The Jere Beasley Report October 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

The U.S. Constitution: The Preamble

The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution is the introduction to our nation’s highest and most important law. The preamble does not grant specific powers to the government or define individual rights. It sets the stage for the document that follows by clearly communicating the intentions of the Framers and sets out the purpose of the Constitution itself. We need to understand the Preamble and then help to make sure the Constitution and all Amendments are honored and followed. 

The Preamble, drafted in 1787, captures the essence of the Framers’ vision for a new nation. It outlines six central objectives, which are to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for present and future generations. Let’s take a look at the wording of the Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It’s clear that each phrase of the Preamble reflects a guiding principle. It’s critically important that all Americans understand the principles. The future of America depends on it. The principles are to:

• Form a more perfect Union — strengthen national unity in the Country.

• Establish Justice — create an independent legal system.

• Insure domestic Tranquility — maintain peace in our Country.

• Provide for the common defense — protect the country from external threats.

• Promote the general Welfare — support the well-being of all citizens.

• Secure the Blessings of Liberty — preserve freedom for current and future generations.

After reading and reflecting on the Preamble, we should all take the time to review the Constitution and acknowledge that we must honor and obey its supreme authority. You may know that there were no political parties in existence when the Preamble and Constitution came into existence. At that time, it was truly “We the people.” It’s now time for the American people, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, to work for the principles set out above. 

God Bless America!

TALC LITIGATION

Talc Litigation

The court has finalized the leadership structure for settlement talks in the Johnson & Johnson talc multidistrict litigation. The court appointed a Lead Negotiation Counsel and a two-member Plaintiffs’ Negotiation Committee to direct and coordinate all aspects of mitigation. This team will lead negotiations, manage communication within the plaintiffs’ group, and keep the court informed as discussions move forward.

The first formal mediation took place on September 5, 2025, in Trenton, New Jersey, with participation required from both sides, including defense counsel who were to have full settlement authority.

Thus far, the discussions have not produced a global resolution. The court will now proceed with bellwether trials, starting with an ovarian cancer case that will serve as a key test. The trial will offer both sides a valuable read on how jurors responded to scientific evidence and testimony that are expected to be repeated in many of the remaining cases. Although individual plaintiffs remain free to litigate or settle independently, this order establishes a focused and disciplined framework to push the litigation toward resolution while keeping the pressure of trial firmly in place. Judges appear inclined to include groups of claimants as plaintiffs in cases. That is needed and will be quite helpful in moving this litigation ahead at a better pace. 

Over the past decade, Beasley Allen lawyers have tirelessly tried cases across the country, seeking justice for affected women. Our relentless pursuit of justice has led to landmark verdicts, holding Johnson & Johnson accountable. With J&J’s third fraudulent bankruptcy attempt now dismissed, we are committed to continuing our fight in the courtroom to ensure that every affected woman receives the justice and compensation she rightfully deserves.

Judge Awards $10 Million In Punitive Damagexs Against J&J Over Talc Cancer Case

In a late development, a Connecticut judge has ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $10 million in punitive damages to Evan Plotkin, a builder who claimed the company’s baby powder caused his terminal cancer. This adds to a $15 million jury award from October 2024. Judge Reed found $10 million appropriate, citing J&J on disregard for asbestos risks and deceptive marketing that emphasized product purity while ignoring health concerns.

Judge Reed found the company’s conduct to be reckless and profit-driven, with efforts to obscure asbestos contamination. He noted J&J had long known cornstarch was a safer alternative. This decision in on target. J&J needs to be punished for its conduct and disregard to safety.

Plotkin is represented by Benjamin D. Braly, Ethan A. Horn and Dana C. Simon of Dean Omar Branham Shirley LLP and Brian P. Kenney of Early Lucarelli Sweeney & Meisenkothen LLC.

The case is Plotkin et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number FBT-CV-21-6109520-S, in the Bridgeport Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Talc Litigation Team

As is quite evident, the ongoing battle with Johnson & Johnson continues. Beasley Allen has battled J&J on every front. While J&J’s fraudulent bankruptcy attempts delayed justice for thousands of victims, Beasley Allen did not back down. We will continue to fight this battle in the right way and for the right reason to the very end. I continue to believe justice will ultimately be served for the thousands of J&J victims and their families.

Beasley Allen lawyers Leigh O’Dell and Ted Meadows head our Talc Ovarian Cancer Litigation Team. From the beginning, the litigation team has been directly involved in all phases of the talc litigation. Andy Birchfield, who heads up our Mass Torts Section, has been out front in all aspects of this litigation. Andy actually became J&J’s target. He has been attacked by this huge, powerful company constantly. J&J has tried very hard to intimidate Andy and the firm, but their efforts have not worked and will not work in the future.  

This has been a tough battle, but it is a critically important and necessary one, and our lawyers do not intend to back down. Beasley Allen will continue its battle with J&J, and now it will be back in the courts. 

The following Beasley Allen lawyers are members of the Talc Litigation Team:

Leigh O’Dell, Ted Meadows, Kelli Alfreds, Ryan Beattie, Beau Darley, David Dearing, Liz Achtemeier, Jennifer Emmel, James Lampkin, Caty O’Quinn, Cristina Rodriguez, Brittany Scott, and Matt Teague.

CAMP LEJEUNE LITIGATION

Camp Lejeune Update: Settlement Process Enters Questionnaire Phase

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act settlement process is entering a pivotal new phase. Following months of coordination between the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Plaintiffs’ Leadership Group (PLG), and Court-appointed Settlement Masters, the focus is now shifting from bellwether mediations to a comprehensive questionnaire initiative aimed at informing a global resolution framework.

From Mediation to Data Collection

Earlier this year, the parties agreed to mediate 25 Track 1 bellwether cases, grouped into six categories based on shared conditions: bladder cancer, kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, and both acute and chronic forms of leukemia. These mediations are intended to help establish valuation benchmarks for individual claims.

In parallel, the parties recognized that meaningful global settlement discussions require a deeper understanding of the full spectrum of claims. To that end, a detailed questionnaire has been developed and will be completed by a randomized subset of claimants with pending administrative claims before the Navy.

Questionnaire Phase Underway

Plaintiffs have now been selected to participate, and firms have been notified. The questionnaire—set to be completed via Rubris—is designed to gather comprehensive data, including:

• The types and scope of injuries and conditions across the claimant pool;

• Time spent at Camp Lejeune, medical history, and financial impact; and 

• Information to support the development of a compensation matrix for global settlement negotiations.

This data will help both sides better understand the universe of claims and guide the creation of a fair and transparent settlement framework.

Looking Ahead

While the Settlement Masters have expressed a goal of finalizing a global settlement framework by the end of 2025, we recognize that this timeline is ambitious. The scale of the claims, the complexity of the data, and the need for coordination across agencies present real challenges. Yet, the Beasley Allen lawyers involved in the litigation remain cautiously optimistic that meaningful progress will be made.

Beasley Allen lawyers are actively engaged in driving these claims forward towards resolution.  Too many victims have waited far too long. Many victims are suffering from life-threatening conditions, and some have already passed without seeing justice.

The government must act in good faith and with urgency. Every day matters. We at Beasley Allen are committed to doing our part to ensure that this process delivers meaningful resolution—not just for our clients, but for all those impacted by the toxic exposure at Camp Lejeune.

Beasley Allen Camp Lejeune Team

The lawyers on the Camp Lejeune Litigation Team include Saima Khan, Wesley Merillat, Ryan Kral, Tucker Osborne, Travis Chin, Miland Simpler, Khadiga Carr, Connor Chase, Jeff Price, Elizabeth Walden and Elliot Bienenfeld. 

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

The lawyers on our litigation team will be honored to work with you if you need help with a claim or have questions about the litigation. You can contact Tracie Harrison, Director of our Toxic Torts Section. She will have one of the lawyers on the litigation team respond to you.

SOCIAL MEDIA LITIGATION

Social Media Litigation – Bellwether Trials

In the federal consolidated action, In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (MDL no. 3047), the court decided that the first bellwether cases brought to trial will involve school district plaintiffs, rather than personal injury plaintiffs. The trials will likely not be set for any date earlier than late 2026. 

These trials will examine social media companies’ addictive platform designs and how the resulting addictions and mental health injuries to youth caused massive monetary damages to the plaintiff school districts. The school districts allege they have suffered the cost of providing increased monitoring, crisis services, and mental health support to their students, whose education has been obstructed by defendants’ platforms.

In the California state consolidated action (JCCP no. 5255), the court scheduled three personal injury bellwether trials to occur on November 24, 2025; March 9, 2026; and May 11, 2026. These plaintiffs allege mental health and related physical injuries due to social media, such as social media addiction, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide attempts. 

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury Litigation Team, is Co-Lead counsel for the JCCP and serves as State/Federal Liaison in the federal MDL. Beasley Allen lawyers Jennifer Emmel, Davis Vaughn, Soo Seok Yang, James Lampkin, Clinton Richardson, Sydney Everett, Seth Harding, Slade Methvin, and Suzanne Clark are conducting extensive work for the JCCP and MDL, representing a broad range of personal injury, school district, and government entity plaintiffs in the litigation. 

Judge Refuses To Dismiss Social Media Lawsuit

A California judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit accusing Meta, Snap, and TikTok of harming users’ mental health. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl ruled that a jury should decide whether the plaintiff, Jamie Loach, reasonably knew of her claims earlier. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied. The argument that Ms. Loach’s prior suspicion of social media addiction and the existence of news articles about the issue should have put her on notice years before she filed suit in 2023 was rejected. Judge Kuhl emphasized that what matters is when Ms. Loach suspected the defendants’ wrongdoing, which she alleges was not until 2022, after conducting her own research.

Defense counsel argued that publicly available articles linked social media use to mental health harms well before 2022. But Judge Kuhl questioned whether it was reasonable to expect Ms. Loach to have seen outlets like The Washington Post or Vice. Beasley Allen lawyer Davis Vaughn, representing Ms. Loach, countered that defendants cannot simultaneously claim there is “no evidence” of social media addiction while insisting his claim should have pieced together a claim from scattered articles she never read.

The case has now been narrowed to two negligence counts against all defendants and one additional claim against Meta for failure to warn and fraudulent concealment. Claims against YouTube were dismissed as untimely. The case is part of consolidated litigation in Los Angeles involving hundreds of similar suits, with a parallel federal multidistrict proceeding in California where parents, school districts, and state attorneys general allege social media platforms deliberately designed addictive features that harm children’s mental health.

Ms. Loach is represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Joseph VanZandt and Davis Vaughn, along with Mariana A. McConnell of Kiesel Law LLP, Rachel Lanier of The Lanier Law Firm PC, and Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP.

The case is Jaime Loach v. Meta Platforms Inc. et al., case number 23STCV19697, and the consolidated litigation is Social Media Cases, case number JCCP5255, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Source: Law360

Plaintiffs Prevail In Key Expert Testimony Rulings In Social Media Addiction Litigation  

In a major victory for plaintiffs in the coordinated social media litigation (JCCP5255), Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl has denied the overwhelming majority of defendants’ motions to exclude expert testimony under the Sargon standard. The ruling clears the way for plaintiffs to present robust scientific evidence at trial regarding the mental health harms caused by the design and operation of social media platforms.

The litigation involves claims brought by individuals, including minors and their families, against Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Snap Inc. (Snapchat), ByteDance (TikTok), and Google (YouTube), alleging that the platforms’ addictive design features have contributed to a youth mental health crisis.

In a comprehensive 87-page ruling, Judge Kuhl rejected defendants’ efforts to disqualify all of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts, including leading researchers in psychiatry, neuroscience, pediatrics, and media psychology. The Judge found:

• All but one of the plaintiffs’ general causation experts will be permitted to testify at trial;

• Plaintiffs’ experts employed reliable methodologies, including systematic literature reviews, longitudinal studies, and Bradford Hill analyses;

• The experts’ opinions were not barred by Section 230, as they focused on platform design features rather than third-party content;

• The experts’ conclusions were grounded in accepted scientific principles and supported by peer-reviewed research and internal documents from the defendants themselves.

This ruling affirms the strength of the scientific evidence supporting the claims in this case. The court recognized that social media platforms are not just passive conduits of content—they are engineered environments that can profoundly affect adolescent brain development and harm mental health.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the litigation, allowing plaintiffs to move forward with compelling expert testimony on how social media design features contribute to addiction, anxiety, depression, and other harms among youth.  As stated above, the first personal injury trial is currently set for November 2025.

Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs in the JCCP are Joseph VanZandt of Beasley Allen, Mariana McConnel of Kiesel Law, Rachel Lanier of Lanier Law Firm, and Rahul Ravipudi of Panish | Shea | Ravipudi LLP. 

Meta Under Fire For Suppressing Child Safety Research

Meta is facing intense scrutiny after whistleblowers and internal research revealed the company allegedly suppressed critical findings about child safety on its platforms. It has been learned that Meta researchers warned executives about serious risks to minors—including exposure to harmful content and inadequate safety measures. The company ignored or concealed the data, limiting its internal distribution and failing to act on key recommendations.

Two former Meta researchers, Jason Sattizahn and Cayce Savage, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 9, 2025. In his testimony, Sattizahn described a disturbing incident in which a teenage boy reported being sexually propositioned while using Meta’s virtual reality headset. Sattizahn claimed his supervisor ordered the deletion of the recording and omitted the account from the final report. The researchers accused Meta’s legal team of trying to create “plausible deniability” around the dangers posed to children.

Meta has denied the allegations, calling them a “false narrative.” However, the testimony and leaked research have intensified calls for stronger regulation and transparency in how tech companies handle child safety. Lawmakers are now demanding accountability and reforms to protect young users across platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Meta’s VR environments.

The Beasley Allen Social Media Litigation Team

Joseph VanZandt, who leads our firm’s Social Media Personal Injury 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. He can be reached at 800-898-2034 or by email at [email protected].

THE GAMING LITIGATION

Predatory Platforms: Profits Over Protection

Online gambling has been around for a fairly long time. But for millions of children and teens, online gaming is more than a pastime — it’s a social hub, a creative outlet, and a daily routine. Platforms like Roblox and Fortnite market themselves as safe, fun, and community-driven. But beneath the bright graphics and playful branding lies a troubling reality: these platforms can expose children to predatory behavior and addictive design features that put profits ahead of safety.

Beasley Allen lawyers have seen firsthand how the gaming industry’s choices can harm young people. Our firm has been at the forefront of video game addiction litigation, investigating how manipulative design features — from endless reward loops to in-game purchases — keep children online longer than ever before. Now, we are expanding that work to address the equally urgent issue of child exploitation in gaming environments.

How Predators Exploit Gaming Platforms

Predators take advantage of features that were never designed with child safety in mind:

• Open chat systems that allow strangers to contact minors directly
• Private messaging that bypasses parental oversight
• Anonymity of avatars, which shields predators from accountability

What should be a safe space for play and creativity can quickly turn into a dangerous environment where children are exposed to inappropriate content, manipulation, and abuse.

The Role of Predatory Game Design

The problem isn’t just predators — it’s the way games are built. Many of the same design elements we’ve challenged in video game addiction lawsuits also make children more vulnerable to exploitation. Features like:

• Reward systems that encourage prolonged play
• Ingame purchases that create dependency
• Social mechanics that blur the line between safe play and unsafe contact

These design choices keep kids engaged for longer periods, increasing their exposure to risks.

Moving Forward

Beasley Allen lawyers are committed to holding gaming companies accountable — not only for the harm caused by predatory gaming practices, but also for the broader issue of video game addiction. 

Children deserve safe spaces to play, learn, and connect. At Beasley Allen, we are proud to stand with families in the fight against both predatory gaming exploitation and video game addiction. If you believe your child has been harmed by an online gaming platform, our lawyers will be glad to listen, investigate, and fight for justice.

Beasley Allen Lawyers Roger Smith, Chad Cook, Mary Cam Raybon, and Leighton Johnson are actively investigating and handling gaming addiction cases on behalf of minors affected by these gaming companies. 

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Collision Avoidance Technology In Heavy Trucks

“Jane Doe” had safely landed after enduring a long flight on a business trip. Her husband knew she was arriving late at night and that their home was still a long drive from the airport. So, her husband booked a ride-share company to pick her up at the airport to drive her home, thinking this was the safest way to go.  

Ms. “Doe” sat in the back seat of the ride-share and relaxed, knowing she would be home shortly. The ride-share driver was driving on the interstate, on an essentially flat portion of the roadway.  The driver apparently got confused as to what exit he should have taken, slowed down in the middle of the interstate, and, without any warning, was rear-ended by a 2024 Freightliner heavy truck travelling at highway speeds.  The crash killed Ms. “Doe” who was in the back seat.  

The dash camera on the Freightliner showed that the ride-share vehicle was clearly visible to the Freightliner for over 8 seconds.  There were no other cars on the roadway, and there was plenty of time for the driver of the heavy truck to simply move into another lane to avoid the impact. He also would have had time to apply the brakes and avoid the crash. 

Human error is inevitable.  No one is perfect.  People get distracted or confused and make mistakes.  Knowing accidents like the one described above occur all too frequently, manufacturers of heavy trucks and passenger cars have been developing collision avoidance technology for over 50 years.  As early as the 1980s, systems were developed that could detect objects in the road. Adaptive Cruise Control Systems were first in production in the late 1990s, and Automated Emergency Braking systems soon followed in the early 2000s. 

In essence, Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) refers to systems that are designed to prevent the vehicle from colliding with another vehicle, pedestrian, or object. Some of the common CAT systems found in vehicles today include, but are not limited to:

• Backup cameras
• Blind spot cameras or monitors
• Lane departure warning systems
• Lane-keep assist systems
• Adaptive cruise control
• Forward collision warning systems
• Automatic emergency braking systems
• Pedestrian detection systems

CAT systems function by using a network of sensors and systems, all working together to monitor the vehicle’s surroundings and detect potential road hazards.  These systems protect the vehicle’s passengers, but they also protect pedestrians and other road users, such as “Jane Doe.” By providing real-time warnings and taking proactive measures, CAT systems reduce the risk of accidents caused by human error. 

According to a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), CAT systems can reduce rear-end collisions by 50%. The introduction of these systems in vehicles has played a significant role in reducing the number of road accidents and fatalities. 

Sadly, the 2024 Freightliner involved in the “Jane Doe” collision was not equipped with CAT, even though the Freightliner manufacturer boasted, as early as 2014, of being the industry leader in CAT systems. By 2015, the manufacturer was selling its heavy trucks with CAT systems capable of avoiding accidents. The CAT system provided audible alarms with visual warnings to alert a distracted truck driver of the slow-moving vehicle in front of it.  

The manufacturer even had CAT systems available for the 2024 Freightliner with the ability to brake the truck to avoid an impact.  Yet even though it had the technology available to avoid the “Jane Doe” collision for almost a decade, the manufacturer did not make this important safety system standard equipment. As a result, an innocent passenger in another vehicle was killed. 

Discovery In Trucking Cases: Getting To The Bottom Of Fleet Management Tools

The advent of fleet management tools in the commercial vehicle industry has fundamentally changed discovery in trucking cases. Gone are the days when driver qualification files, motor vehicle reports, and duty logs provided sufficient insight into the quality of an individual’s driving and what the carrier knew about it. When equipped, fleet management tools—offered by companies like Lytx, Samsara, and Motive—afford real-time and historical information that can shed light on how a wreck happened.

For starters, fleet management tools typically include dash camera recording devices that can capture the wreck in question. The relevance of this type of information is obvious and should not be difficult to obtain. But modern fleet management tools can capture much more data than just footage from the wreck. For example, these tools can provide in-cab safety alerts to drivers when they engage in dangerous behavior. Video clips are recorded when a “triggering event” occurs. Based on these real-time alerts, these advanced systems can generate risk management and driver coaching reports that carriers can use for training and other corrective action. But they must choose to use that which is readily available. 

Prudent lawyers handling trucking litigation should always determine whether the truck in question was equipped with fleet management software and, if so, the capabilities the software possessed. Because trucking companies often meet these discovery requests with resistance, plaintiff lawyers should not hesitate to send third-party requests directly to the fleet management company. Although digging into the scope of data maintained by these companies is time-intensive, it is well worth it. Once acquired, the data can not only help establish the truck driver’s liability, but also the carrier’s direct liability for negligent entrustment, training, supervision, and retention of the driver. 

A Report On The Multi-District Airbag Defect Case

Beasley Allen, in collaboration with several other firms, is pursuing claims against ZF-TRW Automotive, its affiliated entities, and various vehicle manufacturers for defective Airbag Control Units (ACUs) installed in certain vehicles that fail to deploy the airbags during collisions. These claims are part of the multi-district litigation (MDL) titled In Re: ZF-TRW Airbag Control Units Products Liability Litigation; Case No. 2:19-ml-02905-JAK-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

Several automotive defendants have settled their claims or are in the process of doing so. For the defendants that have not yet settled, the court recently denied their motions to dismiss. This sets the stage for discovery and trial preparation. Significantly, the court confirmed it has jurisdiction over nearly all non-settling defendants due to their contacts with California.

The court also held that many RICO claims will proceed against Honda and FCA since they are properly based on the manufacturers’ deceptive half-truths in advertising materials, Monroney labels, and NHTSA certification labels. The court also upheld RICO claims against ZF related to its airbag warning lamp functionality and its alleged misrepresentations to NHTSA, along with vicarious liability claims against ST Italy and ST Malaysia. In addition, the court also sustained various consumer protection, common law fraud, and breach of warranty claims against Honda and FCA. 

Discovery will now commence as to these defendants. Beasley Allen lawyers look forward to preparing this case for trial. The following lawyers represent plaintiffs in this matter: Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin and Trent Mann. We will keep our readers informed on developments in this important litigation. 

Grammy-Nominated Singer Angie Stone Killed In Interstate Collision

On March 1, Grammy-nominated R&B singer Angie Stone tragically died in a crash while traveling with her bandmates and family from a performance in Mobile, Alabama, back to Atlanta. Their Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van overturned on I-65 in Montgomery County and came to rest in the left lane. While passengers were attempting to exit the disabled vehicle, a CRST tractor-trailer struck the vehicle at nearly 70 mph without braking. Ms. Stone was ejected and fatally pinned under the van; a fellow passenger, Sheila Hopkins, sustained serious injuries.

A wrongful death lawsuit, filed by Ms. Stone’s family in Gwinnett County, Georgia, on September 2, names multiple parties as defendants: the truck driver, CRST trucking company, Daimler Truck (manufacturer of the Freightliner Cascadia), safety system maker Detrior Diesel, the van’s driver, and its owners. The suit alleges negligence, including distracted driving, failure to brake, and violations of federal trucking regulations. It also claims the truck’s collision-avoidance system was defective and that the van’s driver was uninsured and improperly trained.

The family is seeking damages in the lawsuit for wrongful death and personal injury. Punitive damages are also sought by the family. 

Tesla Settles Fatal Autopilot Crash Lawsuit In California

Tesla has reached a confidential settlement with the family of a teenager killed in a 2019 crash involving a Model 3 operating on Autopilot. The agreement comes just weeks before a jury trial was set to begin in Alameda County Superior Court.

The case involved a collision on I880 in Alameda County, where Benjamin Maldonado and his 15yearold son Jovani were driving home from a soccer tournament. As traffic slowed, Maldonado signaled to change lanes in his Ford Explorer. Moments later, their vehicle was struck by a Tesla Model 3 on Autopilot. Jovani was ejected from the passenger seat and died from his injuries.

The settlement is the latest in a series of confidential settlements Tesla has reached in lawsuits alleging its driverassistance technology contributed to fatal crashes. While the company prevailed in two California trials in 2023, it suffered a major setback in July when a Miami federal jury found Tesla partly liable in another Autopilot-related death and awarded $200 million in punitive damages — a verdict Tesla is appealing.

Source: Law360

Auto Products Liability Litigation 

It’s well known that Beasley Allen handles motor vehicle litigation across the country. Lawyers in our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section handle these cases. If you have a case involving motor vehicle and products liability that resulted in serious injury or wrongful death, our lawyers are available and would be honored to work with you. 

Our firm has a long history of success in complex litigation, including record-breaking settlements and verdicts across the country. We have helped clients recover hundreds of millions of dollars in cases where traditional liability insurance coverage was limited. We continue to handle cases involving defective vehicles, unsafe modifications, and trucking-related crashes. 

Recently, our firm secured the largest personal injury settlement in Alabama history: $110 million. We also secured a $162 million settlement involving a van rollover crash in Georgia, which reportedly is the state’s largest single-automobile accident settlement. Additionally, we have numerous multi-million-dollar settlements in many other states. 

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

September 2025 Auto Recalls: What Drivers Need To Know

September 2025 has been a busy month for the auto industry, with several major recalls announced by leading manufacturers. From faulty trim pieces to software glitches, these recalls highlight the importance of staying informed and checking your vehicle’s status regularly. Below is a roundup of the most significant recalls affecting U.S. drivers this month.

Ford: 100,000+ Taurus Sedans Recalled

On September 19, 2025, Ford announced a recall of more than 100,000 Ford Taurus sedans (model years 2016–2019) due to a defect in the Bpillar door trim. The trim can detach at high speeds, creating dangerous road debris and increasing the risk of crashes.

• Cause: Poor adhesion in exterior appliques

• Warning signs: Rattling, wind noise, or visible trim separation

• Remedy: Dealers will inspect and replace the trim free of charge

• Recall number: 25V712

This follows earlier recalls in 2025 for similar trim issues in Ford Explorers and Lincoln Aviators, raising concerns about broader quality control problems.

Hyundai: Ioniq 6 & Palisade

Hyundai issued two major recalls this month:

Ioniq 6 (pre-facelift models): Charging port doors may detach while driving due to faulty retaining hooks. Palisade SUVs (2020–2025): Nearly 570,000 vehicles recalled for defective seatbelt buckles that may fail to latch properly, increasing injury risk in a crash.

Toyota: Instrument Panel Display Failure

Toyota recalled over 590,000 vehicles (Toyota and Lexus models, 2023–2025) due to a 12.3inch instrument panel display that may go blank at startup. A failed display can prevent drivers from seeing critical information like speed and warning lights.

Rivian: Highway Assist Software

Rivian recalled its 2025 R1S and R1T models after discovering that its HandsFree Highway Assist software may incorrectly identify other vehicles, creating a potential crash risk.

Honda / Acura: Power Steering & Handlebar Switch

Acura RDX (2025): Recalled for potential loss of power steering assist, which could make the vehicle harder to control. Honda CRF1100 motorcycles (2020–2022, 2024–2025): Left handlebar switches may corrode, leading to electrical malfunctions.

Volvo: Seatbelt Retractors

Volvo recalled several 2026 mildhybrid models (V60CC, V90CC, XC60, XC90) due to damaged seatbelt retractors that may fail in a crash. 

While no major injuries have been reported in connection with these September recalls, the risks are real. Defective seatbelts, faulty displays, or detaching trim pieces can all contribute to serious accidents.

Consumers are urged to:

• Check their VIN at NHTSA.gov/recalls

• Respond promptly to recall notices

Schedule repairs with authorized dealers, which are provided free of charge

BOATING LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Files Lawsuit After Smith Lake Boat Crash

Two separate lawsuits have been filed arising out of the April boat crash on Smith Lake in Cullman County, Alabama. Beasley Allen filed one of these cases. We filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of Lisa Little, the widow of Jeffrey C. Little. 

Mr. Little is one of three men killed in a tragic boat crash that occurred during the Tackle Warehouse Invitational fishing tournament on Smith Lake. The crash occurred early in the morning on April 16, claiming the lives of Jeffrey Little of Mississippi, Joe M. Broom of Altoona, and John K. Clark of Cullman.

Filed in Cullman County Circuit Court by Beasley Allen lawyer Mike Andrews, along with Dan Mars, with Mars, Mars and Mars, the Little lawsuit names Major League Fishing (MLF), its president Boyd Duckett, Smith Lake Striper Guide Service, and angler Flint Davis as defendants. The lawsuit accuses MLF and Duckett of fostering a reckless tournament environment by failing to regulate boat speeds, enforce safety certifications, or implement a boating safety plan, despite knowing the lake was open to public use.

With 115 anglers competing for a $115,000 prize, the event’s lack of exclusive lake access and safety oversight is central to our case. The Little lawsuit seeks damages for wrongful death and personal injury. 

The second wrongful death lawsuit was filed by the family of Snead Town Councilman Joey Broom, a victim of the crash. Hunter Garnett of Garnett Patterson Injury Lawyers, LLC, represents the Snead family in that case. 

This litigation emphasizes the need for stronger safety measures at competitive fishing events. We will keep our readers up to date on these cases. 

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Mobile Office Continues To Investigate Crashworthiness Cases

Lawyers in Beasley Allen’s Mobile office continue to investigate and pursue crashworthiness claims.  Crashworthiness is a vehicle’s ability to protect its occupants during a collision by maintaining occupant survival spaces, managing crash energy, restraining occupants, preventing occupant ejections, and preventing post-collision fires.  It is inevitable that automobile accidents will occur.  

Accordingly, the focus of a crashworthiness or auto products liability investigation is to ensure that passive safety features designed into the vehicle perform appropriately and mitigate injuries.  All too often, an injury or death could have been prevented but for the failure of a safety system.  

One of the most basic crashworthiness issues is that the vehicle must maintain the occupant’s survival space.  In frontal collisions, the car must have adequate crumple zones to absorb and mitigate energy, but maintain a safety cell to stop intrusion into the occupant compartment of the vehicle.  Crumple zones are designed to absorb and channel the impact energy away from the occupants and decrease the delta-v or change of velocity of the impact.  

In rollover collisions, the vehicle’s roof structure must be designed with adequate strength to prevent the roof from crushing into the occupants’ survival space.  It is imperative that the vehicle maintain the integrity of the occupant compartment and prevent intrusion.

Just as important as maintaining the integrity of the occupant compartment is restraining occupants inside that compartment.  This is done with seatbelts and airbags.  Seatbelts and airbags work in tandem to keep occupants restrained in their seats and lessen the blow from any interior strikes or intrusion.  Additionally, seatbelts and airbags also work in conjunction to retain occupants in the vehicle and prevent ejection.  This is especially true in rollover collisions, where ejection rates are highest.  Seatbelts and side curtain airbags significantly decrease the likelihood of full or partial ejection when designed appropriately.   

Finally, if the occupant survives the initial collision, it is imperative that the vehicle is not susceptible to post-collision fires.  Unfortunately, an occupant will often survive the initial impact but not a post-collision fire.  Oftentimes, defective fuel tank designs will lead to post-collision fuel-fed fires.  It is imperative to investigate all vehicles after a serious injury or death to determine whether the safety systems worked appropriately.  

Amazon Baby Lounger Recalled For Risk Of Death

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a nationwide recall of approximately 23,000 URMYWO baby loungers sold on Amazon due to serious safety concerns, including suffocation and fall risks. 

These loungers, sold between January 2024 and April 2025 in the “grey feather” style, failed to meet federal safety standards. Issues include low side walls, overly thick sleeping pads, and a foot opening that could trap infants. Although no injuries have been reported, the loungers’ design violates regulations meant to prevent infant sleep-related accidents.

Federal rules require all infant sleep products to meet strict guidelines, such as a sleep surface incline of no more than 10 degrees and proper labeling and certification. Amazon stated it actively monitors safety alerts and promptly removes recalled items from its platform. 

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and contact Pomona for a full refund. To receive reimbursement, users must destroy the lounger’s sleeping pad and sides and submit a photo to [email protected].

Source: Newsweek

AVIATION LITIGATION

Air India Upgrades Prompt Safety Questions After Flight 171 Crash

Air India has launched a $400 million retrofit program to modernize its aging fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliners, promising passengers upgraded cabins, refreshed interiors, and enhanced in-flight entertainment. These improvements come in the shadow of a devastating tragedy: the Air India Flight 171 crash, which claimed 260 lives and left families around the world searching for answers.

Beasley Allen Represents Over 120 Victims of Air India Flight 171

Following the June 12, 2025, crash of Air India Flight 171, lawyers at Beasley Allen represent more than 120 families impacted by the disaster. As reported previously, the flight, a Boeing 787 bound for London Gatwick, crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, killing 241 passengers and crew and 19 people on the ground.

The Beasley Allen Litigation team is led by nationally recognized aviation accident lawyer Mike Andrews. Mike is well known for taking on major aviation cases, including the Boeing 737 Max disasters. Our firm’s mission is clear: uncover the root causes of aviation accidents and hold responsible parties accountable. Seeking justice for our clients is the top priority in this litigation. 

What’s Included in Air India’s Aircraft Retrofit Program?

Air India’s fleet overhaul includes:

• New seats in business, premium economy, and economy classes

• Upgraded in-flight entertainment systems

• Refreshed carpeting, curtains, and lavatories

• Avionics and reliability enhancements to meet modern safety standards

The first of 26 Boeing 787 aircraft entered retrofit in July 2025, with the second scheduled for October. Both are expected to return to service by December. Additionally, 13 Boeing 777-300ERs will be refurbished by 2028.

While these upgrades aim to improve passenger experience, they also raise questions about past maintenance practices and whether outdated systems may have contributed to previous safety failures.

Global Push For Safety

The Air India Flight 171 tragedy has reignited global conversations about aviation safety, aircraft design, and corporate accountability. Modernization is a step forward, but it doesn’t erase past failures. Legal advocacy plays a critical role in ensuring that safety isn’t just a promise—it’s a standard.

If you or a loved one has been affected by an aviation accident, Beasley Allen offers free case evaluations and personalized legal support. Our litigation team is committed to helping families find answers, seek justice, and push for safer skies.

If you have questions or need help with a case, contact Sloan Downes, Director of our Personal Injury & Products Liability Section. She will have a lawyer on our Aviation Litigation Team respond to you. 

FAA Proposes $3.1 Million Fine Against Boeing Over 737 Max 9 Safety Violations

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed fining Boeing more than $3.1 million for hundreds of safety and quality control violations — some tied to the January 2024 midair doorplug blowout on an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9.

The FAA says the violations occurred between September 2023 and February 2024 at Boeing’s 737 factory in Renton, Washington, and at subcontractor Spirit AeroSystems’ facility in Wichita, Kansas. Issues included presenting two unairworthy aircraft for certification and pressuring an FAA-authorized inspector to approve a plane that didn’t meet standards. Boeing has 30 days to respond.

The January 5, 2024, incident forced Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 to make an emergency landing in Portland after a door plug detached mid-flight, causing rapid depressurization. Investigators later found that four retaining bolts were missing. The National Transportation Safety Board linked the accident to poor training, persistent quality lapses, and weak FAA oversight.

Boeing says it regrets the accident and is implementing a “Safety & Quality Plan” that includes workforce training, stricter compliance, and encouraging employees to speak up.

The blowout has also led to lawsuits from four Alaska Airlines flight attendants, who describe a terrifying scene in which oxygen masks were deployed, the cockpit door blew open, and clothing was torn from passengers due to the decompression. They allege Boeing knew its manufacturing process was dangerously deficient, putting passengers and crew at risk.

Source: Law360

Boeing Sued Over Fatal 2024 Jeju Air Crash

The estate of a passenger killed in the December 2024 crash of Jeju Air Flight 7C 2216 has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against The Boeing Co. in Illinois state court. It’s alleged that the company sold a defective and unreasonably dangerous 737800 aircraft.

According to the complaint, the flight from Thailand to South Korea attempted to land at Muan International Airport with its landing gear still retracted, speed control systems and rudder inoperable, and brakes and other mechanisms prone to failure. The plane overran the runway, struck an obstacle, and exploded, killing 179 people.

The suit contends that an in-flight engine failure forced a go-around, but multiple mechanical defects — including the absence of a warning that the landing gear had failed to deploy — left the crew unable to slow or turn the aircraft.

Plaintiffs also cite the U.S. Department of Justice’s prior allegations that Boeing misled regulators about aircraft features to speed market entry, as well as recent DOJ enforcement actions. As previously reported, Boeing recently entered a $1.1 billion nonprosecution agreement, admitting to obstructing the FAA’s Aircraft Evaluation Group, paying hundreds of millions in penalties, victim compensation funds, and safety program investments. The complaint alleges the Jeju Air crash may have resulted from violations of that agreement.

The estate in this case is represented by Floyd A. Wisner of the Wisner Law Firm.

The case is Choi Mak Re v. The Boeing Co., case number 2025L011248, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Source: Law360

Beasley Allen Aviation Litigation Team

When tragedy strikes in the skies, victims and their families need more than sympathy—they deserve justice. Leading the charge in aviation litigation is Beasley Allen lawyer Mike Andrews. 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 advocating for justice on behalf of more than 120 families affected by the Air India Flight 171 crash. 

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 with individual cases as needed. 

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

Sexual Harassment Remains A Serious Problem

Sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be a most serious and pressing issue. Below is a highlight of recent outcomes and ongoing cases involving sexual harassment claims. Beasley Allen lawyer Jessi Haynes will give us an update on this area of concern. 

Final Outcomes:

SkyWest Airlines

In one of the most notable EEOC cases of 2025, a federal jury awarded $2.17 million (adjusted to $300,000 because of statutory caps) in damages to Sarah Budd, a SkyWest Airlines employee who endured relentless sexual harassment from coworkers and a manager. The harassment included graphic comments about rape and requests for demeaning sex acts. Despite multiple complaints, the company failed to act. 

Walmart’s $415,112 Settlement

In West Virginia, Walmart agreed to pay over $415,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The store manager was accused of egregious misconduct, including sexual touching and propositions in exchange for favorable treatment. After a female employee reported the harassment, she was fired, which the EEOC later deemed retaliatory. 

HHS Environmental Showed A Pattern of Neglect

In Utah, HHS Environmental paid $400,000 to settle claims involving a male employee who repeatedly harassed female housekeepers. The company ignored complaints for over a year and retaliated against victims by firing them or increasing the victims’ workloads. This case illustrates how employer inaction can escalate liability. 

Ongoing Litigation:

Scalo Restaurant

In New Mexico, the EEOC sued Scalo Restaurant after female employees were subjected to vulgar comments, unwanted touching, and coercive propositions. Managers retaliated against those who complained by reducing hours or terminating employment. The EEOC attempted to work out a settlement with the defendant, but ultimately sued when no resolution was reached. “Sexual harassment in the workplace requires an employer to take action swiftly,” said Mary Jo O’Neill, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Phoenix District Office. “Failure to act on this kind of misconduct is a serious violation of federal law, and the EEOC is committed to ensuring all workers can do their jobs free from harassment and discrimination.”

Gator Strong Services: Harassment by Leadership

In North Carolina, the COO of Gator Strong Services was accused of sexually harassing the office manager, both verbally and eventually in a written proposition. When the office manager refused to participate, she was terminated. “No employee should have to tolerate vulgar sexual propositions to earn a paycheck,” said Melinda C. Dugas, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District Office. “The provocative nature of such conduct is particularly egregious when it comes from a top executive. The EEOC is committed to eradicating such abusive behavior from the workplace.”

Litigating these claims not only helps the victim of harassment in the workplace, but it also shapes workplace culture by putting employers on notice that these illegal actions will not be ignored. By pursuing justice for victims, Beasley Allen sends a clear message: harassment will not be tolerated, and silence is no longer an option. Our Employment Litigation Team is ready to assist these victims. 

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Doctor Odyssey Crewmembers File Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Disney

Three former crew members of ABC’s medical drama Doctor Odyssey have filed a lawsuit against Disney and its subsidiary, 20th Century Studios, alleging wrongful termination after reporting a pervasive culture of sexual harassment on set. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, paints a disturbing picture of misconduct and retaliation within the show’s props department. 

The Plaintiffs—Caroline Mack, Alicia Haverland, and Ava Steinbrenner—claim they were subjected to repeated sexual harassment by assistant prop manager Tyler Patton and several male colleagues. According to the suit, Patton frequently made inappropriate comments about his sexual preferences and responded to casual remarks with crude sexual innuendo.

The lawsuit further alleges that Patton distributed pornographic material via text messages to crew members. One incident cited involved a deceptive link Patton sent to the entire props department that appeared to be an article about then-President Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential race. Upon opening the link, recipients were shown an image of a nude male. Patton reportedly joked, “If I wasn’t the [explicit] boss, I would be fired.”

After enduring months of inappropriate behavior, the plaintiffs reported the misconduct to Disney’s Human Resources department. However, instead of receiving support, they claim they were retaliated against by lead prop manager Tammie Patton—Tyler Patton’s wife. The retaliation allegedly included heavier workloads, verbal threats, and intimidation.

Ultimately, the entire props department was laid off. Yet, the plaintiffs argue this was a pretext for retaliation, as a new crew was quickly hired to replace them. They assert that their termination was directly tied to their decision to report the harassment. The lawsuit accuses Disney and 20th Century Studios of fostering a hostile work environment, failing to prevent harassment, and engaging in retaliatory termination. It also raises concerns about the hiring of Tyler Patton, who had previously been accused of harassment related to his work on the set of House in 2010.

This case adds to the growing scrutiny of workplace culture in Hollywood, particularly in production environments where power dynamics and close working conditions can make it difficult for victims to speak out.

FTC Prohibits Noncompete Clauses

In April 2024, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a rule intended to prohibit noncompete agreements for most employees, with limited exceptions for existing contracts involving senior executives. However, following legal challenges from employers, the rule was blocked by judicial action and has since expired. Despite this, non-compete agreements remain an area of significant interest for the FTC.

In February 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson established a task force dedicated to labor issues, specifically addressing non-compete clauses, no-poaching agreements, and other matters affecting the workforce. A recent enforcement action against Gateway, a pet cremation services provider, illustrates the FTC’s ongoing efforts in this area. 

In September 2025, the FTC charged Gateway with violating Section 5 of the FTC Act due to its unlawful use of post-employment non-compete clauses, which restricted approximately 1,800 out of 1,900 employees from engaging in similar work for 12 months after their employment ended.

The FTC’s proposed Consent Order sheds light on the task force’s future direction. Under the terms of the Order, Gateway is required to cease:

• Entering into and enforcing most post-employment non-compete agreements for “Covered Employees” within the United States;

• Communicating to Covered Employees or their current and prospective employers that they are subject to such non-compete restrictions, except under narrowly defined circumstances; and

• Prohibiting Covered Employees from soliciting potential customers unless, during the last year of their employment, the employee had direct interaction with or personally provided services to those customers.

Additionally, Gateway must notify affected employees that the non-compete provisions will no longer be enforced and must submit compliance reports to the FTC for a period of ten years. The public comment period for the proposed order ends on October 4, 2025, after which the FTC may finalize, amend, or withdraw the order.

Beasley Allen’s Employment Litigation Team closely monitors federal and state regulatory developments to deliver informed legal analysis on dynamic topics such as non-compete agreements.

Source: National Law Journal

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team continue to handle a number of employment-related litigation cases around the country. They also handle the firm’s Qui Tam Litigation (Whistleblower cases). Whistleblowers can also have a retaliation claim related to their False Claims Act (FCA) claim. Quite often, an employee as a whistleblower will be the “original source” of an FCA claim. 

Our Employment Litigation Team has had tremendous success in both employment cases and qui tam cases. Currently, the team is pursuing some high-profile cases in courts around the country. We will write more on the whistleblower litigation below in the Whistleblower Section. In the meantime, if you have questions or need help with an employment case, contact a lawyer on our Employment Litigation Team.

Whistleblower Litigation

Allied Stone Inc. To Pay $12.4 Million To Settle False Claims Act Case

Allied Stone Inc., a company based in Dallas, Texas, and its president, Jia “Jerry” Lim, have agreed to pay $12.4 million to settle claims that they violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by knowingly evading antidumping and countervailing duties owed to the United States on quartz surface products imported from China. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), antidumping duties protect American manufacturers by preventing foreign companies from selling products at unfairly low prices.  During the relevant time, quartz surface products from China were subject to both antidumping and countervailing duties.

To import goods into the United States, an importer must declare details such as the country of origin, the value of the goods, whether the goods are subject to duties, and the amount of duties owed. U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects applicable duties, including antidumping and countervailing duties assessed by the Department of Commerce. 

The DOJ’s action covers Chinese quartz surface products that were imported between September 29, 2018, and February 7, 2023. The DOJ claims that Allied Stone and Mr. Lim misrepresented Chinese quartz surface products as other merchandise subject to lesser duties, such as marble or crystallized glass, to improperly avoid correct duty payments that were to be made either directly or through third parties.

The settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the FCA by a whistleblower, Melinda Hemphill. We continue to stress that the qui tam provisions of the FCA allow a private party to file an action on behalf of the Government for false claims. Under the FCA, whistleblowers receive 15% to 25% of the proceeds in cases that the Government joins. In this case, the whistleblower Hemphill will receive approximately $2.1 million of the proceeds from the settlement.

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

DOJ Cites Legal Errors In $1.6 Billion False Claims Act Verdict Against Johnson & Johnson Unit

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has told the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that a district judge made key legal errors in jury instructions and post-trial rulings that underpin a $1.6 billion False Claims Act judgment against Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Products over its marketing of HIV drugs Prezista and Intelence.

While not siding with Janssen on the merits, the DOJ — acting as a neutral amicus on trialmanagement issues and intervenor on constitutional questions — the government said the court mischaracterized the link between FDA drug approval and Medicare reimbursement. Jury instructions implied Medicare only covers FDAapproved uses listed in medical compendia, but many drugs are reimbursable for offlabel uses. The DOJ also said the posttrial opinion wrongly suggested that offlabel marketing alone makes claims false under the FCA.

The government urged the appeals court to vacate the judgment and send the case back for reassessment “under a correct view of the law.” Hopefully, there was caution expressed against ordering a new trial unless the errors were highly prejudicial.

Janssen’s appeal also raises constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam whistleblower provisions and argues the $1.6 billion award violates the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. The DOJ defended the whistleblower mechanism and said the penalty is proportionate to the misconduct, noting Janssen’s U.S. sales of the drugs totaled about $1.7 billion last year.

The case, brought by two former Janssen sales reps, resulted in $360 million in damages and nearly $1.3 billion in penalties — one of the largest FCA trial verdicts in history.

Penelow and Brancaccio are represented by Peter D. Marketos, Josh Russ, Andrew O. Wirmani, Adam Sanderson and Whitney Wendel of Reese Marketos LLP, William H. Ellerbe, Michael Fantini, Sherrie R. Savett and Joy P. Clairmont of Berger Montague and David C. Frederick and Ariela Migdal of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC. 

The government is represented by Daniel Winik, Charles W. Scarborough, Michael S. Raab and Brett A. Shumate of the DOJ’s Civil Division. 

The case is U.S. ex rel. Penelow et al. v. Janssen Products LP, case number 25-1818, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team  

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation around the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation has been increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there has recently been strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America. Beasley Allen lawyers are watching this activity closely. 

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 at 800-898-2034 or by email.   

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team are listed below. You can contact Michelle Fulmer, Director of our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. Members of the team include: Lance Gould, Larry Golston, Lauren Miles, Leon Hampton, Jessi Haynes and Tyner Helms.

Workplace Litigation

An Update On Workplace Litigation

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

According to the BLS, there were 5,283 on-the-job fatalities and 2.6 million non-fatal workplace injuries in 2023.  When a worker dies in an on-the-job injury, the loss extends beyond the workplace to the family that lost a loved one and a provider.  Likewise, serious nonfatal injuries either require significant time from work or, in some instances, reduce the injured employee’s earning capacity. For non-fatal injuries, the worker’s income and ability to earn income will be negatively affected temporarily.  Some injuries are severe enough to negatively affect a worker’s earnings for their entire work life expectancy.   

Because many of the deaths and serious nonfatal injuries are caused by interactions with some form of industrial machinery, it is important for manufacturers to ensure that robots and other machines utilized are designed with adequate safety devices in place.  

In turn, the employer has a responsibility to properly train employees and ensure that manufacturer-provided safety devices are installed and properly maintained.  Safer industrial machines will result in a reduction of deaths and nonfatal injuries requiring days off work.  

OSHA’s purpose is to emphasize worker safety, and many of the rules apply specifically to safeguarding industrial machinery.  Without OSHA’s constant oversight, manufacturers and employers might be tempted to sacrifice worker safety for profits, which will lead to more deaths and serious injuries.  

We will continue to monitor workplace injury statistics and use them to inform our readers about workplace safety.

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Oregon Jury Awards Child’s Family $15 Million In Topgolf Injury Case

An Oregon federal jury has awarded over $15 million to the family of a child seriously injured at a Topgolf facility in 2021. The incident occurred at the Hillsboro, Oregon, location. A nine-year-old boy was struck in the face by a golf club during a birthday party at the site. He suffered a skull fracture and cerebral hemorrhage in the incident. His mother, Kristen Thomsen, sued Topgolf in 2023, alleging the facility lacked proper safety barriers and prioritized entertainment over customer protection.

After a lengthy trial and three days of deliberations, the jury found Topgolf negligent, awarding the family nearly $3.3 million in economic damages and $12.5 million in non-economic damages. The punitive damages phase of the trial was scheduled to begin the day following the verdict, but the case was settled privately. A joint report on the settlement is due on November 4.

The jury assigned 3% of the blame for the incident to two adults hosting the party. Topgolf had countersued them for failing to supervise the children. The Thomsen suit claimed the design of the hitting bays lacked essential safety features, contributing to the accident. 

Thomsen is represented by Anne Foster, Samuel Smith and Jaimee King of Smith Foster King LLP.

The case is Thomsen v. Topgolf U.S. Hillsboro LLC et al., case number 3:23-cv-01028, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

Source: Law360

Key Factors In Evaluating Dog Bite Cases: Why Location Matters

Dog bite cases can be complex, and determining liability often hinges on the circumstances surrounding the attack—particularly where it occurred. Whether the incident happened in a private home or a public space, the location influences which legal and factual elements are most relevant.

We will concentrate on Georgia law on this subject. It should be noted that Georgia does not follow strict liability for dog bites. Instead, Georgia uses a modified “one-bite” rule and negligence-based liability pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-2-7. 

Under Georgia’s modified “one-bite” rule, dog owners are liable only if they knew or should have known the dog had dangerous tendencies. Prior behavior such as biting, aggressive lunging, or documented complaints can establish evidence sufficient for the rule. However, as stated above, location matters. 

Attacks in a Private, Enclosed Environment

When a dog bite occurs inside someone’s home or on private property, the focus shifts to the dog’s history and the owner’s responsibility. The owner or person in control of a dog may be held liable for a dog bite or attack if the dog had a vicious propensity shown by prior bites or attacks, or if the dog was allowed access to the person in violation of a leash law. O.C.G.A.  § 51-2-7. 

In proving a dog bite case in general, a plaintiff must show in the complaint and at trial that: 

• the owner carelessly managed or allowed the animal to go at liberty; 

• the animal was vicious or unrestrained at the time of injury in violation of a local ordinance requiring such restraint; and 

• the animal caused injury.  Matta-Troncoso v. Tyner, 343 Ga. App. 63, 806 S.E.2d 10 (2017). 

When using a violation of a leash law as a basis of liability for a dog owner, the plaintiff must show that the owner had knowledge of the animal’s vicious propensity as defined by the common law. Also, it must be shown that the owner knew that the animal was unrestrained at the time of the injury.  S&S Towing & Recovery, LTD v. Charnota, 309 Ga. 117, 844 S.E.2d 730 (2020).

Key considerations for dog bite cases in  private (non-public) environments include the following:

• Behavioral History: Has the dog shown prior aggression or bitten someone before?

• Owner’s Knowledge: Was the owner aware of the dog’s temperament, and did they take reasonable steps to prevent harm?

• Victim’s Legal Status: Was the injured party an invited guest, a service provider, or a trespasser?

• Containment: Was the dog properly confined or restrained within the property?

Attacks in Public or Uncontrolled Spaces

If the bite occurred in a public area, such as a park or sidewalk, additional factors come into play:

• Leash Law Violations or Negligence Per Se: Was the dog off-leash in violation of local ordinances?

• Owner’s Control: Did the owner allow the dog to roam freely or approach others without supervision?

• Landlords are generally not responsible for dogs kept by their tenants unless the dog was allowed access to the plaintiff due to a defective condition on the premises, such as a broken latch on a gate, of which the landlord was aware. However, the landlord must also know that the dog had a vicious propensity to attack people in order to be held responsible for failing to repair the premises. Tyner v. Matt-Troncoso, 305 Ga. 480, 826 S.E.2d 100 (2019). 

• Dog’s History: As in private settings, prior incidents of aggression are always relevant.

• Public Safety Measures: Did the owner take reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from interacting with strangers?

In public settings, compliance with local leash laws and the owner’s ability to control the dog are often central to establishing negligence or liability. In Georgia, location matters because it influences which legal standards apply—whether it’s leash law compliance in public or knowledge of the dog’s behavior in private. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for evaluating liability and building a strong case.

INVESTMENT, SECURITIES, AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION

An Update On Ongoing Litigation

We want to provide our readers this month with some updates on various areas of litigation involving investments and securities in recent months.  We will cover statistics on class action litigation so far in 2025, a settlement recently announced in a class action case, and an update on a private placement litigation matter our firm is litigating.  

Securities Class Action Filings in 2025

Over the first half of 2025, securities class action filings kept about the same pace they were on in the last half of 2024.  According to Cornerstone Research’s 2025 Midyear Assessment, through the first six months of the year, there were 114 filings, compared to 115 over the last six months of 2024.  However, the investor losses alleged in 2025 have been substantially higher.  

Cornerstone’s Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL) Index measures the change in a defendant firm’s market capitalization between the trading day immediately preceding the end of the class period and the trading day immediately following the end of the class period.  

Class periods normally end on the last trading day prior to a disclosure that cures an alleged misrepresentation or omission.  Over the last half of 2024, the DDL was $259 billion.  Through June 2025, the DDL was up over 55% to $403 billion.  That’s the highest DDL since the first half of 2021, adjusting for inflation.  

As one might expect, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cryptocurrency-related filings continue to trend upwards.  The rapid growth of these technologies has drawn investors in and led to massive stock price increases for chip makers, AI developers, and cryptocurrency exchanges, issuers and miners.  In the first half of 2025, there were 12 AI-related filings, which is almost certain to surpass the 15 AI-related filings for the entire year in 2024.  Likewise, the 6 cryptocurrency-related filings are likely to surpass 2024’s total of 7 filings.  

The Cornerstone Midyear Assessment is available publicly at Stanford Law School’s Securities Class Action Clearinghouse website.  The SCAC maintains a database of securities class action filings and provides a wealth of information related to state and federal filings.  

Second Settlement Reached in Vanguard Target Retirement Funds Class Action

In November 2024, we previously reported that a federal judge had granted preliminary approval for a $40 million settlement struck between Vanguard and investors in the firm’s Target Retirement Funds.  The plaintiffs in the case allege Vanguard breached its fiduciary duty when it altered investment minimums for some of its funds to boost sales, triggering a sell-off of assets that left retail investors with massive tax bills if they did not hold the investments in tax-deferred accounts.  

After the settlement was preliminarily approved, Vanguard, the SEC, and state regulators announced a $106 settlement of an administrative action concerning the same conduct.  That settlement contained a provision that if the class action settlement fell through, Vanguard would be required to pay the $40 million as part of the regulatory settlement, on top of the $106 million.  The unusual provision is unheard of in securities litigation, where class actions and regulatory enforcement are aimed at the same conduct.  

In response to objectors’ filings, on May 19, 2025, Judge John F. Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied final approval of the class action settlement.  Thereafter, class counsel and Vanguard returned to mediation and successfully settled the case again, obtaining another $25 million for class members, on top of the settlement with regulators.  The settlement was approved on September 9, 2025.

Beasley Allen has been involved in the Vanguard litigation since early in the process, after filing a complaint on behalf of a Colorado investor who held several of the funds in a taxable account for years without issue. But the investor was hit with a $325,000 capital gain for the 2021 tax year. Our lawyers continued to work with other plaintiffs’ counsel throughout the litigation on key pleadings and discovery matters to secure this settlement for all class members.   

The case is In re: Vanguard Chester Funds Litigation, case number 2:22-cv-00955, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  

Washington Bank Embroiled in Ponzi Scheme Litigation

Fraud related to publicly traded securities is not the only danger investors face.  Ponzi schemes have consistently ensnared unsuspecting victims, and oftentimes the perpetrators of the schemes are aided by CPAs, attorneys, and even banks.  Beasley Allen is currently in litigation against UniBank, a state-chartered bank headquartered in Lynnwood, Washington. The bank provided loans that supported three different Ponzi schemes over the last several years.  

From 2021 through 2022, UniBank also funded investments in Clean Energy Technology Association (CETA), a Texas company that claimed it invented ground-breaking clean coal and carbon capture equipment.  CETA was raided by the SEC in May 2023 and was uncovered as a Ponzi scheme.  FOIA data shows UniBank provided 15 SBA 7(a) loans to investors, fueling CETA’s scheme with over $30 million in funds.  

Beasley Allen represents a group of CETA investors who have sued UniBank in Washington State over its involvement in the scheme.  The case is Brodie L. Bowman, et al. v. UniBank, et al., case number 23-2-07972-31, in the Superior Court of Washington in and for Snohomish County.  

After we filed suit on behalf of the CETA investors, another company funded by UniBank SBA loans began having problems.  WaterStation Technology, based in Everett, Washington, claimed to build, sell, and manage water vending machines.  Investors would purchase vending machines and WaterStation would manage operations.  In 2023, WaterStation began missing payments, and investors discovered that their machines were not located where they were told.  

WaterStation has been sued by creditors and investors across the country.  Ryan Wear, the company’s founder and CEO, has been indicted for securities fraud and wire fraud in the Southern District of New York.  Wear is also subject to a securities enforcement action by the Washington Department of Financial Institutions.  

DFI’s enforcement action also alleges that UniBank’s former director of government-guaranteed lending committed securities fraud.  UniBank is currently involved in litigation with numerous WaterStation investors over the scheme.  According to FOIA data from SBA, from 2019 through 2021, UniBank provided 77 federally guaranteed SBA 7(a) loans, totaling nearly $50 million to investors.  According to some reports, WaterStation could be the largest single fraud in SBA 7(a) program history, with over $115 million in loans going to the company.  

According to a filing by the receiver in the SEC’s case against CETA, UniBank also provided loans for a similarly structured Ponzi scheme based around ATM machines.  Daryl Heller, who ran the scheme, has been indicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Further details related to the ATM scheme can be found in another article in this issue of the Report.  

Beasley Allen is dedicated to protecting investors and helping them secure justice, whether from the perpetrators of Ponzi schemes or those who aid them, either knowingly or by turning a blind eye to obvious signs of fraud.  Our lawyers are experienced in uncovering financial fraud and litigating to find the full extent of those responsible for it.

Silvergate Investor Suit Results In $37.5 Million Settlement

Silvergate Capital has agreed to a $37.5 million settlement with investors who sued over the bank’s collapse. It was alleged in the lawsuit that Silvergate misled the public about its safeguards against onboarding risky crypto clients like FTX. The settlement includes a rare funding source: $5.3 million from Silvergate’s preferred equity holders, who are typically last in line during bankruptcy proceedings. This contribution is intended to resolve complex indemnity claims and reduce legal costs for the estate.

While most of the settlement will be covered by insurance, underwriters Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Securities will contribute an additional $4.6 million under the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs’ lawyers called the settlement the best possible outcome given Silvergate’s bankruptcy, noting that securities claims are usually subordinated in such cases.

The proposed class includes those who bought Silvergate common stock between November 2019 and March 2023, or securities tied to its 2021 offerings. The complaint alleges Silvergate aggressively pursued crypto clients, including FTX and other entities linked to convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried, while falsely claiming to have strong vetting and anti-money laundering protocols. Investors say these misrepresentations helped attract deposits, but the bank was ultimately exposed to massive losses.

The investors are represented by Carol V. Gilden, Steven J. Toll, S. Douglas Bunch, Jan Messerschmidt, Brendan Schneiderman and Christina D. Saler of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Jonathan D. Uslaner, Lauren M. Cruz, John J. Rizio-Hamilton and Shane D. Avidan of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The case is In re: Silvergate Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, case number 3:22-cv-01936, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Source: Law360

Dentsply Sirona Wins Final Approval For $84 Million Investor Settlement

A New York federal judge has given final approval to an $84 million settlement resolving shareholder class action claims that Dentsply Sirona Inc. misled investors by hiding a pricefixing scheme and an inventory glut at a key distributor. The settlement covers investors who bought Dentsply stock between December 2015 and August 2018. U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon called the agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

The settlement ends claims filed in 2018 alleging Dentsply oversupplied distributor Patterson Companies Inc. under exclusive contracts, causing a backlog, and conspired with Patterson, Henry Schein Inc., and Benco Dental Supply to block price competition. Plaintiffs said the company downplayed the financial impact when Patterson ended its exclusivity in 2017.

The lawsuit also cited a $1 million SEC penalty Dentsply paid in 2020 for failing to disclose the inventory buildup, and an $80 million antitrust settlement with dentists over the alleged pricefixing. Investors claimed these concealed issues inflated Dentsply’s share price until corrective disclosures caused losses.

The Strathclyde Pension Fund is represented by Michael A. Toomey, Jeffrey W. Golan, Chad Carder and Jordan R. Laporta of Barrack Rodos & Bacine.

The case is In re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 1:18-cv-07253, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Source: Law360

9^th Circuit Ruling Casts Shadow On Proving Algorithmic Pricing Schemes

On August 15, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a putative antitrust class action complaint alleging that competing Las Vegas hotel companies engaged in price fixing of room rates.  The opinion is seen as a major win for defendants in a growing area of litigation focused on “algorithmic pricing” practices.  

Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea held that the independent decision of hotels to use the same service provider’s software, without any argument that the hotels agreed to use the same software, was insufficient to show a violation of antitrust law.  The panel held that “the choice of several competitors to contract with the same service-provider, when followed by higher prices,” was insufficient to establish “a causal link between the contested agreement and an anticompetitive restraint of trade in the relevant market.”  

The complaint, originally filed in January 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, alleged that several of Las Vegas’s biggest hotel and casino chains, including Caesars Entertainment, Inc. MGM Resorts International, and Wynn Resort Holdings, LLC, colluded to end independent pricing and supply decisions and adopt an algorithmic pricing strategy employed by Cendyn Group, LLC, which provides software and services for hotel management, including pricing software.  Cendyn was also named as a defendant in the complaint.  

The complaint originally alleged two anticompetitive agreements by the hotels: (1) that certain hotels agreed with each other to use Cendyn’s pricing software and abide by its algorithm’s recommendations, and (2) that the hotels’ individual agreements with Cendyn for use of the same software resulted, in aggregate, in artificially inflated prices.  However, as Judge Bea noted, during briefing the “Plaintiffs ‘abandon[ed]’ their appeal of the district court’s dismissal of Count 1.”  Thus, the only question before the Ninth Circuit was whether use of the same software vendor resulting in higher prices, without any agreement by the hotels to do so, was a violation.  

The opinion is the first Circuit level ruling addressing the antitrust effects of algorithmic pricing models in the real estate and hospitality industries.  In October 2022, the first case targeting algorithmic pricing models used to drive up rents was filed against apartment managers and software maker RealPage, Inc., alleging that the collusion between property owners to use the same rent-setting software artificially inflated prices.  

Numerous suits have followed, with the U.S. Department of Justice often filing briefs in support of plaintiffs.  Later, in August 2024, the DOJ filed suit against RealPage over its algorithmic pricing scheme.  In a press release regarding the complaint, DOJ noted that RealPage’s “conduct deprives renters of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms and harms millions of Americans.”  

Algorithmic pricing models pose a significant threat to the affordability of housing, hotels, and products for average Americans.  When the same systems are used by competing businesses, with or without an established agreement, such pricing disregards traditional free market considerations of supply and demand and, instead, focuses on extracting the maximum amount of profit from consumers.  

Requiring proof of a collusive agreement in order to survive dismissal, as the Ninth Circuit has now held, means that plaintiffs have a significant evidentiary hurdle to overcome.  Such agreements are often difficult to establish prior to discovery without an inside whistleblower who witnessed the act.  

Regardless of a prior agreement, the result is the same: consumers will face higher prices because businesses employing the same pricing software will set their prices in unison, instead of in competition.  

The case is Gibson et al. v. Cendyn Group LLC et al., case number 24-3576, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The trial court case is Gibson et al. v. MGM Resorts International et al., case number 2:23-cv-00140, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. 

Beasley Allen lawyers are currently involved in similar consumer antitrust litigation, but involving slightly different facts. Price fixing is an ongoing problem with Corporate America at the expense of consumers. As part of our firm’s commitment to protect consumers where regulation fails to do so, our lawyers continue to file antitrust class actions as corrective action to combat this continuing corporate market misconduct. 

Live Nation Faces Class Certification Bid Over Alleged Ticketing Monopoly

Consumers have filed a motion in California federal court seeking class certification in a major antitrust case against Live Nation Entertainment Inc. and its subsidiary Ticketmaster. The proposed class includes millions of concertgoers who allegedly overpaid for primary ticket sales at major U.S. venues since Live Nation’s 2010 merger with Ticketmaster. The motion excludes secondary market resales.

Plaintiffs contend that Live Nation has monopolized the live entertainment industry by leveraging its dominance in concert promotion and ticketing to suppress competition and inflate service fees. They claim common evidence—such as internal emails, exclusive venue contracts, and expert analysis—demonstrates that nearly every consumer paid supercompetitive fees due to Live Nation’s conduct.

The motion also alleges Live Nation reinforced its exclusive ticketing deals through coercion and threats, and that its monopoly degraded service quality and stifled innovation. An expert analysis compares Ticketmaster’s fees pre- and post-merger, showing a consistent increase between 2015 and 2024.

Despite the four-year statute of limitations on antitrust claims, plaintiffs seek damages dating back to 2010, citing Live Nation’s alleged fraudulent concealment of its practices and noncompliance with a DOJ settlement. Judge George H. Wu previously rejected Live Nation’s motion to dismiss, affirming consumers’ standing based on overcharges and widespread exclusive agreements—over 70% of major venues reportedly use Ticketmaster.

Live Nation is petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to compel arbitration, but plaintiffs contend that differing arbitration clauses don’t preclude certification. The case, filed in 2022, precedes similar DOJ-led litigation in New York.

Securities Litigation At Beasley Allen 

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section continue to work on a number of cases involving corporate fraud involving security issues. James Eubank heads out Securities Litigation Team. James worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. While he was with the state, James was involved in a number of important securities fraud investigations.   

The Securities Litigation Team is composed of the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: James Eubank, Demet Basar, Rebecca Gilliland and Paul Evans. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

INSURANCE LITIGATION AT BEASLEY ALLEN

A Primer On First-Party Bad Faith Insurance Litigation

Bad faith claims arise when an insurance company goes beyond breaching its insurance contract and does so intentionally without a legitimate or debatable reason, which entitles the plaintiff to recover punitive damages. Alabama law regarding bad faith insurance claims is generally well defined.  The aim of this article is to provide a short synopsis of Alabama law to allow lawyers to identify and navigate bad faith claims under Alabama law. 

First-party bad faith claims arise when an insured sues their own insurance company for failing to pay benefits owed under their policy. Under Alabama law, there are two methods or theories by which a policyholder can establish the tort of first-party bad faith: “normal” bad faith or “abnormal” bad faith.  Another way to think of these two theories is bad faith failure-to-pay and bad faith refusal-to-investigate.  While the two theories are often pleaded as two separate counts in a complaint, the Supreme Court of Alabama recognized in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Brechbill, 144 So. 3d 248, 257–58 (Ala. 2013), that they are not two separate torts. 

Regardless of whether the claim is pleaded as a “normal” or an “abnormal” bad faith, there are four common elements the insured must prove according to National Security Fire & Casualty Co. v. Bowen, 417 So.2d 179 (Ala. 1982):

1. an insurance contract between the parties and a breach thereof;

(b) an intentional refusal to pay the insured’s claim;

(c) the absence of any reasonably legitimate or arguable reason for that refusal (the absence of a debatable reason); and

(d) the insurer’s actual knowledge of the absence of any legitimate or arguable reason

In “abnormal” cases, a conditional fifth element applies, which requires the policyholder to prove a reckless or intentional failure to investigate or evaluate the claim.  In other words, bad-faith refusal to investigate is the last element in the tort of bad-faith refusal to pay.  Abnormal cases often require evidence that the insurer (1) intentionally or recklessly failed to investigate the claim; (2) intentionally or recklessly failed to properly subject the plaintiff’s claim to a cognitive evaluation or review; (3) created its own debatable reason for denying the claim; or (4) relied on an ambiguous portion of the policy to deny the claim.  See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Slade, 747 So.2d 293, 306–07 (Ala.1999).

Regarding the debatable reason element, the policyholder must prove there was no legal or factual defense to the insurance claim.  If the insurer has a lawful basis for denying the claim, bad faith is not recoverable under either theory, according to the Supreme Court in Brechbill. As one would expect, given Alabama law, most bad faith litigation centers around whether the insurer had a debatable reason for the claim denial.  

There are a fair number of similarities between normal and abnormal bad faith claims, but there is an important difference.  For a normal bad-faith claim to be submitted to the jury, the underlying contract claim must be so strong that the plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  However, this requirement is dispensed within an abnormal case.

Beasley Allen Insurance Litigation Team 

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving insurance matters. The Beasley Allen Insurance Litigation Team includes the following lawyers from our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section: Rebecca Gilliland, Paul Evans, Lauren Miles and Jessi Haynes. Dee Miles, who heads the Section, also works with the team.  

Class Action Litigation

$25 Million Vanguard Settlement Gets Initial Approval

A Pennsylvania federal judge has given preliminary approval to a $25 million settlement resolving a class action against Vanguard over an asset sell-off that left investors with large tax bills. The case, filed in 2022 by 12 investors, alleged Vanguard breached its fiduciary duty and failed to protect smaller investors in its targeted retirement funds, forcing sales of up to 15% of assets and triggering unexpected taxes.

The new settlement agreement replaces a previously approved $40 million settlement that was rejected in May after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reached a $135 million settlement with Vanguard over similar claims. The reduced amount accounts for the SEC’s separate $133 million payout to affected investors.

U.S. District Judge John Murphy called the revised settlement agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and set a Jan. 6 hearing to review final terms and ensure it resolves all related claims. Other than the lower payout, the settlement mirrors the earlier deal’s structure and aims to provide immediate recovery while avoiding the risks of continued litigation.

The plaintiff investors are represented by Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles and James Eubank, along with Gregory Dovel, Julien Adams, Jonas B. Jacobson, Christin Cho and Simon Carlo Franzini of Dovel & Luner LLP, Richard M. Golomb and Kevin W. Fay of Golomb Legal, Timothy Brown of The Brown Law Firm PC, Joshua Baker, Phillip Kim, Jonathan Stern, Erica L. Stone and Jacob A. Goldberg of The Rosen Law Firm PA, Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Mark C. Rifkin and Matthew M. Guiney of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. 

The case is In re: Vanguard Chester Funds Litigation, case number 2:22-cv-00955, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

The Court Narrows Google AI Copyright Case

U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee has pared back a proposed class action accusing Google of using copyrighted works from artists and writers to train its AI models. In addition, Judge Lee dismissed parent company Alphabet from the case.

In his order, Judge Lee said the plaintiffs can move forward with copyright claims involving six Google AI products — PaLM, GLaM, LaMDA, Bard, Gemini, and Imagen. But the judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege infringement for 10 defendants, including Codey, Chirp, Veo, MedLM, LearnLM, SecLM, Gemma, CodeGemma, RecurrentGemma, and PaliGemma. Judge Lee noted the complaint offered no facts tying those models to the plaintiffs’ works.

Judge Lee also dismissed vicarious infringement claims against Alphabet, finding no evidence it had the “practical ability” to control Google’s alleged conduct beyond a standard parentsubsidiary relationship.

The lawsuit, first filed in July 2023, claims Google copied vast amounts of online content — including millions of registered works — to train its generative AI systems. Named plaintiff Sarah Andersen, a cartoonist known for Sarah’s Scribbles and Fangs, was found to have plausibly alleged valid copyright registrations for her works.

The following are the key points from the judge’s ruling:

• Direct infringement claims tied to representative works can proceed, as plaintiffs linked specific works to specific training datasets.

• Injunctive relief remains on the table, with the court citing alleged ongoing risks and hardtoquantify market harm.

• Discovery disputes continue, with a magistrate judge criticizing Google’s delays in producing data but declining to appoint a special master.

Earlier in the case, Judge Lee struck the plaintiffs’ proposed “failsafe” class definition, but he allowed them to try again. The litigation covers three types of generative AI models: largelanguage models, texttoimage diffusion models, and multimodal models that handle multiple input/output formats.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Cadio Zirpoli, Christopher K.L. Young, Elissa A. Buchanan and Evan Creutz of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, Brian D. Clark, Laura M. Matson, Arielle Wagner and Eura Chang of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Ryan J. Clarkson, Yana Hart, Mark Richards, Tiara Avaness and Tracey Cowan of Clarkson Law Firm PC and Lesley E. Weaver, Anne K. Davis, Joshua D. Samra and Gregory S. Mullens of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Stephen J. Teti of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Matthew Butterick.

The consolidated case is In re: Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation, case number 5:23-cv-03440, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Facebook $725 Million Privacy Settlement Payments Coming Soon

Meta, formerly Facebook, has finalized a $725 million class action settlement resolving claims it shared users’ personal data with third parties without consent or failed to secure it. The case covers U.S. Facebook users active between May 24, 2007, and Dec. 22, 2022.

To receive a payment, eligible users had to file a claim by August 2023 and have it approved. Payout amounts will vary based on the number of valid claims, how long each person had an account during the covered period, and deductions for legal and administrative costs.

The settlement became final on August 27, 2025, and payments are scheduled to be distributed over the next 10 weeks.

Source: KSAT 12

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

New Study Reiterates Link Between Prenatal Acetaminophen Use And Autism/ADHD In Children

Researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai published a study in August concluding that prenatal acetaminophen (often known by the brand name Tylenol) may increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders, including Autism and ADHD in children.  The study was published in BMC Environmental Health and is the first to apply a gold-standard and rigorous methodology to evaluate the quality of all preexisting scientific literature on the subject.  Dr. Diddier Prada stated that these findings “could have major public health implications” given the widespread use of this medication in pregnancy.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated acetaminophen/Tylenol cases to Judge Cote on October 5, 2022, due to the increasing number of filings across the country alleging a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and autism and/or ADHD.  The MDL Judge dismissed the litigation in December 2023 by granting defendants’ motion to exclude all of plaintiffs’ experts despite having ample scientific evidence.  This ruling is currently being reviewed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Scientific studies have increasingly pointed to a troubling connection: taking acetaminophen (Tylenol) during pregnancy may raise the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. Now, the issue has reached the highest levels of government.

On September 22, 2025, the U.S. government confirmed the connection between prenatal Tylenol use and neurodevelopmental disorders. 

Autism Rates Are Rising

The statistics are alarming:

• Autism once affected 1 in 10,000 children just a few decades ago.
• Today, it impacts 1 in 31 children nationwide, with even higher rates in some areas.
• Among boys in California, the rate is as high as 1 in 12.
• Since 2000, autism diagnoses have surged by 400%.

What the Research Shows

Peer-reviewed studies have found that acetaminophen can pass through the placenta and may affect how a baby’s brain develops. Long-term or high-dose use during pregnancy has been linked to a higher chance of autism and ADHD in children.

For years, Tylenol and other acetaminophen products have been promoted as safe for pregnant women. If companies knew—or should have known—about these risks and didn’t warn the public, families may be able to seek compensation for the harm caused.

What You Can Do

Beasley Allen is leading Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits nationwide, representing families whose children were diagnosed after prenatal exposure to acetaminophen. Our lawyers have secured billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements in complex pharmaceutical and product liability cases. We are committed to holding companies accountable and ensuring families have the resources they need to care for affected children.

Beasley Allen lawyers in our Mass Torts Section continue to investigate cases involving prenatal exposure to acetaminophen, who have subsequently been diagnosed with autism or ADHD. Roger Smith from our firm serves as the MDL Chair of the Plaintiff’s Science and Expert Committee.  

Women who took Tylenol or another acetaminophen product during pregnancy and their children were later diagnosed with autism or ADHD, may have legal options. 

Kratom And 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) – Consumer Safety Concerns

Kratom is a plant material from Southeast Asia that produces opioid- and stimulant-like effects. Kratom can be consumed in many ways, including pills, capsules, powders, crushed and smoked, brewed as tea, or by chewing the raw leaves. 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) is a potent, opioid-like chemical found in trace amounts in the Kratom plant, Mitragyna speciosa. In recent years, public health officials have issued warnings about concentrated 7-OH products, which are often marketed misleadingly as natural Kratom.

Spurred on by a national lobbying effort by the American Kratom Association, sales of Kratom in the United States have increased dramatically in recent years, turning Kratom into a billion-dollar industry.  

The FDA, however, has expressed serious concerns about Kratom’s addictive effects and the rash of associated hospitalizations, seizures, and deaths it has caused throughout the country. Kratom contains a chemical compound called mitragynine, which can stimulate the same brain receptors as opioids. Kratom affects these brain receptors in much the same way as morphine, which creates a tremendous risk of addiction, abuse, and dependence. 

According to the FDA’s recent public health advisories, there are 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 is actively working to limit Kratom availability in the U.S. by warning consumers about its serious risks, including liver toxicity, seizures, substance use disorders, and, in some cases, death. The FDA is also taking action against companies selling unapproved Kratom products and collaborating with other federal agencies to restrict its importation and distribution. However, the agency faces significant challenges in regulating Kratom due to its shadowy and fragmented supply chain, which often involves unregistered entities operating through various channels, including online sales and small retail shops. 

Although the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration calls Kratom a “drug of concern”, it is not currently regulated as a controlled substance. On the state level, Alabama and several other states have banned the sale and possession of Kratom outright, while others have introduced legislation to significantly restrict the marketing and distribution of Kratom products.  Sadly, though, many states still allow the sale of Kratom at vape shops and convenience stores – a fact that has led many people to refer to it as “Gas Station Heroin.”

Our Firm is working diligently to combat the spread of this highly dangerous product, which is typically sold without any warnings or information concerning health risks, dosing instructions, serving sizes, the concentration of mitragynine and 7-OH in each serving, or the other active ingredients that manufacturers add to their Kratom products. 

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuit Update

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed the first-of-its-kind ultra-processed food lawsuit against major food manufacturers, including Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, and Coca-Cola. The lawsuit alleged that these companies deliberately engineered harmful ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to be addictive, heavily marketed them to children, and concealed the risks they pose to consumer health.

U.S. District Judge Mia Roberts Perez found that the plaintiff, 19-year-old Bryce Martinez, who developed Type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), failed to allege a sufficient causal connection between a specific UPF and his health conditions. The complaint referenced over 100 brands without identifying particular products within those brands that he consumed, and did not provide adequate detail about the frequency or amount of his consumption. 

Judge Perez did note, however, that she “is deeply concerned about the practices used to create and market UPFs, and the deleterious effect UPFs have on children and the American diet.”

Plaintiff’s counsel from the Martinez case has indicated that they are evaluating options for next steps, citing compelling scientific evidence on the addictive nature of UPFs. This case highlights the need for industry accountability amidst growing awareness of the health implications linked to ultra-processed food consumption. 

Beasley Allen lawyers are actively investigating cases involving minors who regularly consumed UPFs and were later diagnosed with NAFLD and/or Type 2 diabetes. 

New Study Published With Notable Findings On Depo-Provera Use

A new study published in September by JAMA Neurology found a significantly increased risk of developing a meningioma when used instead of other contraceptives.  Importantly, the study found no increased risk of a meningioma diagnosis with any other contraceptive.  The study noted that the risk of meningiomas grows with longer exposure.  This study adds to the growing body of science that supports legal cases against Pfizer and its authorized generics that make this medication.

Litigation surrounding Depo-Provera came about in at least 2024 when studies showed an increased risk of Depo-Provera use to meningioma tumors, which are tumors that develop on the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord. Although most often benign, meningiomas can create a myriad of neurological issues, such as seizures, strokes, and migraines.  Many, if not most, meningiomas require lifelong monitoring, and some may not be operated on depending on where they are located in the brain.

Beasley Allen lawyers Roger Smith, Mary Cam Raybon, and Leighton Johnson are actively investigating cases involving Depo-Provera use for at least one (1) year where the injured later suffered a cerebral or spinal meningioma.

Hair Relaxers Litigation Update

In the chemical hair relaxer products liability cases filed in federal court, Judge Mary M. Rowland has scheduled a pivotal “Science Day” for January 8, 2026. This litigation involves products predominantly marketed to women of color, with claims linking their use to serious health issues such as uterine cancer and fibroids. The Science Day is designed as a non-adversarial, educational event where both plaintiffs and defendants will present scientific and medical findings to aid the court’s understanding of the complex health issues involved. 

Plaintiffs contend that these products, marketed since the 1970s, have disproportionately affected Black and Brown women, who often begin using them in adolescence due to societal pressures. The litigation seeks to consolidate cases against major defendants, including L’Oreal, in the Northern District of Illinois, citing a strong factual connection to the area. 

Additionally, judges are overseeing these cases filed in various state court venues, such as Cook County, Illinois; DeKalb County, Georgia; Chatham County, Georgia; and Philadelphia. The outcome of the Science Day could significantly influence future rulings on the admissibility of expert testimony and evidence, making it a critical event for those involved in or following the litigation in each of these jurisdictions. 

GLP1/Ozempic Litigation Update

The GLP1/Ozempic MDL has grown to over 2,600 filed cases. A significant number of individuals involved in the litigation have reported developing gastroparesis due to taking GLP1s such as Ozempic. Judge Karen M. Marston, the federal judge overseeing the GLP1/Ozempic MDL, entered an order in August 2025 that outlined new evidentiary requirements for plaintiffs pursuing these claims. 

Specifically, anyone asserting that Ozempic caused their gastroparesis must now provide results from a validated diagnostic test—such as a gastric emptying scintigraphy, breath test, or wireless motility capsule (“WMC”)—to support their allegations of gastroparesis. 

This decision represents a departure from what many plaintiffs had anticipated. There was hope that a diagnosis based on clinical symptoms and a physician’s evaluation would be sufficient. Gastroparesis is often diagnosed through a combination of patient history, symptom patterns, and clinical expertise. Requiring a specific test may inadvertently exclude legitimate cases where such testing was not performed or was not feasible.  

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

Paraquat Litigation Update

As we await the details of the long-anticipated settlement agreement reached in April 2025, the current landscape of the Paraquat litigation reveals several key updates that are critical for both plaintiffs and defendants alike.

In the September update, the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) issued a third stay on all case-specific discovery in the cases. This pause was implemented to allow both sides to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement, with the stay set to expire on September 26, 2025. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement on the finalized settlement terms, the established trial schedule will continue as previously outlined, with the first bellwether trial set to commence on October 14, 2025.

As it stands, there is currently no deadline for filing paraquat-related suits, necessitating vigilance on the part of individuals potentially impacted. It is imperative that anyone who believes they have been exposed to paraquat seek legal consultation without delay, especially those who have developed Parkinson’s disease as a result of this exposure. Despite the ongoing negotiations for a settlement, the MDL has observed no decline in the number of filed cases, which has now reached a total of 6,360.

Another pressing concern among many stakeholders pertains to the potential average settlement amounts from these paraquat lawsuits. While the eligibility criteria for settlement have yet to be firmly established, lawyers and experts have often drawn parallels to previous Roundup settlement amounts to set expectations. Depending on the nature and severity of the injuries suffered, speculations suggest that settlements could range between $100,000 and $150,000. However, it is crucial to exercise caution when considering these figures, as definitive amounts will only become clear following trial outcomes.

In a nutshell, the paraquat settlement continues to intensify. As we move closer to potential trial dates, it is vital for individuals affected by paraquat exposure to stay informed and prepared to assert their rights.

Sanofi Reaches Settlement In Zantac Suits

After more than a year of negotiations, Sanofi-Aventis US LLC and Sanofi US Services Inc. have reached settlement agreements in principle in two Connecticut lawsuits alleging that generic versions of Zantac degraded into a cancer-causing substance. The cases, filed in the Waterbury Judicial District, involve six plaintiffs in one suit and ten in another. Terms of the settlements are confidential and will be formalized before the cases are officially dismissed.

The lawsuits center on innovator liability, a legal theory that seeks to hold brand-name drug manufacturers responsible for injuries caused by generic versions—based on their control over product labeling. In August 2023, Judge W. Glen Pierson ruled that Sanofi could be sued in Connecticut, but judgment on the innovator liability claims was deferred until a later stage.

Sanofi continues to deny any reliable scientific link between Zantac and cancer; however, the company previously disclosed efforts to settle approximately 4,000 similar cases nationwide. GlaxoSmithKline, another defendant, settled its portion of the same Connecticut cases in June 2025

The plaintiffs are represented by Brenden P. Leydon of Wocl Leydon LLC.

The cases are Carrano et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number UWY-CV23-6075772-S, and Morrison et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number UWY-CV24-6076005-S, in the Waterbury Judicial District of the Connecticut Superior Court.

Source: Law360

CONSUMER CORNER

Amazon To Pay $2.5 Billion In FTC Prime Settlement

Amazon has agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle allegations brought by the Federal Trade Commission that it misled customers into signing up for its Prime service and then made it unnecessarily difficult to cancel. The settlement includes a $1 billion civil penalty, the largest in FTC history, and a $1.5 billion fund to reimburse consumers. In addition, Amazon will be required to make the Prime cancellation process as simple as signing up, with clear disclosures about trial terms, costs, billing frequency, and cancellation steps.

The FTC accused Amazon of using “subscription traps” that pushed customers into Prime without their express consent and forced them through multiple pages and options to cancel. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said the evidence showed Amazon had manipulated consumers and made it “exceedingly hard” to end their subscriptions. Nearly 40 million people were affected.

Amazon settled the case just days into a civil trial in Seattle. Prime was launched in 2005 and now has more than 200 million members worldwide. It remains the largest paid subscription program in the world, offering fast shipping, streaming, and other perks for $139 annually or $14.99 monthly.

The settlement came about as Amazon was facing broader regulatory scrutiny. The FTC has also filed a major antitrust lawsuit against the company, alleging it used anti-competitive tactics tied to Prime, including pressuring sellers to use its logistics services and punishing merchants for offering lower prices elsewhere. That case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2027.

Source: Wall Street Journal

Jury Awards Over $425 Million In Google’s Illegal Data Collection Case

A California federal jury has ordered Google to pay over $425 million in damages for unlawfully collecting data from 98 million users who had opted out of app activity tracking. The jury found Google liable for invasion of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion. The jurors found no evidence of malice or fraud and did not award punitive damages. 

The case focused on Google’s “supplemental Web & App Activity” (sWAA) setting, which plaintiffs argued was misleading. Despite users disabling tracking, Google allegedly continued gathering data from third-party apps to support its advertising business. The jury rejected Google’s defense that users had consented. Claims under California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act were dismissed. 

Google maintained that the data was anonymized and not tied to individual identities. The trial featured conflicting expert testimony. Plaintiffs’ experts described “shadow accounts.” Google defended its design choices as protective of user experience. The jury obviously agreed with the plaintiffs. 

The verdict is being hailed as a major win for digital privacy. The ruling is also said to have marked a significant moment in the broader debate over tech companies’ use of consumer data.

The users are represented by David Boies, Mark C. Mao, Beko Reblitz-Richardson, James W. Lee, Alison L. Anderson, M. Logan Wright and Samantha Parrish of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Bill Carmody, Amanda K. Bonn, Shawn J. Rabin, Steven M. Shepard, Alexander P. Frawley and Ryan Sila of Susman Godfrey LLP and John A. Yanchunis, Ryan J. McGee and Michael F. Ram of Morgan & Morgan PA.

The case is Rodriguez et al. v. Google LLC et al., case number 3:20-cv-04688, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Allianz Life Cyberattack Exposes Data Of 1.1 Million Customers

A lateJuly cyberattack on Allianz Life compromised the personal information of about 1.1 million U.S. customers, according to breachtracking site “Have I Been Pwned.” The insurer had previously acknowledged that hackers accessed data belonging to most of its 1.4 million customers, as well as financial professionals and some employees.

Stolen information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Allianz Life says it is still investigating and will offer two years of identity monitoring services to those affected.

The breach is part of a broader surge in high-profile cyberattacks, including last year’s recordsetting UnitedHealth breach affecting 192.7 million people, and a July Microsoft SharePoint hack that impacted more than 100 organizations, including U.S. government agencies.

FTC Probes AI “Companion” Chatbots Over Child Safety Risks

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched a factfinding inquiry into seven major tech companies — Meta (and Instagram), Google’s parent Alphabet, OpenAI, Character.AI, Snap, X.AI, and Spirit Technologies — to examine how their AIpowered “companion” chatbots may be affecting children and teens. Using its Section 6(b) authority, the FTC is demanding detailed information on:

• How these chatbots are designed, tested, and monitored for harmful impacts;

• Steps taken to limit or restrict use by minors;

• Safety measures, disclosures, and parental controls;

• Data collection, sharing, and monetization practices; and 

• Compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

The move follows troubling reports and lawsuits alleging that some AI companions have encouraged minors to selfharm, engage in dangerous acts, or participate in inappropriate roleplay. Cases cited include the suicides of two teenagers whose families blame interactions with ChatGPT and Character.AI.

FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson says protecting kids online is a top priority, while Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Mark Meador stress the need to understand why some AI models display harmful behaviors. Meador called the allegations “troubling” and warned that companies must still follow consumer protection laws.

Some companies, like Character.AI and Snap, say they’ve added safety features such as under18 modes, parental insight tools, and clear disclaimers. Meta recently announced changes to prevent its chatbots from discussing selfharm, eating disorders, or romantic topics with teens.

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen welcomed the inquiry, but urged Congress to impose stronger, enforceable safeguards. They also criticized proposals like the SANDBOX Act, which could give AI firms temporary exemptions from federal rules. Congress needs to take action and do whatever is necessary to protect children. 

Source: Law360

Florida’s “Tilted House” Troubles: Judge Issues Daily Fines

We have written before on the infamous “Tilted House” located on Gulf Drive in Florida. This case has recently taken a dramatic turn. A Florida judge has ordered the property owners to pay $1,000 per day until they tear down the dangerously leaning structure that has been at the center of a heated neighborhood dispute.

The home at 5101 Gulf Drive D has been a source of stress for neighbors ever since it collapsed in January 2024. Despite multiple court orders and extended deadlines, the structure still stands. Now the owners are facing serious financial consequences.

The Timeline

After months of missed deadlines and stalled progress, the judge in the case laid out a timeline showing just how long the owners have delayed tearing down the dangerous structure. The timeline shows the following: 

• June 13, 2024: First order to demolish the house within 60 days;

• August 15, 2024: The deadline was extended to September 2;

• November 4, 2024: Another extension — this time to December 13; and

• February 5, 2025: Orders requiring proof of contractor bids and demolition efforts; and 

• May 21, 2025: Another order requiring proof of contractor bids; 

• August 15, 2025 hearing, no demolition contract had been executed, and the hazardous structure remains intact.

The Order

In its newly issued order, the court found that owners James Sturgeon and Yik Chun Wu were in civil contempt. The order imposed fines for every day the owners miss the following milestones:

• August 27, 2025: Sign a demolition contract;

• September 12, 2025: Obtain demolition permits; and

• October 31, 2025: Complete demolition.

Why It Matters

Neighbors say the tilted structure has already caused damage to nearby homes and they fear it could collapse again. The plaintiffs, represented by Rebecca Gilliland of Beasley Allen and Alexis Mays of Emmanuel Sheppard & Condon, contend that the owners have had more than enough time to act.

The court agreed, noting that contractors are available and willing to do the needed work. The judge also said the plaintiffs are entitled to seek reimbursement for legal fees.

What’s Next

The owners must now move quickly to avoid mounting fines. If they miss the October 31 demolition deadline, or any of the interim deadlines required by the order, they could owe tens of thousands of dollars — and still be required to tear the house down.

Rebecca Gilliland, the Beasley Allen lawyer handling this case, says her clients deserve a resolution that puts their safety first and restores their properties to the way they were before the damage. Rebecca is committed to using every legal option available to make sure the claimants get the compensation and justice they are owed.

THE STRUCTURE OF BEASLEY ALLEN AND CASES HANDLED BY THE FIRM

The Structure Of Beasley Allen Is Designed To Work For Clients 

Beasley Allen operates in five separate sections: four litigation sections and one administrative section. The separate litigation sections concept has worked extremely well. It has definitely benefited Beasley Allen clients and has also allowed our lawyers to bring about needed national changes in product and workplace safety.  

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

Each 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. Year after year, we believe our approach has allowed us to help more of those who need it most.  

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, Video Game Addiction, Ultra-Processed Foods, Depo-Provera and Talcum Powder. 

The Toxic Torts Section 

Rhon Jones leads our firm’s Toxic Torts Section with Section Director Tracie Harrison’s assistance. The section focuses on toxic exposure cases. Recent cases involve Camp Lejeune Water Contamination and Paraquat.  

The Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section 

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

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.  

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 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 Products 
• Aviation Accidents 
• Camp Lejeune  
• Defective Tires 
• Depo-Provera 
• Hair Relaxers 
• Kratom 
• NEC Baby Formula 
• Negligent Security  
• On-the-Job-Injuries 
• Ozempic 
• Paraquat 
• Predatory Gaming
• Premises Liability
• 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 lawyers handle 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 Products
  Our team will meticulously investigate your 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
  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 
  Our firm 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
  We are investigating cases for individuals who were given Depo-Provera shots for at least 1 year and developed cerebral or spinal meningiomas.
• Hair Relaxers
  Our lawyers handle cases for women injured by toxic chemicals in hair relaxers. Women who frequently use hair relaxers may develop uterine cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids or breast cancer.
• Kratom
  Beasley Allen is investigating cases of serious adverse effects experienced by individuals who have consumed products containing Kratom.
• NEC Baby Formula
  Our firm investigates 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 
  Establishment owners and managers are responsible for maintaining safe premises. When someone is injured or killed as a result of negligent security, Beasley Allen lawyers hold owners and managers accountable.
• On-the-Job-Injuries
  We 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
  We investigate 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
  Our firm 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.
• Predatory Gaming
  Online gaming has become one of the most popular forms of entertainment for children and teens. We are investigating claims involving child exploitation in gaming and predatory design that puts profits over children’s safety.
•  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
• 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.
• 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
  We are 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 
  We 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

Beasley Allen is a civil litigation law firm solely handling cases for plaintiffs.  From the firm’s beginning in 1979, our lawyers have only represented victims of wrongdoing, and that will never change.  

The firm only represents individuals, companies, and governmental entities that have been wronged and suffered damages due to the wrongdoing of another. Our lawyers do not handle any defense work, neither civil nor criminal. There are no exceptions. The only time we represent Corporate America is when a company is the victim of wrongdoing and is a plaintiff in civil litigation. This has been our policy since the firm’s establishment. 

We are honored and humbled that our firm has been consistently recognized as one of the leading law firms in the country, representing only claimants involved in civil litigation. Much of this litigation is complex, complicated and difficult. Being trial lawyers representing only victims of wrongdoing is a privilege for us. Our firm has been truly blessed. 

We understand the importance of sharing resources and collaborating with our peers in the legal profession. We are committed to investing in resources that can help our fellow trial lawyers in their work. We have compiled a list of our most popular resources for those seeking to work with us or seeking information to help their law firm with a case. 

  

Co-Counsel E-Newsletter 

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

   

Recalls Update 

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

  

The Jere Beasley Report 

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

TRIAL TIPS FOR LAWYERS

Practice tips

In this month’s Practice Tips, Beasley Allen lawyer Nick Kohrs explores one of the most talked-about tools shaping the legal profession today: artificial intelligence. While AI is often surrounded by hype and uncertainty, Nick cuts through the noise to show how it can be a practical ally for lawyers in their daytoday work.

How to Challenge a Privilege Log—With a Little Help from AI

Privilege logs can be a black box in litigation—dense, vague, and often overly broad. But as plaintiffs’ counsel, you don’t have to accept them at face value. Start by scrutinizing entries for missing metadata fields, generic descriptions (e.g., “facilitate legal advice”), and suspiciously long date ranges. If the log lacks specificity, push for a revised version under Rule 26(b)(5).

Now, here’s where AI can be your secret weapon. Use AI-powered document review tools to begin flagging entries to challenge. Using a closed-source AI tool, such as Microsoft’s Co-Pilot or Thompson Reuters’s Co-Counsel, can be a timesaver in making a first-pass review of a large privilege log, identifying erroneous entries—like privilege entries containing third parties, overly broad emails to listservs, or entries not involving legal advice. 

By drafting well-crafted prompts, AI can help you begin identifying and organizing the categories to challenge. Subsequent refined prompts can provide you with specific designations to challenge under each category identified. As with any AI tool, the results will need to be verified, but it can help you move in the right direction a little more quickly and efficiently.

Finally, don’t overlook collaboration. Share AI findings with co-counsel or paralegals to build a stronger challenge. If you are new to or apprehensive about using AI, work with others in generating successful prompts. Collaboration with others and the AI assistant will enhance your efficiency.

By utilizing AI insights with your own knowledge, you will turn privilege logs from time-consuming discovery traffic jams into mere speed bumps.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

James Eubank

James Eubank is a lawyer in Beasley Allen’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section, where he handles cases involving securities fraud, bank fraud, insurance fraud, ERISA violations, and business disputes. James joined the firm in 2019 and has a strong foundation in trial work and regulatory enforcement.  His interest in law was sparked early by his father, a tax attorney known for simplifying complex issues. After receiving the Hugh Kaul Foundation and Alabama Power scholarships, James earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Alabama in 2003 and a law degree from the University of Alabama School of Law in 2007.

James began his legal career clerking for Circuit Judge Charles Price, a noted trial court judge in Montgomery. James then served as a Deputy District Attorney in Montgomery County, managing a large caseload and leading the Civil Asset Forfeiture Division. Later, James worked as Associate Counsel and Assistant Attorney General at the Alabama Securities Commission, prosecuting cases and advising the Commission. Because of his expertise and experience, James was appointed Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for an important securities fraud case.  

James says he finds fulfillment in advocating for victims of fraud and unethical practices. He keeps a thank-you card from a former client as a daily reminder of the impact his work can have.

Outside of work, James enjoys fly fishing, turkey hunting, and spending time with his wife, Laura, and their children, Sara and Thomas. When asked what he enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen, James shared, “It’s the people. I’m surrounded by colleagues who are not only talented but genuinely care about doing the right thing.” That spirit of camaraderie continues to inspire his work every day.

James is an outstanding trial lawyer who is totally dedicated to his clients and their cases. We are fortunate to have him with us. 

Sydney Everett

Sydney Everett’s journey with Beasley Allen began in 2016 as a summer law clerk. Today, she is a lawyer in the firm’s Mass Torts Section. Guided by a deep sense of justice, Sydney focuses her practice on product liability and personal injury, with a current emphasis on litigation against major social media platforms for their harmful impact on youth. Her work in this area has been eye-opening. Sydney shares that social media litigation has revealed how profoundly these platforms have affected society, especially young people, and how much harm has been done knowingly and intentionally.

Originally from Montgomery, Sydney now lives in Birmingham with her husband, where she enjoys yoga, spin classes, music, and spending time with animals. She’s passionate about people and community, actively participating in the Birmingham Bar Association and serving in leadership roles that help connect lawyers with the broader Birmingham area.  Sydney earned her law degree from Samford University’s Cumberland School of Law, where she was recognized for her academic excellence in product liability. She also holds a Communication and Information Sciences degree from the University of Alabama.

When asked about her favorite thing about working at Beasley Allen, Sydney says, “It’s the people. I love the people I work with—they’re passionate, driven, and genuinely care about making a difference.”

Sydney is another outstanding trial lawyer who is totally dedicated to the clients for whom she helps seek justice. We are fortunate to have Sydney at Beasley Allen.

Bridgette Singleton

This May marked a special milestone for Bridgette Singleton—10 years of dedicated service at Beasley Allen. As a staff assistant in the Mass Torts section, Bridgette plays a vital role in supporting our attorneys by ordering and reviewing medical records essential to case preparation. Her attention to detail and commitment to accuracy help ensure our clients’ cases are built on a strong foundation.  

Bridgette comes from a large and close-knit family. She fondly shares that her parents were blessed with nine children, three sisters and four brothers, though one sister has sadly passed away. Bridgette is a proud aunt to many nieces and nephews and deeply cherishes her grandnieces and grandnephews. In her free time, she enjoys reading, relaxing at home, and spending time with friends. Bridgette is a true music lover who gravitates toward the sounds of the Eighties, Motown, and Classic Rock. She’s also an avid fan of Turner Classic Movies, her favorite channel. Sports are another passion of hers—she enthusiastically follows college and professional football, basketball, and tennis.

When asked what she loves most about working at Beasley Allen, Bridgette shared, “My favorite thing is the ability to help our clients in any way possible. I love working in the spiritual environment established under Mr. Beasley and others in the firm.”

Bridgette is a hard-working, dedicated employee, and we are blessed to have her at the firm. 

Tammie Tyus

As a staff assistant in our Mass Torts Section, Tammie Tyus has been a valued part of the Beasley Allen team for 11 years. Over the years, Tammie has played a key role in supporting several high-profile cases, including JUUL, Xarelto, and Low-T. She remains dedicated to supporting the JUUL litigation, continuing to coordinate settlement payments and address client questions. Today, Tammie’s primary focus is assisting the Social Media team in completing Plaintiff Fact Sheets for ongoing litigation and serving as a client resource, ensuring their concerns are handled promptly and compassionately.

Tammie was born and raised in Montgomery. She is the youngest of three siblings. Her sister lives in Panama, and her brother still resides in Montgomery. Although both parents have passed, Tammie shares that her family remains close-knit. She and her significant other, John, their 31-year-old son, a daughter-in-law, and a lively four-year-old grandson, affectionately known as “Moo-Moo,” all share a wonderful life. The family enjoys frequent get-togethers, and their home is made even more vibrant with three beloved dogs: Minnie Pearl, Scooter, and Peso. In her free time, Tammie enjoys photography, fishing, camping, genealogy, traveling, and cheering on Alabama football—Roll Tide!

When asked about her favorite thing at Beasley Allen, Tammie quickly mentions the lifelong friendships she has formed with her co-workers. She values the firm’s commitment to helping clients and making a difference. Still, she appreciates that Beasley Allen is a God-centered firm where faith, family, and integrity come first. 

We are blessed to have Tammie, a very hard-working employee who is dedicated to helping the clients she serves at Beasley Allen.

Kwanzaa White

Kwanzaa White marked an incredible milestone in July–24 years of dedicated service at Beasley Allen! As one of the firm’s senior receptionists, Kwanzaa is a warm and welcoming presence to everyone who enters our doors, from clients and lawyers to support staff. She plays an essential role in managing phone calls, greeting guests, and creating a positive first impression—something she consistently delivers with grace, professionalism, and heartfelt care.

Kwanzaa has been married to her husband James for 25 years, and they share one adult daughter who recently earned her associate degree in Early Care from Trenholm State Community College and now works in childcare. 

Kwanzaa treasures time with her parents, whom she calls her anchors, and enjoys the love and support of her extended family and close friends—her “family.” Outside of work, she leads and attends small groups at church, serves the outreach team each first Saturday, and joins James on the intercessory prayer team. She also enjoys traveling and spending quality time with loved ones.

When asked what she enjoys most about working at Beasley Allen, Kwanzaa shared, “It’s the people I get to work with in the office every day.” Her kindness, dedication, and joyful spirit continue to leave a lasting impact on our team.

Kwanzaa is the first person I see each day when I get to work. She always brightens my day and helps me get off to a good start. We are blessed to have Kwanzaa at Beasley Allen in an extremely important role. 

Special Recognitions

Leon Hampton Appointed to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Board of Directors

Beasley Allen is proud to announce that Leon Hampton, a lawyer in the firm’s Montgomery office, has been appointed to the Board of Directors for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), one of the nation’s most historic and influential civil rights organizations.

Founded in 1957 by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other prominent leaders, the SCLC has played a pivotal role in advancing justice, equality, and human rights for more than six decades. As a member of the Board of Directors, Leon will help guide the organization’s mission to promote social justice through nonviolent action, community engagement, and advocacy.

Leon joined Beasley Allen in 2017 and focuses his practice on whistleblower, employment, insurance bad faith, and civil rights litigation. His career includes significant victories, such as serving as lead counsel in a qui tam case that resulted in a $417 million judgment and cocounsel in a qui tam trial that led to a $14 million verdict. He has also secured multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in retaliatory discharge cases and numerous confidential settlements holding corporations accountable for unlawful conduct.

In addition to his legal work, Leon is deeply committed to community service and professional leadership. He has served as Past President of the Alabama Lawyers Association, is an Executive Board Member of the Capital City Bar Association, and sits on the Cumberland School of Law Advisory Board. His dedication to justice reflects a lifelong respect for the civil rights movement and those who have fought against injustice.

We are highly pleased that Leon was appointed. His appointment to the SCLC Board underscores Beasley Allen’s ongoing commitment to supporting organizations that champion civil rights, protect the vulnerable, and promote equality under the law.

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

Several of our staff employees and one of our lawyers, who are being featured this month, share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Kwanzaa White

Kwanzaa offers two of her favorite verses. The first reminds her why she does what she does and helps her keep the main thing, the main thing.

Whatever work you do, do it with all your heart. Do it for the Lord and not for me. Colossians 3:23

The second verse affirms why God’s plan for you is always the best plan.

Trust your work to the Lord, and your plans will work out well. Proverbs 16:3

Sydney Everett

Sydney shares three of her favorite verses with us below:

Peace I leave with you. My peace I give to you. I do not give peace to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid. John 14:27

I give them life that lasts forever. They will never be punished. No one is able to take them out of My hand. John 10:28

O Lord, You have looked through me and have known me. 2 You know when I sit down and when I get up. You understand my thoughts from far away. 3 You look over my path and my lying down. You know all my ways very well. 4 Even before I speak a word, O Lord, You know it all. 5 You have closed me in from behind and in front. And You have laid Your hand upon me. 6 All You know is too great for me. It is too much for me to understand.

7 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I run away from where You are? 8 If I go up to heaven, You are there! If I make my bed in the place of the dead, You are there! 9 If I take the wings of the morning or live in the farthest part of the sea, 10 even there Your hand will lead me and Your right hand will hold me. 11 If I say, “For sure the darkness will cover me and the light around me will be night,” 12 even the darkness is not dark to You. And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are the same to You.

13 For You made the parts inside me. You put me together inside my mother. 14 I will give thanks to You, for the greatness of the way I was made brings fear. Your works are great and my soul knows it very well. 15 My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret and put together with care in the deep part of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw me before I was put together. And all the days of my life were written in Your book before any of them came to be.

17 Your thoughts are of great worth to me, O God. How many there are! 18 If I could number them, there would be more than the sand. When I awake, I am still with You.

19 If only You would kill the sinful, O God, and the men of blood would go away from me! 20 For they speak against You in sin. Those who hate You use Your name in a wrong way. 21 Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not hate those who rise up against You? 22 I hate them with the strongest hate. They have become men who hate me.

23 Look through me, O God, and know my heart. Try me and know my thoughts. 24 See if there is any sinful way in me and lead me in the way that lasts forever. Psalm 139

Tammie Tyus

Tammie provides three of her favorite verses for us. The first is a reminder that although she may not understand why things happen in life, God has plans for her, and she needs to keep faith in the process.

For I know the plans I have for you,’ says the Lord, ‘plans for well-being and not for trouble, to give you a future and a hope. Jeremiah 29:11

The second verse reminds her that no matter how hard a task may seem, she can accomplish it and get through it with God’s strength. 

I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength. Philippians 4:13

Tammie says this verse reminds her that just because a prayer isn’t answered the way she would like for it to be, it doesn’t mean God has not answered her prayer. His answer and His grace are sufficient.

The things God showed me were so great. But to keep me from being too full of pride because of seeing these things, I have been given trouble in my body. It was sent from Satan to hurt me. It keeps me from being proud. 8 I asked the Lord three times to take it away from me. 9 He answered me, “I am all you need. I give you My loving-favor. My power works best in weak people.” I am happy to be weak and have troubles so I can have Christ’s power in me. 10 I receive joy when I am weak. I receive joy when people talk against me and make it hard for me and try to hurt me and make trouble for me. I receive joy when all these things come to me because of Christ. For when I am weak, then I am strong. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10

Bridgette Singleton

Bridgette, another one of our staff being featured in this issue, shares her favorite verses. The first reminds her that no matter what circumstances or hardships come her way, she can find strength and faith in the Lord.

I can do all things because Christ gives me the strength. Philippians 4:13

The second verse is a reminder that all help comes from the Lord. He keeps His arms of protection around her and will always make a way.

I will lift up my eyes to the mountains. Where will my help come from? 2 My help comes from the Lord, Who made heaven and earth. 3 He will not let your feet go out from under you. He Who watches over you will not sleep. 4 Listen, He Who watches over Israel will not close his eyes or sleep.

5 The Lord watches over you. The Lord is your safe cover at your right hand. 6 The sun will not hurt you during the day and the moon will not hurt you during the night. 7 The Lord will keep you from all that is sinful. He will watch over your soul. 8 The Lord will watch over your coming and going, now and forever. Psalms 121

The last verse comes from John and reminds us that God loved us so much that He gave His only Son.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Whoever puts his trust in God’s Son will not be lost but will have life that lasts forever. John 3:16

MONTHLY REMINDERS

We are once again including this section of “reminders” in the Report. That’s because I 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

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

In the Capitol Observations section of this issue, we discussed the Preamble to the Constitution. We will now discuss the state of our union. Our nation is badly divided, with the division becoming worse and more hostile, and dangerous daily. Mass murders around the country are happening at a record pace. So far, there have been 384 to date. I previously posed the question: “What more will it take before the people wake up and demand corrective action?” Let’s consider what a man had to say in 1858 on the subject. Before he became president, Abraham Lincoln said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

It’s accepted by most that Lincoln took this observation from the Bible. Jesus made the assessment quite clear in Mark 3:25, Matt. 12:25 and Luke 11:17. Lincoln was on target in 1858. His assessment clearly applies today. Unfortunately, I am not sure the people have reached the point and are ready to demand corrective action at every level of government. 

The Preamble sets out the basic principles that should be in place in our country. The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and a strong, independent Judicial System provide the means of saving America. We all need to be a part of the problem-solving effort. 

Again, I ask, “What more will it take?” 

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

This is an advertisement.