraft and on the ground every year.
• Camp Lejeune
  Beasley Allen handles cases of victims exposed to contaminated water supplies at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987. Exposure to toxic water caused serious injuries, including cancer, adult leukemia, Parkinson’s disease, major cardiac birth defects and others.
• Defective Tires
  Defective tires can lead to automobile accidents resulting in injury or even death. Beasley Allen lawyers investigate these accidents caused by blowouts, tread separation and other tire failures.
• Depo-Provera
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral meningiomas.
• Dupixent
  We are investigating the link between Dupixent and Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL)—a group of rare blood cancers that affects the largest organ in your body—your skin.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our firm’s lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, or endometrial cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Lawyers in our firm investigate cases of premature babies who developed necrotizing enterocolitis after consuming infant formulas manufactured by brands like Enfamil and Similac. Necrotizing enterocolitis is an intestinal disease that can lead to long-term complications and even death.
• Negligent Security
  Negligent security lawsuits occur when property owners fail to provide adequate security, putting visitors at risk of violent crimes like assault, robbery, or worse. Beasley Allen lawyers handle cases holding owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  Beasley Allen lawyers investigate workers’ compensation cases, often finding that defective industrial products are to blame for workers’ injuries or deaths. Quite often, the incident results in a product liability case. Industrial products include manufacturing, farming, construction or other types of equipment.
• Ozempic
  Our firm investigates cases of gastroparesis, intestinal obstruction, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism related to the use of diabetes and weight loss drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro.
• Paraquat
  Beasley Allen handles cases for victims injured by paraquat, a popular herbicide linked to Parkinson’s Disease that has been banned or partially banned in at least 92 countries. Paraquat remains legal in the U.S., risking the health and safety of workers on over 2 million U.S. farms.
• Premises Liability
  We investigate cases every day where negligence from property owners or occupiers has created dangerous conditions. Catastrophic premises cases involve serious injuries that occur on someone else’s property. These cases can take many forms, and while the laws might vary from state to state, we are experienced in helping clients seek justice in these situations.
• Roblox
  We are investigating claims involving online and in-person harm for children who have encountered adult predators on Roblox and/or Discord. These platforms put profits over children’s safety by failing to protect children from adult predators.
• Roundup
  We’re taking new Roundup cancer cases. If you used Roundup and later developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma or another blood cancer, you may be eligible for a claim.
• Social Media
  Our youth are facing a mental health crisis caused by social media addiction. Beasley Allen advocates for these youth who have suffered harms, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, body dysmorphia, ADD/ADHD, self-harm and suicide. This litigation is rapidly increasing in volume and seriousness.
• Talcum Powder
  Beasley Allen handles cases for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer after regular use of talcum powder. For decades, companies like Johnson & Johnson knew that talcum powder might cause cancer but failed to warn consumers.
• Truck Accidents
  Our firm handles accident cases involving tractor-trailers, commercial vehicles and other large trucks. These cases often involve multiple, well-funded defendants and complex insurance issues.
• Ultra-Processed Foods
  Beasley Allen is actively investigating cases where ultra-processed foods are linked to type 2 diabetes and NAFLD, especially in individuals diagnosed before age 18.
• Video Game Addiction
  Our lawyers are investigating cases of video game addiction caused by companies intentionally designing games to be highly addictive, especially for minors, using psychological tactics.

Resources to Help Your Practice

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

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter

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

Recalls Update

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

The Jere Beasley Report

We 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

Larry Golston, a lawyer in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, who has been described by many as “a tremendous talent in the courtroom,” gives us some trial tips this month on the critically important phase of any jury trial, jury selection. Let’s see what Larry has for us.

Practice Tip: Jury Selection

Despite the common reference to “jury selection” most trial lawyers know that the process is truly one of jury de-selection. In reality, rather than actively choosing favorable jurors, attorneys use voir dire to identify and remove individuals with biases, unfavorable attitudes, or life experiences that make them unsuitable to sit on the case. By sorting out those who are unsuitable the lawyer selects men and women who he or she believes can be persuaded to return a verdict in their client’s favor.

If the plaintiff’s trial lawyer picks the right jury, winning is probable, but defeat is still possible given the multitude of things that can happen in trial between the completion of jury selection and the jury returning a verdict. However, if the plaintiff’s lawyer selects the wrong jury the lawyer can never win the case no matter how brilliant he or she might be during the rest of the trial. Consequently, given its critical nature, jury selection is perhaps the most important part of any trial. Here are 7 tips to help select the right jury and avoid selecting the wrong one.

1. Decide First: Liability Jury or Damages Jury
   Jury selection begins with a strategic choice: Do you want jurors most likely to find liability, jurors most likely to maximize damages or both? Because winning is the first goal, it’s important that during the de-selection process you prioritize jurors who can find a defendant liable as your highest priority. A low dollar verdict is better than a “no dollar” verdict. Maximizing damages can also be accomplished by determining which jurors are most receptive to the plaintiff’s story.
2. Jurors Decide by Story—So Select for Story Receptivity
   Jurors think in narrative form. Facts do not persuade on their own and jurors don’t weigh evidence like judges—they assess plausibility, fairness, and moral alignment through a narrative story and drama. During voir dire, look for jurors who follow causal chains (“this led to that”), can emotionally track harm, and understand responsibility without needing villains. Jurors decide cases through story, not data. During jury selection, look for jurors who can emotionally grasp the plaintiff’s narrative.
3. Favor Thoughtful, Ordinary People—Not Activists or Crusaders
   Avoid potential jurors who take moral certainty to an extreme. Identify jurors who are comfortable with nuance, open to expert testimony, and willing to deliberate patiently. Avoid jurors who announce fixed ideological views, want to “send a message,” or treat jury service as activism. Jurors do not enter the courtroom as blank slates. Focus on uncovering jurors’ lived experiences—especially their attitudes toward authority, empathy, and institutions—rather than trying to “educate” them during voir dire. Remember to be wary of ideologues and absolutists.
4. Rapport First, Expose Beliefs Gently Second
   Always be yourself. Build rapport with warmth, a calm tone, and a conversational style. Do not interrogate potential jurors, rather invite discussion. This human-first approach reduces juror defensiveness and encourages candor, especially on sensitive issues. Use a style of conversation that elicits open-ended questions, permission-giving language, and lets jurors talk themselves into candor.
5. Let Jurors Disqualify Themselves
   Rather than aggressively seeking jurors to strike, frame questions in a way that allows jurors to realize—on their own—that they might struggle to be fair. This reduces resentment and avoids alienating the remaining panel. There are truly no right or wrong answers to a prospective juror’s views or beliefs on a given topic. If a potentially favorable juror says something that might invoke a challenge for cause, do your best to rehabilitate the person. However, let potential jurors align themselves as they see fit and be prepared to strike for cause or use a peremptory strike as the situation warrants.
6. Listen With Your Eyes as Much as Your Ears
   Pay close attention to nonverbal communication during voir dire—tone shifts, hesitation, eye contact, posture. What jurors don’t say often matters more than what they do. Be sure that during voir dire you get every person in the venire to answer or respond to a few questions that you ask. Enlist at least two other people to help you during jury selection so that while you are conversating with the potential jurors, others can focus entirely on juror responses and behavior.
7. Voir Dire Is Proof Without Evidence
   Voir dire is the only time in a trial that a lawyer can directly communicate with and “persuade” jurors based on beliefs, attitudes, gut feelings and emotions rather than with admissible evidence. Use voir dire to establish credibility, the theme of your case, and a moral framework. Don’t argue your case in voir dire, rather help jurors understand how to think about the case before facts and evidence are introduced.

SPECIAL RECOGNITIONS

Chris Glover Recognized As One Of Daily Report’s 2026 Distinguished Leaders

Chris Glover, Managing Attorney of our Atlanta Office, has been named one of the 2026 Southeastern Legal Awards Distinguished Leaders, an honor presented by The Daily Report recognizing attorneys and legal professionals who demonstrate exceptional leadership, integrity, and impact within the legal profession. Chris will be formally honored at an awards ceremony on May 7, alongside other distinguished leaders from across the Southeast.

A respected trial lawyer and firm leader, Chris has been involved in a number of significant matters over the past year that reflect both legal skill and a deep commitment to clients. In addition to trial work, Chris has played a key leadership role within Beasley Allen, helping grow the firm in our Atlanta office by welcoming two new attorneys and surpassing internal marketing goals by more than 50 percent over the past year. When asked about the most important elements of leadership in the legal profession, Chris emphasized integrity, character, and perseverance. He added:

You can’t lead once character and integrity are lost. Perseverance is the key to success in any area. Talent and intelligence are critical, but they’re always trumped by perseverance.

That mindset also guides Chris’ approach to navigating challenges. He says the key to surviving a work crisis is continuing to engage with the problem rather than backing away from it. Chris says:

You never quit, and you keep digging for the solution. You may not see the way through immediately, but continuing to work the problem will show the path forward.

Chris also shared advice for aspiring legal professionals, encouraging young lawyers to make themselves indispensable through consistent effort, positivity, and excellence in their work. He stressed the importance of mastering the fundamentals, being a supportive presence within a firm, and taking initiative—particularly when it comes to building and marketing a practice—while remaining humble along the way.

The Distinguished Leaders recognition reflects Chris’ steady leadership, commitment to clients, and lasting impact on both Beasley Allen and the broader legal community. We are blessed to have Chris in a key leadership role in the firm.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Angela Frazier

Angie Frazier has been with Beasley Allen for over 21 years. She works in the firm’s Operations Department as a Senior Receptionist. In her role, Angie is often the first point of contact for clients, lawyers, and other callers, helping ensure they are greeted professionally and directed to the appropriate person or department. Angie is known for her patience, professionalism, and willingness to assist, whether answering questions, transferring calls, or offering support wherever needed. Her calm and courteous approach helps set the tone for every interaction with the firm.

Outside of work, Angie is deeply family-oriented. She has been married to her husband, Gary, for 46 years, and together they have three children and eight grandchildren ranging in age from infancy to young adulthood. Much of Angie’s time is spent attending her grandchildren’s sporting events and cheering on her son at his softball games. She also enjoys family game nights, shared meals, and quality time together. In addition, Angie looks forward to weekly “sister days,” which may include sewing, yard work, shopping, or simply enjoying time outdoors together.

Angie says what she enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen is the people. She appreciates the supportive, kind atmosphere and the teamwork that allows everyone to work together toward serving clients and achieving shared goals.

Angie is a dedicated employee who does an excellent job in a position that many say is “difficult.” We are blessed to have Angie at Beasley Allen.

Lauren Garner

Lauren Garner, who has been with Beasley Allen for nearly three years, currently serves as an Intake Specialist supporting the firm’s Toxic Torts Section. In her role, Lauren is often the first point of contact for individuals reaching out to the firm. She gathers critical information, evaluates potential claims, and helps ensure high-potential cases are efficiently routed to the legal team. As the “face” of the firm for many callers, Lauren’s role requires compassion, accuracy, and the ability to navigate sensitive, high-stakes situations with care.

Outside of work, Lauren has a full and busy household. She is a mom of two, including a 10-year-old daughter and an eight-month-old baby. In her free time, Lauren enjoys home décor projects—currently inspired by an ’80s Miami aesthetic—as well as wellness, fitness, and thrifting.

What Lauren says she enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen is the opportunity for professional growth. She appreciates how the firm has helped shape her skills, expand her knowledge of the legal field, and support her long-term career goals in a challenging and meaningful environment.

Lauren is an asset to our firm. She does excellent work in an important position. We are fortunate to have her with us.

Tyner Helms

Tyner Helms joined Beasley Allen in 2017. He is a Principal in the firm’s Consumer Fraud and Commercial Litigation Section. His practice includes termite damage, whistleblower matters, class actions, and business litigation. Tyner was drawn to this area of law because it aligns closely with his values and belief in the pursuit of justice, particularly when representing clients who have experienced financial harm due to the unlawful actions of others.

Tyner finds purpose in advocating for individuals and groups who might otherwise lack the resources to challenge misconduct. He values the responsibility that comes with representing clients in complex litigation.

Tyner enjoys the problem-solving aspects of his work and the opportunity to help clients navigate difficult legal situations. He appreciates cases that require strategic thinking, collaboration, and persistence, and he takes pride in contributing meaningfully to outcomes that can make a lasting difference for those affected.

Away from the office, Tyner and his wife, Caitlin, live in Birmingham with their two children, John Paul and Birdie. He enjoys spending time with his family, playing golf—a hobby he has enjoyed since middle school—reading, and staying engaged with current events. Tyner also values service to the legal and local community, remaining active in professional organizations and community initiatives.

Tyner says what he appreciates most about Beasley Allen is the firm’s mission-driven culture and shared commitment to standing on the side of justice in every case. He does excellent work and is totally committed to his clients and to the pursuit of justice for them. We are fortunate to have Tyner at Beasley Allen.

Amber Killough

Amber Killough began her journey at Beasley Allen in 2014. She currently serves as a Paralegal in the firm’s Mass Torts section, where she works under the direction of the section’s lawyers. In her role, Amber is assigned to various litigations, including GLP-1, Depo-Provera, and Infant Formula, while also assisting with other matters as needed. Her day-to-day work includes preparing reports, supporting legal filings, and reviewing medical records—ensuring cases move forward efficiently and accurately.

Outside of work, Amber is the proud mother of triplets—Kolby, Zach, and Morgan—who are 30 years old and “living their best lives.” She is also a doting grandmother to her nearly one-year-old granddaughter, Hailey Jeanne, and happily answers to the name “Honey.” Family plays a central role in Amber’s life, including her close relationship with her mother. In her spare time, she enjoys crocheting through her small business, Twisted With Love, singing at home, thrift-store hunting (especially for vinyl records), and hosting lively game nights.

What Amber says she enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s genuine commitment to its clients and employees alike. She values being part of a workplace that treats people with care, respect, and purpose—making her proud to be part of the Beasley Allen team.

Amber understands how important the work of a paralegal is in every civil case. Amber recognizes that importance and diligently carries out her responsibilities in all of her cases. She is a hard worker and does excellent work. We are fortunate to have Amber at Beasley Allen.

Brittany Scott

Brittany Scott has been with Beasley Allen for more than a decade. Having joined the firm’s Atlanta office in 2014, she is a Principal in the Mass Torts Section. Her practice focuses on litigation involving talcum powder and infant formula, where she works closely with other Mass Torts lawyers to evaluate complex legal and medical issues.

Brittany says she was drawn to mass tort law because it allows her to combine her interests in healthcare and advocacy, particularly in identifying gaps within the healthcare system that can cause harm to individuals.

Brittany brings a thoughtful, detail-oriented approach to her work and places a strong emphasis on accuracy and careful analysis—an essential component of effective mass tort litigation.

Beyond her legal responsibilities, Brittany enjoys quieter, creative pursuits such as baking and reading, often spending that time with her husband. She values the ability to step away from her work to recharge and maintain balance.

What Brittany says she appreciates the most about working at Beasley Allen is the firm’s culture and values. She values an environment that supports both professional growth and personal priorities, allowing her to pursue a rewarding legal career while maintaining balance and fulfillment outside the office.

Brittany is a talented lawyer who does excellent work. She is totally dedicated to the clients she serves. We are fortunate to have Brittany with us.

Favorite Bible Verses

In this month’s issue, one of our lawyers and several staff members who are being featured share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Angela Frazier

Angela said it was hard to narrow it down to her favorite, but that this verse reminds her that God has given us the bible to learn from and to read to our children, and that we should seek his guidance in everything we do.

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

Amber Killough

Amber offers three of her favorite verses! The first reminds her that we cannot do this life alone.

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

The second verse reminds her to surround yourself with like-minded people.

Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm. Proverbs 13:20

The final verse is also from Proverbs. Amber says, “Integrity is who you are when no one is looking.”

Better the poor whose walk is blameless than the rich whose ways are perverse. Proverbs 28:6

Tyner Helms

Tyner shares three of his favorite verses with us.

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galatians 2:20

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8

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

Lauren Garner

Lauren’s favorite verse is from Proverbs. She says it’s because staying strong and diligent are the goals!

She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. Proverbs 31:25

CLOSING OBSERVATIONS

Landmark Verdicts Shape High-Stakes Litigation in 2026

So far in 2026, juries have delivered several headline-making verdicts in major product liability, premises safety, wildfire, and technology cases. From social media addiction claims against Meta and Google to bellwether verdicts involving baby formula, wildfires, and ridesharing assaults, these outcomes are helping shape litigation strategies nationwide. Below are key verdicts and developments to date.

Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta and Google

In late March, juries returned back-to-back verdicts against Meta Platforms Inc. and Google in cases alleging that addictive social media design features harm young users. On March 25, a California state jury found Meta and Google liable for negligently designing their platforms and failing to warn users about the risks. The jury awarded a plaintiff identified as K.G.M. $3 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages, concluding that the platforms substantially harmed her mental health.

The case focused on platform features such as algorithms, notifications, and infinite scroll—not user-generated content, which was shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified, denying that social media addiction exists.

One day earlier, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million following claims by the state’s attorney general that the company concealed evidence showing its apps harmed minors and failed to protect young users from sexual exploitation and harmful content.

These verdicts come as thousands of similar cases remain pending, with the first federal bellwether trial scheduled to begin in June.

First Illinois Baby Formula Verdict Against Abbott

In April, a Cook County jury awarded a combined $70 million to four mothers whose premature infants developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after being fed Abbott Laboratories’ Similac Special Care 24 formula.

The verdict included $17 million in punitive damages. Jurors found Abbott liable for negligence, failure to warn, and product defects. The infants survived but suffered long-term consequences, with three requiring surgery.

Abbott argued that its formula does not cause NEC and that prematurity and low birth weight were to blame, but jurors were unpersuaded. Plaintiffs testified they would not have consented to the formula had they been informed of the risks.

Oregon Wildfire Verdicts and Appellate Reversal

Litigation stemming from the Labor Day 2020 Oregon wildfires has produced nearly $1 billion in jury awards across multiple trials. However, on April 8, an Oregon appellate court reversed a 2023 liability verdict against PacifiCorp due to a flawed jury instruction, sending the case back to the trial court.

Despite the reversal, juries have continued returning large verdicts. On April 13, a jury awarded $14.5 million to 11 fire survivors. Earlier March verdicts included a $53.4 million award and a $34 million verdict involving multiple plaintiffs. On Feb. 26, a Multnomah County jury returned the largest verdict to date—$305 million—including punitive damages tied to the earlier liability finding.

First Federal Uber Sexual Assault Bellwether Verdict

In February, the first federal bellwether trial addressing Uber’s liability for assaults committed by drivers resulted in an $8.5 million verdict for a rider who said she was raped by her driver. An Arizona jury found the driver acted as Uber’s apparent agent, making the company vicariously liable. Jurors awarded compensatory damages but rejected punitive damages and claims that Uber was independently negligent.

A second federal bellwether trial began jury selection last month in North Carolina. The plaintiff, Brenda Mensing, alleges an Uber driver sexually assaulted her during a 2019 ride. She testified that she delayed reporting the incident out of fear she would not be believed.

Source: Law360

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

Beasley Allen Hosts Second Annual Firm Summit In Montgomery

We hosted our second annual Beasley Allen Summit last month, bringing together firm lawyers from all of our offices for three days of learning, collaboration, and connection. From all accounts the Summit was a tremendous success.

The Summit reflects how the firm has grown. What began as a single-lawyer practice in 1979 has expanded into a firm with offices across the Southeast and more than 100 lawyers working across a wide range of practice areas, including complex personal injury, product liability, mass torts, environmental, consumer protection, and business litigation.

As the firm continues to grow, the Summit serves as an opportunity to align all Beasley Allen lawyers from every office around shared values, direction, and professional development.

Throughout the multi-day event, lawyers participated in a series of sessions focused on continued learning, collaboration across practice groups, and strengthening firm-wide connections. The Summit created space for lawyers to share insights, learn from one another, and engage in conversations that extend beyond their day-to-day work. We all learned and developed by participating together over the three days.

At its core, the Beasley Allen Summit reaffirms the firm’s founding purpose: helping those who need it most.

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

This is an advertisement.