The Jere Beasley Report September 2025

CAPITOL OBSERVATIONS

Football Replaces Politics In America – For A Time

America has been involved in political activities over the past few years that have become hostile, mean-spirited, and sometimes even extremely violent. During much of that time, Americans have experienced all sorts of problems.  There has been a great deal of misunderstanding as to why all of the problems are happening. At this juncture, however, I believe most folks around the county are ready for some good news to be on the 6:00 pm news for a change. 

Fortunately, football season has arrived and that will make a big difference in the nation’s news coverage. At least there will be good news – football-related – on the TV screens of America. Alabama and Auburn fans, and fans from other colleges around the country, are breaking out their school colors and talking football. Fans are busy trying to figure out who is on their respective teams. Football fans are definitely ready for the new season. 

The bottom line is that folks really get fired up over football, and for a time, politics will take a back seat on the news. Wins and losses will get the attention of most Americans. That can be both good and bad – good in the sense that people will argue and fight over football and not over things of a political nature. The bad is that some really bad things can be happening to our country politically that are hurtful, and many folks won’t even know about the hurt because of their obsession with football. Simply put, they won’t be keeping up with things that are really important for the country as they should be. 

Blame football, but enjoy the season!

TALC LITIGATION

The Talc Litigation Continues Its Return To The Tort System Following The Dismissal Of J&J’s Third Bankruptcy Attempt Earlier This Year

Last month, Judge Michael Shipp, who oversees the Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) in the New Jersey Federal Court, affirmed an earlier decision by Special Master Joel Schneider, granting plaintiffs leave to add additional defendants to the Master Complaint, which applies to all cases pending in the MDL.  

The decision allows plaintiffs to add Johnson & Johnson Holdco (NA), Inc., Kenvue Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. as defendants in a forthcoming Second Amended Master Complaint. 

Despite J&J’s argument that these additional defendants hold no talc-related liabilities because they never manufactured J&J products in the United States, Judge Shipp agreed with the plaintiffs. He found that the additional defendants could still be held liable under either the product-line exception to successor liability or the mere continuation exception to non-successor liability. Judge Shipp ruled that plaintiffs should be allowed to add the new defendants to the Master Complaint. 

Judge Shipp based his decision on New Jersey law, which allows a successor to be held liable for injuries caused by a product even if the successor took no action to cause the injury. He referenced the 1981 Ramirez v. Amsted Indus. Inc. decision, which approved the product line exception.

A review of events leading to this important decision is in order. From 1979 to 2021, Old JJCI and its predecessors were the exclusive manufacturer and retailer of talcum-based baby powder. In October 2021, Old JJCI spun off its talc-related assets and liabilities to LTL Management LLC and its remaining assets to Holdco. LTL filed for bankruptcy twice, but both petitions were dismissed. 

During the bankruptcy proceedings, J&J restructured, spinning off Kenvue into its own publicly traded company. Kenvue planned to sell both cornstarch-based and talc-based baby powder internationally until 2023. J&J’s consumer health business was passed through Janssen during the spin-off process. In March, J&J’s third attempt to use Chapter 11 to settle thousands of claims was dismissed.

The steering committee is represented by Christopher M. Placitella of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC, Michelle A. Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP and Leigh O’Dell from Beasley Allen.

As discussed in an earlier issue, after an extended delay due to the pending bankruptcies, Beasley Allen lawyers expect trials to resume later this year.  As of the date of this publication, they anticipate the first MDL trial and a trial in state court in Los Angeles this fall.  Trials are expected in Georgia, New Jersey, and Philadelphia state courts in 2026. 

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

Is A Camp Lejeune Award Part Of The Bankruptcy Estate? A Cautious Look At Emerging Guidance

As a general rule, when a debtor files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, an estate is created that includes all legal or equitable interests in property as of the petition date (11 U.S.C. § 541(a)). This includes pre-petition personal injury claims—even if unliquidated or not yet filed. Many Circuits have expressly confirmed that even unknown or dormant personal injury claims are estate assets if the injury occurred pre-petition.

However, with respect to Camp Lejeune claims, at least one court has found an exception. In In re Hancock, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that although the claimant’s exposure/injury occurred pre-petition, the date he suffered the alleged injury was irrelevant.  The court reasoned that Congress created a new federal cause of action in the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), and until the enactment of the CLJA on August 10, 2022, the debtor had no legal claim within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code.  

Therefore, the Hancock court concluded that the CLJA claim was not property of the estate or an asset that could be administered by a Chapter 7 trustee for the benefit of the creditors of the bankruptcy estate.  The claims belong solely to the debtor.

This encouraging ruling offers instructive guidance to lawyers representing Camp Lejeune claimants who filed bankruptcies prior to August 10, 2022.  But all lawyers should still proceed with caution. Hancock has not been tested beyond that jurisdiction, and its reasoning—while sound—may not be universally adopted. Courts could take a broader view of what constitutes a pre-petition interest.

If you are a lawyer who represents a client who has filed bankruptcy, it may be necessary to proactively engage with local bankruptcy counsel for guidance.  Lawyers should remain vigilant and tailor their approach to the facts and jurisdiction of each case.

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

Case Count Rises In The Social Media Litigation As Expert Discovery Accelerates

As of August 1, 2025, the Social Media Addiction MDL in the Northern District of California has reached 1,922 active lawsuits—an increase of 55 new cases since last month. While this monthly growth may seem incremental, it highlights the steady and persistent expansion of the litigation, which continues to build momentum.

The MDL and JCCP are now deep into expert discovery. Plaintiffs are actively engaged in motion practice, with over 70 expert depositions scheduled to take place over the next six weeks—many involving experts who overlap across both proceedings. This intensive discovery phase underscores the complexity and scale of this litigation.

Looking Ahead: Coordinated Progress and Trial Structure

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presides over the multidistrict litigation involving both school districts and personal injury plaintiffs, has ruled that the School District cases will be tried first, followed by the personal injury cases. The parties are still working to finalize the order in which these cases will proceed to trial. Importantly, the court’s coordinated timeline is designed to reduce delays and ensure that all parties move forward together.

This structure provides plaintiffs with a clearer path to trial and maintains steady pressure on defendants as the MDL continues to grow. Beasley Allen represents multiple trial bellwethers in both the JCCP and the MDL, ensuring strong advocacy as these landmark cases advance.

California Jury Finds Meta Illegally Recorded App Data

A California federal jury has found Meta Platforms Inc. liable for violating the state’s wiretap law by using a data analytics tool to retrieve sensitive health data from users of the Flo menstrual tracking app. The jury determined that Meta had intentionally recorded sensitive menstrual and sexual health information entered by users into the app, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. This information was received through a software development kit provided to Flo Health Inc. to track user behavior.

Meta exploited the unauthorized collection of sensitive health information to strengthen its targeted advertising business. The verdict sends a clear message about the protection of digital health data and the responsibilities of Big Tech. I suspect we have only seen the tip of the iceberg on this most serious problem. 

The dispute dates back to 2021 when several app users filed class actions against Flo, Meta, Google, and mobile app analytics providers. The lawsuits followed a settlement between Flo and the Federal Trade Commission, requiring Flo to gain consent before sharing personal health information. The trial against Flo and Meta began in July 2025, concluding with the jury’s verdict. The plaintiffs’ co-counsel called this a landmark moment in safeguarding digital privacy rights.

The app users are represented by Carol C. Villegas, Michael P. Canty, Jake Bissell-Linsk, Danielle Izzo and Gloria J. Medina of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP, Christian Levis and Amanda Fiorilla of Lowey Dannenberg PC, Diana J. Zinser and Jeffrey L. Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC, James M. Wagstaffe of Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green LLP, Ronald A. Marron, Alexis M. Wood and Kas L. Gallucci of The Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, Kent M. Williams of Siri & Glimstad LLP and William Darryl Harris II of Harris Legal Advisors LLC.

The case is Erica Frasco et al. v. Flo Health Inc. et al., case number 3:21-cv-00757, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source: Law360

Minnesota Sues TikTok Over Addictive Algorithms

Minnesota has joined other states in suing TikTok, accusing it of using addictive algorithms that negatively impact young users’ mental health. According to Attorney General Keith Ellison, the lawsuit is about deception and manipulation, not free speech. The state alleges that TikTok violates laws against deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud. 

This lawsuit is part of a broader effort, with around 24 states involved, following a 2022 investigation into TikTok’s effects on young users. The lawsuit claims that TikTok has long known about the addictive “slot machine”-like effect of its app and has done little to address it due to its profit-driven motives. 

Sean Padden, a middle-school health teacher, noted a link between increased TikTok use and rising mental health issues among students. The lawsuit comes amid ongoing concerns about data security and ownership of TikTok. It should be noted that TikTok is owned by China’s ByteDance. 

The suit also alleges that TikTok misleads the public about the app’s safety and buries important information about its risks. Minnesota seeks to hold TikTok liable under state laws governing deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud, and claims the company violated a law requiring a license for transmitting money. 

Minnesota seeks a declaration that TikTok’s practices are deceptive, an injunction against these practices, and financial penalties for each instance of a Minnesota child accessing TikTok. Attorney General Ellison stressed the need for TikTok to operate safely and responsibly. Minnesota is also involved in lawsuits against other social media platforms like Meta, Snapchat, and Roblox for similar issues.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Texas, North Carolina, New York, and New Jersey. The lawsuit emphasizes that TikTok prioritizes profits over user well-being, exploiting young users’ neurological reward systems to create habitual dependence on the app.

Minnesota is represented by Keith Ellison, Jessica Whitney, Jason Pleggenkuhle and Bennett Hartz of the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

The case is Minnesota v. TikTok Inc., case number 27-CV-25-15301, in the Fourth Judicial District for the District Court for Minnesota.

Source: ABC News

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].

MOTOR VEHICLE AND TRUCKING LITIGATION

Lawsuit Filed Against PACCAR Over Fatal Crash Involving Kenworth T680

Wyatt Montgomery, a lawyer in our Mobile, Alabama office, has filed a lawsuit against PACCAR Inc., the designer and manufacturer of the 2021 Kenworth T680, following a devastating crash that claimed the lives of two children and their grandmother. The incident occurred on an interstate highway where traffic had come to a complete stop due to a bridge repainting project. Despite the halted traffic, an 18-wheeler traveling at nearly 70 mph with cruise control engaged failed to slow down or apply brakes, violently colliding with the stopped vehicle occupied by our clients.

The heavy truck involved lacked crash avoidance technology (CAT), also known as Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), which PACCAR offers as optional equipment on the Kenworth T680 and other heavy-duty models. Wyatt’s complaint alleges the absence of crash avoidance technology renders the subject truck defective and that PACCAR negligently failed to equip the vehicle with this life-saving technology, despite its availability and proven effectiveness in preventing rear-end collisions or drastically reducing their severity. 

The owner of the 18-wheeler carried minimal insurance coverage, leaving the victims’ families with limited recourse – a trend we are unfortunately seeing more often in trucking litigation. With this trend, lawyers should be looking for additional avenues of recovery for their clients to ensure they are fully compensated for their loss.  

By targeting PACCAR, Beasley Allen lawyers aim to maximize our clients’ recovery, as well as hold manufacturers accountable for decisions that prioritize cost over safety. Wyatt’s case underscores the urgent need for mandatory CAT integration in commercial vehicles.

We invite fellow lawyers to follow this litigation closely. If you have a client who has suffered a catastrophic injury or death from a wreck with a tractor-trailer or other heavy truck, we would be honored to work with you to determine whether there is a potential products liability case against the manufacturer of the truck for a lack of crash avoidance technology.  Beasley Allen lawyers are at the forefront of this emerging litigation and are available to partner with you on a case.

Tesla Sued Over Robotaxis Safety Risks

Tesla and Elon Musk are facing a proposed class action lawsuit filed by shareholders over safety risks related to Tesla’s Robotaxis. The lawsuit, filed on August 4 in a federal court in Austin, Texas, claims that Tesla’s Robotaxis operated dangerously and violated traffic laws. The suit also names as defendants the current and former chief financial officers.

Shareholders accuse Tesla and Musk of securities fraud for concealing the significant risks associated with the company’s self-driving vehicles, including Robotaxis. The lawsuit alleges that Musk’s statements and videos of dangerous driving led to a significant drop in Tesla’s stock, causing shareholder losses. 

The backstory includes Musk’s announcement of the Robotaxi concept in April 2022 and the subsequent launch of the service in Austin in June 2025. However, the launch faced criticism after reports of the Robotaxis violating traffic laws and a safety demonstration showing the vehicles striking child mannequins while illegally passing a stopped school bus. This prompted Texas lawmakers to request a delay in the launch until new legislation regarding autonomous vehicles takes effect on September 1.

The class action seeks unspecified damages for shareholders between April 19, 2023, and June 22, 2025. At press time, Tesla and Musk had not publicly commented on the lawsuit.

Source: Fox 7 Austin

Obtaining The Value Of Client Claims That Exceed Policy Limits

Law firms handling motor vehicle crash litigation will deal with cases that may have limited insurance policy limits available. The cases may well have value in excess of the policy limits. At Beasley Allen, we commit to delivering maximum value for our clients. That means not just settling for the available insurance policy limits in certain cases. Over the past few years, our Motor Vehicle Litigation Team has consistently achieved results that far exceeded policy thresholds in certain cases. This reinforces our reputation for aggressive and effective advocacy.  The following are recent examples in five separate Beasley Allen cases: 

Policy Limits  $400,000  $1,000,000  $1,000,000  $1,000,000  $10,000,000

Settlement Amount  $1,000,000  $1,250,000  $3,000,000  $4,500,000  $17,000,000

The results in these cases reflect our strategic approach and relentless pursuit of justice for those persons we represent. If you have cases where policy limits may not reflect the true value of the claim, we will be glad to collaborate with you or share insights. 

A Look At The Failure Of States To Enforce Commercial Truck Drivers Licensing Standards

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has criticized three states for failing to enforce licensing standards for commercial truck drivers after a fatal crash in Florida. The crash involved Harjinder Singh, an unauthorized immigrant driving for White Hawk Carriers Inc., and resulted in three deaths. Singh, who failed an English proficiency test, was issued a commercial driver’s license in Washington and California despite not meeting federal requirements. The DOT is investigating these lapses.

This crash has intensified scrutiny on state licensing procedures. It has prompted calls for stricter enforcement of federal regulations. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy stated that the crash was preventable and blamed it on reckless decisions and failures in enforcement. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles announced that Singh was arrested on charges of vehicular homicide and immigration violations.

There is a definite need on the federal level to enforce federal regulations, including English language proficiency requirements for commercial drivers. Greater enforcement and stricter entry-level driver training standards to prevent similar accidents are being called for. The DOT should suspend the authority of states to issue non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses until a thorough review is completed. However, there should be no delay in getting this review done. Companies and individuals who own and operate commercial trucks on our nation’s highways must follow all applicable laws and regulations relating to trucks without exception. The overall system of regulation must be improved, with safety on our highways being the goal. 

Source: Law360

MOTOR VEHICLE RECALLS 

August Motor Vehicle Recalls

Automakers issued a wave of significant recalls in August 2025, affecting over two million vehicles across the U.S. due to a range of safety issues. Problems span from brake system failures and fuel leaks to steering control defects and electric battery malfunctions. Leading brands involved include Ford, Mitsubishi, Chrysler, Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, and Subaru, with some recalls impacting newer 2025 and 2026 models. Safety concerns range from increased crash risk to vehicle stalling and fire hazards. This summary set out below outlines the most critical recalls to help drivers stay informed and take all necessary action.

Ford / Lincoln

• Models: F150, Ranger, Bronco, Expedition, Navigator (2025)
• Issue: Brake booster defect – loss of assist
• Units: 312,120
• Fix: Free over-the-air (OTA) or dealer software update

Mitsubishi

• Models: Outlander / Outlander PHEV (2022–2023)
• Issue: Rear hatch may fall unexpectedly
• Units: 91,697
• Fix: Hinges replaced at no cost

Chrysler (RAM)

• Models: RAM 2500–5500 HD (2026)
• Issue: Incorrect brake warning icon
• Units: 2,885
• Fix: Replace instrument panel cluster

Jaguar/Land Rover

• Models: Range Rover / Sport (2014–2017)
• Issue: Suspension knuckle cracks – steering risk
• Units: 121,000
• Fix: Component replacement

Volvo Trucks

• Issue: Steering control defect from oversteer guidance
• Units: ~2,500
• Fix: Dealer repair

Toyota

• Models: Tundra & Tundra Hybrid (2022–2023)
• Issue: Fuel system leak – fire hazard
• Units: 168,000
• Fix: Free service

Nissan / Infiniti

• Models: QX50, QX55, Altima, Rogue
• Issue: Engine bearing defect – stalling/fire risk
• Units: 443,899
• Fix: Engine inspection/replacement

Ford (Lighting)

• Models: Lincoln Nautilus, Mustang, MachE (2025)
• Issue: Burnt exterior lighting diodes
• Units: 21,765
• Fix: Replace lighting modules

Mercedes-Benz EQB

• Models: EQB 300 / 350 electric SUV
• Issue: Battery bar defect – loss of power
• Units: 660
• Fix: Service required at dealer

Nissan Frontier

• Model: Frontier (2025)
• Issue: DRL software bug – dimming lights
• Units: 13,719
• Fix: Software update

Jeep (Chrysler)

• Models: Wagoneer, Grand Wagoneer, Cherokee
• Issue: Faulty side airbags and rear cameras
• Units: 207,000+
• Fix: Free component replacement

Subaru

• Models: Crosstrek, Impreza (2024)
• Issue: Wiring issue – short circuit, loss of power
• Units: 35,357
• Fix: Replace wiring harness

Nissan Sentra

• Models: Sentra (2020–2022)
• Issue: Weak tie rods – steering failure risk
• Units: 236,238
• Fix: Tie rod replacement

 What You Should Do

Persons who own any of the affected vehicles should check their VIN using the official NHTSA recall tool or the vehicle manufacturer’s website. Owners should watch for recall notification letters, many of which began going out in the last month and will continue into this month of September. 

Repairs should be scheduled as soon as possible. Note that all recall services are free at authorized dealerships. If a recall involves critical systems like brakes, steering, or fire hazards, the vehicle should not be driven until it is fixed to prevent potential accidents or injuries on the highway.

Tesla Crash Report Tardiness Is Being Investigated By NHTSA

Federal regulators are investigating Tesla Inc. for not promptly reporting crashes involving its advanced driver-assistance systems or self-driving vehicles to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). NHTSA found that Tesla often filed incident reports months after crashes occurred, instead of within the required one to five days. The issue seems to stem from Tesla’s data collection process.

NHTSA has launched an audit to review compliance and ensure all required data is included in the reports. This standard process aims to evaluate the cause of potential delays in reporting, the scope of any such delays, and the mitigations that Tesla has developed to address them. The agency will also assess whether any reports of prior incidents remain outstanding and whether the submitted reports include all necessary data.

There can be no valid excuse for failing to promptly report vehicle crashes involving companies like Tesla. Hopefully, NHTSA will take the steps necessary to make it a reality that all vehicle crashes are reported promptly. 

Source: Law360

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Exploding Walmart Water Bottles Recalled After 7 Years

Walmart has recalled its Ozark Trail 64-ounce stainless-steel water bottles after reports of the plastic lid forcefully ejecting, causing three injuries, including partial blindness. The company offered $15 refunds for the 850,000 bottles on the market. Despite knowing about the danger since 2018, Walmart only issued the recall after a new incident in 2024 prompted the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to request a recall.

Beasley Allen lawyer Ben Locklar represented one of the injured parties in a case that has settled. His client suffered an eye injury when the bottle involved exploded. In that case, the victim’s eye literally burst, resulting in the loss of the eye. A prosthesis was put in place. 

Walmart maintains that the product is safe when used for water, attributing the issues to consumer misuse. In 2020, the company added caution inserts to warn against using the bottles for liquids other than water. However, the recall was finally issued in July 2024 after the CPSC’s intervention. 

Source: The Washington Post

Play Kitchen Recalled After Toddler Death

A 23-month-old in Oregon tragically died after getting caught on a hook while playing with the KidKraft Farm to Table Model Play Kitchen. This tragic incident led to a recall of around 192,000 play kitchens.

Backyard Kids, LLC, based in Plano, Texas, announced the recall and is offering to replace the hooks on all units. The kitchens, originally manufactured by KidKraft, Inc., were sold from 2018 to this August on various platforms, including KidKraft.com, Amazon.com, and Walmart.com.

The recall was prompted by the child’s death from strangulation and asphyxia in 2023. KidKraft stated that the model 53411 play kitchens pose a serious hazard to young children.

The company filed for bankruptcy in May 2024. Consumers are advised to stop using the kitchens, remove the original hooks, and contact Backyard Kids, LLC for replacements.

Source: NBC News

AVIATION LITIGATION

Beasley Allen Represents Families In Air India Flight 171 Litigation

In the wake of the devastating crash of Air India Flight 171, nationally recognized aviation lawyer Mike Andrews of Beasley Allen is leading a global legal effort to support the families of victims. Beasley Allen now represents over 100 families from India, the United Kingdom, and beyond. Mike leads a team seeking justice and transparency following one of the deadliest aviation disasters in recent history.

As previously reported, Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, went down just seconds after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, killing 260 people. Families deserve answers, not silence. Mike and his team have boots on the ground in India and a track record of fighting for aviation victims.

Challenging the Narrative

The preliminary findings from India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) suggest a rare and catastrophic dual-engine failure, with both General Electric GEnx engines losing thrust seconds after takeoff. However, Mike has concerns about the report’s lack of transparency. He stated in an interview: 

The preliminary report did not share the full CVR data. This creates confusion and unfairly blames the pilots. We need the full CVR and FDR to examine what really happened.

Mike points out that without this complete information, it’s difficult to get a clear picture of the events leading up to the crash and to understand the true cause of the problem.

International Legal Action

Mike and his team are looking into possible product liability claims in U.S. courts relating to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Specific concerns include any mechanical or design problems that could put passengers and crew at risk and in danger. They will work closely with aviation experts from around the world and important regulatory authorities to make sure everything is safe.

Standing With Families

From Ahmedabad to London, the Beasley Allen team is working directly with families—gathering evidence, documenting survivor stories, and pushing for justice. The presence of Mike Andrews in India has helped build trust and momentum for change.

Beasley Allen’s goal is to ensure that the lessons learned from these stories can lead to tangible reforms that protect and support vulnerable communities. We will also work hard to see that justice is done, and the families recover from the tragic loss of a loved one. 

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

Advocating For Air India Crash Victims: One Mission, Over 95 Families

On June 12, 2025, Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, tragically crashed shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad’s Patel International Airport. The aviation accident claimed the lives of all 241 passengers and crew, along with 19 individuals on the ground. This incident marks the deadliest Boeing 787 crash to date and has triggered a global aviation safety investigation.

Action and Advocacy

In the aftermath, more than 95 families have turned to Mike Andrews, leading aviation attorney and author of Aviation Litigation & Accident Investigation. Andrews is known for representing victims in the Ethiopian Airlines crash and is now leading efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the Air India tragedy. He has been working directly with families in Ahmedabad.

Recent Developments

• Growing Representation: Beasley Allen now represents over 95 families, including victims from India and the UK.

• Media Coverage: Mike has appeared in interviews with international outlets, calling for transparency and full release of flight recorder data.

• Safety Concerns: The crash has prompted global discussions about Boeing’s fuel control systems and broader aviation safety reforms.

Aviation Safety in 2024–2025

The Air India Flight 171 crash has become a focal point in discussions about Boeing’s fuel control systems and global aviation safety reforms. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO):

• There were 95 accidents involving scheduled commercial flights in 2024, up from 66 in 2023

• ICAO has called for renewed global cooperation and transparency to address emerging risks

• Improved reporting systems and lessons learned from past events are helping shape safety reforms

This increase has prompted renewed focus on aviation safety protocols, aircraft design, and pilot training.

Commitment to Justice and Transparency

Mike Andrews continues to push for authorities to release flight data recorder evidence for independent analysis, stressing the importance of transparency and accountability in the investigation.

We will continue to give updates on this area of litigation with news of the progress of the cases. 

$29 Million Settlement In Boeing Max Lawsuit

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. has reached a preliminary settlement with investors to resolve a lawsuit accusing the company of failing to disclose quality problems and supplying defective parts to Boeing. The parties are seeking approval of the settlement, which includes a $29.2 million cash payment. The settlement class includes all who purchased Spirit’s Class A common stock between April 8, 2020, and Sept. 7, 2023.

Lead plaintiff Hang Li filed the complaint in May 2023, stating Spirit’s share price fell by 20.7% after Boeing halted 737 Max deliveries due to a supplier quality issue. The problem involved the incorrect installation of fittings on the aft fuselage. Spirit moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in February 2024, but the investors filed a second amended complaint. The parties started mediation in November, and the settlement was agreed to in January based on a mediator’s recommendation.

The investor plaintiffs are represented by Garth A. Spencer, Robert V. Prongay, Joseph D. Cohen and Gregory B. Linkh of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Corey D. Holzer of Holzer & Holzer LLC and Jeffrey C. Block and Jacob Walker of Block & Leviton LLP.

The case is Hang Li et al. v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. et al., case number 1:23-cv-03722, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Source: Law360

Mike Andrews Files Suit Involving Dangerous Power Lines

Beasley Allen lawyer Mike Andrews is proud to represent individuals who have been adversely impacted by aviation crashes. Throughout his career, Mike has successfully handled cases involving crashes of commercial, private, military, and amphibious aircraft. Amphibious planes take to the skies every day, frequenting coastal recreational areas. 

Because these aircraft utilize waterways for take-off and landing, regulations exist to ensure that hazards such as powerlines are clearly marked. Visible markers are essential for safety because they allow pilots the opportunity to navigate around otherwise hidden, dangerous obstacles.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) deems all structures above 499 feet high to be obstructions. When obstructive powerlines are not marked, and pilots are left to fly in affected airspace with no warning of dangers ahead of them, tragedy often strikes.  

Mike recently filed suit against a group of electric companies, alleging that they improperly placed and failed to mark powerlines spanning across a North Carolina lake. He represents the widow of an amphibious plane passenger killed when the aircraft collided with unmarked powerlines, creating a midair electrical arc, causing the plane to crash into the lake. 

The pilot of the plane was attempting to perform a touch-and-go landing when he encountered the unmarked powerlines. Despite the pilot’s efforts to avoid the lines, which are essentially invisible until the last second, both the pilot and passenger were killed. 

Electric companies and cooperatives must be held accountable for their disregard for the safety of others if they maintain unmarked lines in areas where aircraft are known to operate. 

EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION

EEOC Sues Taco Bell Franchisees For Sexual Harassment Of Underage Employees

In a rare enforcement action, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against six Michigan-based Taco Bell franchise entities for allegedly allowing a senior area manager to sexually harass underage female employees. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (EEOC v. Teamlyders, LLC et al., Case No. 25-10575), includes allegations of Title VII violations, including sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to the complaint, the upper-level manager engaged in a pattern of harassment over several months at multiple Taco Bell locations in Michigan, including stores in Canton, Dearborn, Romulus, and Ypsilanti. The misconduct reportedly included inappropriate sexual comments made to teenage employees, unwanted physical contact, and solicitations for sexually explicit content. 

Specifically, the manager requested that one of the female teenage employees send him an explicit video of her and her boyfriend.  Despite receiving multiple complaints from employees, supervisors, and other managers, the franchisees allegedly failed to take timely and effective corrective action. Instead of disciplining the perpetrator. The EEOC alleges that a local assistant manager was terminated the same day she reported the harassment, while the accused manager continued to supervise and harass employees for several more months before being fired for unrelated reasons. Kenneth Bird, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis office, stated: 

This kind of conduct is not only reprehensible—it’s illegal. Employers must take reports of sexual harassment seriously and ensure that appropriate and timely steps are taken to stop the harassment. To fire an employee who reports harassment, while allowing the harasser to continue hurting employees, runs afoul of federal civil rights laws.

Omar Weaver, assistant regional attorney for the EEOC’s Detroit office, emphasized the vulnerability of teenage fast-food workers and the agency’s commitment to holding employers accountable for unlawful retaliation. The EEOC filed the lawsuit after unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the matter through its administrative conciliation process. 

The Beasley Allen Employment Litigation Team

   Lawyers on our firm’s Employment Litigation Team continue to handle a number of employment-related litigation 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

CVS PBM Judgment Increased To $289 Million

A Pennsylvania federal judge has increased the judgment against CVS Caremark from $95 million to $289 million for overbilling Medicare Part D drugs. U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg ruled that Caremark’s misconduct was serious, leading to $285 million in trebled damages and about $4.8 million in civil penalties.

Whistleblower Sarah Behnke’s 2014 lawsuit claimed Caremark overbilled Medicare by $240 million to $330 million. Judge Goldberg found Caremark responsible for causing Aetna and SilverScript to submit 513 false reimbursement reports to Medicare, costing CMS nearly $100 million.

Caremark argued for minimal penalties, but the judge deemed the fraud significant and financially motivated and rejected the request. CVS plans to appeal.

Ms. Behnke is represented by David F. Sorensen, Caitlin G. Coslett, Susan Schneider Thomas and Joy P. Clairmont of Berger Montague and James C. Shah and Natalie Finkelman Bennett of Miller Shah LLP.

The case is U.S. ex rel. Sarah Behnke v. CVS Caremark Corp. et al., case number 2:14-cv-00824, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Source: Law360

Illumina Inc. Settles A Whistleblower Case For $9.5 Million

Illumina Inc. has agreed to pay $9.8 million to settle a qui tam lawsuit claiming it violated the False Claims Act by selling its genomic sequencing systems with cybersecurity vulnerabilities to federal agencies. According to the lawsuit, from February 2016 to September 2023, Illumina sold genomic sequencing systems containing software with cybersecurity vulnerabilities, while failing to maintain sufficient security programs and quality systems to remedy those vulnerabilities. Specifically, the United States contended: 

Illumina knowingly failed to incorporate product cybersecurity in its software design, development, installation, and on-market monitoring; failed to properly support and resource personnel, systems, and processes tasked with product security; failed to adequately correct design features that introduced cybersecurity vulnerabilities in the genomic sequencing systems; and  falsely represented that the software on the genomic sequencing systems adhered to cybersecurity standards, including standards of the International Organization for Standardization and National Institute of Standards and Technology.

As Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division put it, ‘[c]ompanies that sell products to the federal government will be held accountable for failing to adhere to cybersecurity standards and protecting against cybersecurity risks… This settlement underscores the importance of cybersecurity in handling genetic information and the Department’s commitment to ensuring that federal contractors adhere to requirements to protect sensitive information from cyber threats.’

Failing to comply with cybersecurity standards can cause substantial damage according to Special Agent in Charge Roberto Coviello of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG).  This is particularly true when the cybersecurity systems handle sensitive genomic data. 

The federal False Claims Act, which is what this lawsuit was filed under, permits private parties to file suit on behalf of the government when they have knowledge that an individual or entity has submitted claims for government funds that are false. These whistleblowers can also receive a share of any recovery by the government. Erica Lenore, the whistleblower in this case, and a former Director for Platform Management at Illumina, will receive $1,900,000 as her share of the settlement. 

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

Pharmacy Owes $825,000 In False Claims Act Cases

A Pennsylvania pharmacy, West End Services Inc., has agreed to pay $825,000 to resolve claims that it defrauded Medicare. The settlement, reported by the Philadelphia-based U.S. Attorney’s Office, involves claims that the pharmacy billed Medicare for prescription drugs that were not actually dispensed to beneficiaries from 2014 to 2019. U.S. Attorney David Metcalf emphasized that pharmacy fraud remains a priority for his office. He emphasized the responsibility of pharmacies to act as gatekeepers of prescription drug distribution.

The settlement will be paid in installments. It includes an annual interest rate of 4.25%, with the first $500,000 installment due within 30 days and the remainder to be paid in 17 monthly payments of $19,117. This resolution is part of a broader effort by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to combat healthcare fraud, including settlements with several other pharmacies in the region from 2019 to 2024. 

Special Agent Maureen Dixon of the Department of Health and Human Services reiterated the commitment to ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately. The investigation leading up to the settlement had been ongoing for several years. The matter is now resolved, and West End says it looks forward to focusing on providing services to the community.

Source: Law360

The Beasley Allen Whistleblower Litigation Team  

Beasley Allen lawyers continue to represent whistleblowers in litigation in several parts of the country. Claims continue to be made against multiple bad actors in the corporate world. The widespread Whistleblower litigation is increasing nationwide at a rapid pace. However, there is also strong opposition to the litigation instigated and carried out by some powerful forces in Corporate America.  

If you are aware of fraud being committed against the federal or state governments, you could be rewarded for reporting the fraud.  If you have questions about whether you qualify as a whistleblower, or you need help with a case, a Beasley Allen lawyer will be glad to make a free and confidential evaluation of your claim.

Lawyers on our Whistleblower Litigation Team 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

Ben Keen Discusses A Workplace Injury Case In Georgia

Ben Keen, a lawyer in our Atlanta office, is currently investigating a devastating workplace injury involving a distribution center employee whose leg was amputated following a suspected forklift malfunction at a Lowe’s facility in Georgia. The incident raises serious questions about product safety and liability under Georgia law.

The client was performing routine duties within the course and scope of his job when a forklift ran over his leg. Preliminary findings indicate a mechanical failure may have contributed to the accident, prompting Ben to explore potential claims beyond traditional workers’ compensation.

Under Georgia law, product liability claims can be brought against a number of potential defendants, including manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of defective products when those defects cause injury or death. Georgia recognizes three primary categories of product defects: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects (failure to warn). Beasley Allen lawyers have handled cases involving all of these defect claims. 

Ben’s investigation is focusing on whether the forklift suffered from a manufacturing defect or lacked adequate safety warnings. Either of these can support a strict liability claim under Georgia law.

Importantly, Georgia does not require plaintiffs to prove negligence in strict liability cases. Instead, they must demonstrate that the product was defective, the defect existed when it left the manufacturer’s control, and the defect caused the injury during normal use. If the forklift’s malfunction stemmed from a flaw in its design or assembly, the manufacturer can be held liable for the client’s life-altering injuries.

Ben is also evaluating whether third-party maintenance providers or component part manufacturers may share liability in the case. Georgia law allows multiple entities in the supply chain to be held accountable if their actions contributed to the creation of the defect or if they failed to recognize the defect before the product reached the workplace.

This case underscores the importance of rigorous safety standards relating to industrial equipment. It also discusses the legal remedies available to injured workers under Georgia’s product liability framework.

Settlement For Injured Oil Well Worker

The lawsuit regarding the explosion that severely injured an oil well worker in 2022 was settled last month. In April 2023, Leonardo Andrade filed a lawsuit against the companies involved in the oil well operation. He was severely injured in the explosion, resulting in broken legs and pelvis, among other injuries. 

On December 2, 2022, the explosion occurred while workers were plugging an abandoned oil well. At the time of the explosion, Andrade was staying at a halfway house for a re-entry program for inmates with less than two years left in their sentence.

The explosion caused Andrade to be thrown over 60 feet into the air. His legs and pelvis were broken, his internal organs were ruptured and surgically removed. He also suffered a serious brain injury that left him in a coma for several days. 

The lawsuit alleges that the companies involved in the oil well site or operation at the time of the explosion – E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation, National Wellbore Solutions Inc., and Golden Empire Welding & Fabrication – were aware of the issues with the well since the day prior, but did not warn Andrade of the dangerous conditions. 

Source: KGET

PREMISES LIABILITY LITIGATION

Premises Liability Update

The Georgia Court of Appeals handed down a decision last month addressing an issue of first impression.  In question was whether a “no security” provision contained in a condominium association’s declaration (i.e., founding document establishing the duties of the association) applies to renters who are not members of the association? The Appeals Court answered no. One important fact weighed heavily in the Court of Appeal’s analysis—C.P. (actual name withheld) was not an owner of any of the association’s units. Instead, she was renting a unit from one of the owners.  

The case—Tuscany Condominium Association, Inc. v. C.P.—dealt with a tragic event.  In the summer of 2020, a criminal assailant entered the association’s property through an unlocked gate and raped C.P. in an unoccupied unit. C.P. brought a premises liability claim against the association.

The association moved for summary judgment, arguing that its “no security” provision barred the premises claim by C.P. as a matter of law.  The trial court denied the motion, finding that the provision was an exculpatory clause and that C.P.’s lease agreement with the owner lacked “an explicit, prominent, clear, and unambiguous” version of the same with respect to the association. The trial court also found that absent some evidence that C.P. was provided with the “no security” provision contained in the association’s declaration, then the provision was not enforceable against her.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, stressing that the rental agreement between the owner and C.P. “did not include any explicit, prominent, and unambiguous statement reflecting the Declaration’s ‘no security’ provision.” And while the association recorded its declaration, the Court of Appeals explained that the act of recording only provided constructive notice to purchasers of the association’s units. The court rejected any notion that the “no security” provision could be enforced against individuals, like C.P., who did not own the property.

In affirming the trial court’s denial of summary judgment, the Tuscany decision highlights the importance of how exculpatory clauses are drafted, displayed, and communicated to premises invitees. The decision also underscores how an individual’s interest in a given property—lessee vs. owner—can impact the enforceability of a exculpatory clause. Prudent premises liability practitioners should familiarize themselves with the Tuscany decision because it provides favorable authority on these issues.       

Navigating Negligent Security Cases

When property owners don’t take steps to keep their places safe from predictable crimes, the results can be very serious. Beasley Allen Law Firm has built a reputation for holding negligent property owners accountable—especially in cases where inadequate security leads to violent crimes.

What Is Negligent Security?

Negligent security happens when a property owner fails to do reasonable things to prevent crimes that could be expected. Some common problems include:

• Poor lighting in parking lots or stairwells

• Broken locks or doors that aren’t secure

• No surveillance cameras

• No trained security staff

• Ignoring previous problems or threats

If someone is a victim of crimes like assault, robbery, or shootings, they may be able to get compensation if these security failures played a part in their injuries.

Standards and Oversight

Providing security is a duty that can’t be passed on to someone else. Courts usually look at whether the crime was predictable based on past incidents and whether the property owner knew about the risks.

What to look for:

• Looking into past criminal activity around the property

• Checking how the property owner responded to known threats

• Showing how the lack of security caused the incident

Recent Case Spotlight: Buckhead Nightclub Shooting

One of Beasley Allen’s recent negligent security cases involves a tragic shooting at Elleven45 Lounge in Buckhead, Atlanta. On May 12, 2024, a patron brought a loaded gun into the nightclub and was allowed to stay. Later, this person opened fire, killing two people and injuring four others, including 21-year-old Albany State University student Mariam “Mari” Creighton.

Parker Miller and Key Lamberth filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mari’s parents, claiming that the nightclub’s failure to enforce basic security rules directly led to this tragedy. The case has received a lot of attention and shows the firm’s commitment to justice for victims of preventable violence.

Protecting Patrons

Negligent security litigation is not just about financial compensation—it’s about holding people accountable and making changes in the system. Our goal is to help make sure that businesses and property owners take the necessary steps to protect their customers and communities. 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

Securities Litigation At Beasley Allen

Lawyers in our firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are currently working on a number of cases involving corporate security issues. We will report on some of these cases in the October issue. 

In the meantime, you can contact a member of our Securities Litigation Team concerning securities cases or issues relating to securities. James Eubank, who leads the Securities Litigation Team, worked for years as a securities regulator with the Alabama Securities Commission. James was involved in a number of important securities fraud investigations while he was with the state.   

The team includes 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.  

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

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

BCBS Antitrust Deal Receives Final Approval

U.S. District Judge David Proctor has given final approval to the $2.8 billion nationwide settlement between the Blue Cross Blue Shield entities and medical providers in the landmark antitrust case. This historic settlement was reached after more than twelve years of litigation and nine years of settlement negotiations. 

The decade-long litigation, In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, was brought by providers accusing the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 33 independent BCBS member-insurers of dividing the country into exclusive geographical areas to stifle competition and increase profits, to the detriment of both subscribers and healthcare providers. 

In addition to payments from the fund intended to compensate for the historical underpayments due to the anticompetitive behavior, the settlement includes major injunctive relief, valued at $17.3 billion, aimed at curbing the anticompetitive practices that led to the litigation. This includes commitments from BCBS to enhance transparency and efficiency in its BlueCard system, upgrade technical capabilities, and make additional data available.

The providers are represented by several law firms, including Whatley Kallas LLP, who served as co-lead counsel of the MDL, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, and U.W. Clemon LLC. Other counsel for the provider plaintiffs are Dominick Feld Hyde PC, Hayes Hunter PC, Wood Law Firm LLC, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher Goldfarb, Podhurst Orseck PA, Reich & Binstock LLP, , Eyster Key Tubb Roth Middleton & Adams LLP, White Arnold & Dowd PC, the Law Offices of David A. Balto, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Bunch & James, Axelrod LLP, the Frankowski Firm LLC, the Law Office of John C. Davis, Glast Phillips & Murray PC, Gray & White, Michael E. Gurley Jr., the Law Office of Stephen M. Hansen, Jinks Crow PC, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA, Penn & Seaborn LLC, the Pittman Firm PA, Strom Law Firm LLC, Shelby Roden LLC, Horn Aylward & Bandy LLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Cusimano Roberts & Mills LLC, Bailey Glasser LLP, Wojtalewicz Law Firm Ltd., Sears & Swanson PC, Archie Lamb & Associates LLC, Dillon & Findley PC, Lundberg Law PLC, Heidman Law Firm PLLC and Simons & Associates Law PA.

The case is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:13-cv-20000, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Source: Law360

Ninth Circuit Antitrust Ruling A Win For Competition

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a Las Vegas newspaper previously owned by the late billionaire Sheldon Adelson in an antitrust dispute, determining that the joint operating agreement (JOA) with its competitor is “unlawful and unenforceable” and should be dissolved. The case is Las Vegas Sun Inc. v. Sheldon Adelson et al., number 24-2287, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

In its published opinion released in early August, the appeals court reversed a March 2024 decision from U.S. District Judge Anne R. Traum, who had denied the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction preventing termination of the 2005 JOA with the Las Vegas Sun Inc.

The Las Vegas Sun filed suit in September 2019 against the Las Vegas Review-Journal, its parent company News+Media Capital Group LLC, and two NMCG officers—Sheldon Adelson and Patrick Dumont—claiming that the defendants sought to terminate the 2005 JOA to monopolize the Las Vegas newspaper market in violation of the Sherman Act. Judge Traum reasoned that the original JOA, signed in 1989, bore the requisite signature from the U.S. Attorney General, and concluded that the 2005 amended version did not require further consent. Because Judge Traum found the 2005 JOA enforceable, she denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, setting the case up for trial. 

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins, writing for the appellate panel, disagreed, finding that the 2005 JOA lacked the necessary written approval from the Attorney General as stipulated by statute, rendering it unenforceable. The Ninth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its findings. 

This latest ruling in the protracted litigation ultimately asserts that after acquiring the Review-Journal, Adelson used the longstanding joint operating arrangement to disadvantage the Sun financially and then attempted to terminate the agreement, thereby risking the Sun’s continued publication. More importantly, by its ruling, the Ninth Circuit emphasized how competition, particularly within media sources, can only serve consumers if competition is preserved. 

Antitrust litigation increasingly is the most effective tool against big business acting in their most profitable interests instead of prioritizing their service to consumers. Standing up for consumers against anticompetitive actors through litigation is work Beasley Allen is committed to and proud to continue. 

Chicken Price-Fixing Settlement Backed By Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal from restaurants challenging $75 million in settlements in the broiler chicken price-fixing litigation with Koch Foods Inc. and House of Raeford Farms Inc. The appeals court found that an analysis of prices failed to show the settlements were unreasonable. Thus, a panel affirmed the lower court’s denial of objections to the direct purchaser settlements from restaurants, including Boston Market, Domino’s Pizza, and White Castle. 

The court’s order stated that the restaurants’ expert analysis showed only how much prices increased in a particular year, not that the settlements were too small. The panel found that the primary issue was whether the restaurants were part of the direct purchaser class at the time of the settlements and had missed the deadline to exclude themselves from the class. The secondary issue was whether the settlements were unreasonably small. The panel noted that the restaurants did not have an expert assess potential recovery if the claims had gone to trial or the risk of losing at trial. 

The settlements were part of a larger antitrust case accusing chicken producers of inflating prices by rigging bids and reducing supply. The restaurants argued that the settlements did not provide recovery for bid-rigging allegations. 

The chicken producers and the settling class argued that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlements, calling them an “extraordinary result” for a risky case. This risk was highlighted by an Illinois federal jury rejecting claims against Sanderson Farms and the DOJ failing to win convictions for any of the 14 executives charged in similar activity. Tyson Foods cooperated with the DOJ, leading to a guilty plea and a $107.9 million fine from Pilgrim’s Pride.

The restaurants are represented by Lori P. Lustrin, Robert W. Turken, and Scott N. Wagner of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP. 

The direct purchasers are represented by Clifford H. Pearson, Daniel L. Warshaw, Bobby Pouya, and Michael H. Pearson of Pearson Warshaw LLP and W. Joseph Bruckner and Brian D. Clark of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

The appeal is Boston Market Corp. et al. v. Koch Foods Inc. et al., case number 24-2422, in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Source: Law360

INSURANCE LITIGATION AT BEASLEY ALLEN

Split Outcomes In Auto Insurance Class Actions

Two recent rulings in auto insurance class actions underscore the evolving legal landscape surrounding valuation practices and consumer protection enforcement in the insurance industry.  Both cases involved insurers applying “typical negotiation” deductions when calculating the actual cash values of total vehicles, which allegedly allowed insurers to underpay policyholders.  Essentially, typical negotiation deductions assume that a willing buyer will not pay the list price of a vehicle and will bargain with the car dealer. 

On July 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered State Farm to pay over $54.6 million in damages across two class actions that it had previously consolidated. The plaintiffs alleged that State Farm underpaid the actual cash value of totaled vehicles by applying a “typical negotiation” deduction—an adjustment that reduced payouts based on assumed buyer-dealer negotiations. Judge Marsha Pechman found this practice to be a per se violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, citing Section 391(4) of the state’s insurance code, which the court had previously ruled did not allow such deductions. 

The ruling follows a partial revival of the plaintiffs’ claims by the Ninth Circuit in August 2024 after Judge Pechman decertified the class.  In its latest order, the court awarded approximately $48.5 million to the class led by named plaintiff James Kelley and $6.1 million to the class represented by Faysal Jama. While the court declined to extend summary judgment on breach of contract claims, it affirmed that damages related to negotiation-based deductions could be determined on a class-wide basis.

In contrast, Progressive Insurance secured a win in a separate class action when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Southern District of Indiana’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action.  Like the State Farm case, the lawsuit alleged that Progressive breached its contracts by applying downward adjustments to car values to account for typical negotiations, thereby reducing payouts to policyholders.  

Citing decisions in similar cases by the Third and Eighth Circuits, the Seventh Circuit held that determining whether Progressive’s method of valuing totaled vehicles was legal involved individualized questions about each insured’s losses, which prevented class-wide treatment.  Notably, unlike the State Farm case, Indiana does not appear to have codified methods for valuing totaled vehicles similar to that of Section 391(4) in Washington’s insurance code. 

Sources: Law360, National Law Journal

State Farm Liable In Moped Suit

A Florida federal judge has found State Farm liable for bad faith in a lawsuit involving the DUI-related death of moped driver Kira Saner. A jury had ruled that State Farm failed to timely settle the claim against the estate of Jeffrey Schnierle, who was accused of causing the fatal crash that occurred in October 2021. Schnierle, who was intoxicated at the time, collided with Saner’s moped, causing the wreck. He later committed suicide.

The Saner estate initially sued Schnierle’s estate for damages, resulting in a $7.5 million judgment. The federal lawsuit against State Farm claimed the insurer knew the wrongful death claim posed significant exposure to Schnierle’s estate but only offered to settle for $25,000. State Farm contended that it followed industry standards, but the judge denied its motion for summary judgment. 

The plaintiffs said in a statement that the delay by State Farm exposed Schnierle’s estate to a significant excess judgment and forced the Saner family into prolonged litigation. The plaintiffs further stated that the bad-faith verdict showed State Farm didn’t act with fairness and diligence under the legal requirements of insurers. 

This case should send a strong message to the insurance industry. Bad-faith actions by insurance companies in litigation should never be tolerated. In this case, the court acted appropriately.

The case is James R. Saner II v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., case number 4:23-cv-10069, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. 

Source: Law360

Manufacturing Companies Awarded $23 Million In Asbestos Case

Carrier Corp. and Elliott Co. have won $23 million from an Allianz unit in a long-running asbestos bodily injury claims dispute. A New York trial court found that the manufacturers properly established and presented their claim liabilities. Judge Robert E. Antonacci II stated that their asbestos products caused injuries and that the companies had followed proper liability allocation methods.

The $23 million judgment against Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. included $15 million under two policies and over $8 million in prejudgment interest. The suit, filed in 2005, involved numerous trials and over 20 carriers. A key factor was whether the manufacturers applied a pre-approved liability allocation method to asbestos claims made in 2017 and after.

The manufacturer’s expert on allocation and data analytics maintained a comprehensive database of claims and allocated over 830,000 transactions to relevant insurance policies. The judge noted that engaging in “individualized liability minitrials” would counter the course the Fireman’s Fund charted.

The manufacturers’ past and expected recoveries exceed $100 million. Many other insurers have elected to settle.

The manufacturers are represented by Seth Tucker, Timothy Greszler, David Luttinger, Jim Goold, Ben Lenhart and Sean Bender of Covington and Burling LLP, and by Alan J. Pierce and Edward D. Carni of Hancock Estabrook LLP.

The case is Carrier Corp et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. et al., case number 2005EF7032, in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Onondaga.

Source: Law360

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

Revitalization Of The Video Privacy Protection Act In The Digital Age

The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 to protect the privacy of video rental records, has seen a significant resurgence in 2024-2025, with at least 225 cases filed in 2024 alone. This is largely due to the widespread use of pixels, such as MetaPixel, and other analytics tools on video-enabled websites to track users’ video watching behavior to serve related targeted advertising to users on Meta and other platforms. Thus, a statute that was meant to apply to brick and mortar video stores, which no longer exist, is now being used to vindicate the privacy rights of consumers of video content on the web.

Under the VPPA, with limited exceptions, a “videotape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person” for damages of not less than $2,500. 18 USC § 2710.  Because so many VPPA cases were filed over a short period, there have been a spate of rulings interpreting the key terms of the statute, and circuit splits have already developed.

Courts generally agree that the term “videotape service provider” under the statute requires that the delivery of prerecorded video content be a central part of the company’s business. But the concept has been applied differently among courts. 

For example, a local newspaper that provided written and video content was found to be a “videotape service provider,” with the court rejecting the argument that the delivery of video content was a less important part of the newspaper’s business. 

On the other hand, a court held that a movie theater was not a video tape service provider because the display of movie trailers on its website did not mean it was “in the business” of delivering video content. 

Determining whether a videotape service provider exists is a fact-intensive inquiry. No doubt the issue will continue to be contested in VPPA cases going forward. 

It should be noted there is already a circuit split as to what constitutes personally identifiable information (PII) under the statute, defined as “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a videotape service provider.” 

The First Circuit has held that PII is information that permits the recipient to combine the disclosed information with other information known to the recipient to identify a consumer, such as video game providers. 

The Third, Ninth, and most recently the Second Circuit have adopted the “ordinary person” standard, meaning that a person with no specialized knowledge, not the particular recipient of the information,  must be able to link the identity of the person and the videos she watched.  Under this view, the disclosure of a Facebook ID and a computer code containing the title of the video watched is not PII, which, as the Second Circuit recently noted, “effectively shut the door for Pixel-based VPPA claims” in that circuit.

A circuit split is also emerging of “consumer” under the statute, which is defined “as renters, purchasers, or subscribers of video services.” The issue is whether a plaintiff must subscribe to video content or whether it is sufficient for the plaintiff to subscribe to any service offered by a videotape service provider, such as a newsletter. The Seventh and the Second Circuits have adopted the broader interpretation, whereas the Sixth Circuit has adopted the stricter view.

There have been some recent victories for plaintiffs in VPPA litigation in district courts in the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits. In a privacy class action in the Northern District of California brought against FloHealth, Inc., a menstrual cycle tracker, for violation of the VPPA, and Meta, for violation of California’s wiretap laws, a jury returned a liability verdict against Meta, while FloHealth settled mid-trial. In the Northern District of Georgia, a district court recently granted class certification in a VPPA class action brought by users of WebMD, and the Eleventh Circuit denied defendant’s FRCP 23(g) petition for interlocutory review. 

As the VPPA cases filed within the last few years proceed through the courts, it is likely that there will continue to be divergent rulings on the meaning of key statutory terms. That would stand to set the stage for additional or deepening circuit splits, potentially resulting in consideration by the Supreme Court.  

Courts will also be considering other defenses in the cases – such as standing, lack of injury, consent, and arbitrability – at the pleadings stage, which no doubt will lead to additional conflicting rulings in district courts. 

Cases that survive motions to dismiss will proceed to discovery, class certification, summary judgment and trial, further developing VPPA jurisprudence. One of the key areas to watch as cases proceed to conclusion is the courts’ handling of damages for violations of the VPPA, which the statute unequivocally provides is $2,500 per person. Given the potential enormity of damages in class actions, defendants can be expected to vigorously argue that the damages provision should not be construed as written. 

Moreover, the resurgence of the VPPA will create substantial legal ambiguity as courts are required to interpret the statute in light of ever-evolving digital platforms. The resulting jurisprudence will be instrumental in defining the scope of privacy litigation in the digital era. 

Lawyers in our Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section are actively pursuing this area of litigation and are monitoring the law as it develops on the cutting-edge issue discussed above. 

Dodge Drivers Seek Preliminary Settlement Approval

A group of Dodge Ram drivers has requested a federal judge to preliminarily approve a class settlement regarding claims that Fiat Chrysler sold trucks with a defect causing vehicle fires. FCA US LLC (FCA), the U.S. subsidiary of Stellantis NV, has agreed to extend warranties, reimburse costs, and pay $3,000 each to owners whose vehicles caught fire due to defective exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) coolers.

The class includes current and former owners of model year 2014-2019 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel trucks, with about 100,000 vehicles affected. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleges that the trucks had defective EGR coolers that cracked over time, leading to coolant leaks and potential combustion. FCA was aware of the defect three years before announcing a recall.

The settlement was reached after several mediation sessions and extended negotiations. If approved, FCA will provide a five-year warranty extension, reimburse certain out-of-pocket repairs, and give $3,000 to plaintiffs who experienced vehicle fires. 

FCA will also pay $5,000 to each class representative and an additional discretionary $2,500 award from the class attorney fees and expenses. For the record, FCA denied liability and the injuries claimed. 

The court was asked to appoint The Miller Law Firm PC, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Robins Kaplan LLP as co-lead class counsel. 

The plaintiff and proposed class are represented by E. Powell Miller and Dennis A. Lienhardt of The Miller Law Firm PC, Steve W. Berman and Shelby Smith of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Stacey P. Slaughter and J. Austin Hurt of Robins Kaplan LLP.

The case is Crawford et al. v. FCA US LLC, case number 2:20-cv-12341, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source: Law360

Tesla Investors File Securities Class Action Lawsuit

Denise Morand, a Tesla Inc. investor, has filed a securities class action lawsuit against the company in a Texas federal court. The lawsuit alleges that Tesla overhyped its autonomous driving vehicles despite being aware of significant risks and flaws, leading to regulatory and legal issues, including a recent $329 million verdict related to the Autopilot feature. Morand claims that Tesla misled investors about the safety of its autonomous vehicles, including the robotaxis launched this year, which caused a 6% drop in Tesla’s stock after the service’s debut.

The lawsuit also highlights that Tesla’s former Chief Financial Officer Zachary Kirkhorn and current CFO Vaibhav Taneja sold approximately 15,000 shares during the class period, profiting significantly while knowing their public statements were misleading investors. During the class period from April 19, 2023, to June 22, 2025, Tesla and its executives were said to have repeatedly made false statements about its autonomous vehicles. Reports emerged that Tesla’s robotaxis were violating traffic laws. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contacted Tesla over the safety of its vehicles, leading to a further decline in Tesla’s stock.

After the class period, as we reported last month, a Miami jury awarded $59 million in compensatory damages to the parents of Naibel Benavides Leon, who was killed in the April 2019 crash, and $70 million to her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, for his injuries. Additionally, $200 million in punitive damages was assessed against Tesla. Morand claims that Tesla violated the Exchange Act with its false statements and is seeking class certification, damages, and various costs and fees.

Morand is represented by Willie C. Briscoe of the Briscoe Law Firm PLLC and Jeremy A. Lieberman and J. Alexander Hood II of Pomerantz LLP

The case is Morand v. Tesla Inc et al., case number 1:25-cv-01213, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Source: Law360

$425 Million Capital One Class Action Settlement Reached

If you had a Capital One 360 savings account between September 2019 and June 2025, you might be eligible for a payment from a $425 million settlement. Capital One customers filed a class action lawsuit in 2024, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also sued the bank. It was alleged that Capital One froze interest rates at a low level despite increasing national rates. This resulted in customers losing over $2 billion in interest payments. The CFPB dropped its lawsuit prior to the settlement. However, Capital One agreed to the settlement.

Current and former customers who had a Capital One 360 Savings account during the specified period qualify for payments. Account holders will receive what they would have earned if their accounts had paid the interest rate applicable to the 360 Performance Savings account. 

Remaining payments will go to customers who still have a 360 savings account, with their accounts earning an interest rate at least twice the national average rate for savings deposit accounts. The settlement awaits court approval, with a hearing on November 6. The deadline to submit a claim or object to the settlement is October 2

Source: USA Today

MASS TORTS LITIGATION

Hair Relaxer Update

The Hair Relaxer Litigation continues to advance rapidly in both federal and state courts throughout the country.  We will take a look at developments relating to this growing litigation. 

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois docket continues to expand. As of August 3, 2025, the docket now comprises of 10,567 pending cases—an increase of 285 from July.  Beasley Allen lawyers actively represent many of those plaintiffs.

Beasley Allen’s litigation team has been at the forefront as the MDL matures, navigating the monthly fluctuations in case numbers that reflect a combination of new filings and other necessary administrative adjustments. These adjustments include the voluntary dismissal of some claims and the consolidation of overlapping or dual representation actions, all in pursuit of a more efficient and focused litigation process. 

Discovery in the MDL is also ongoing and includes hundreds of depositions set throughout the summer and fall, with initial discovery depositions scheduled to conclude by the end of September. The court and parties will then be moving into the next litigation phase, which will involve expert discovery and challenges to general causation as well as continued workup of the bellwether cases. 

Litigation in the state courts continues to progress as well.  The cases in Cook County, Illinois, are currently undergoing potential bellwether selections while also dealing with various motions and court rulings.  In DeKalb County, Georgia, the master and short form complaints were finalized and filed in the first week of August.  The DeKalb litigation will now be moving forward with discovery, the first order of business. 

Through their proactive and strategic leadership, Beasley Allen lawyers have positioned themselves as pivotal advocates in both federal and state hair relaxer litigation. This steadfast commitment not only propels the litigation forward but it also upholds the interests of thousands of individuals seeking accountability and justice. As the cases continue to evolve, Beasley Allen’s litigation team remains at the forefront—charting a course through emerging challenges and setting a standard for diligence and advocacy in this significant national litigation.

Depo-Provera MDL Case Filings Continue to Grow

As of August, the Depo-Provera multidistrict litigation (MDL) has over 550 cases pending on its docket.  MDL case filings continue to grow after the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge M. Casey. Rodgers (N.D. Fla.) advised plaintiffs’ firms that they should continue filing cases and not wait to file additional cases until after the preemption ruling.  A preemption hearing is scheduled for September 29. The parties anticipate an order from the judge shortly thereafter.  The preemption issue focuses on whether Pfizer’s “authorized generic” versions of its drug are preempted under federal law.

Depo-Provera is an injectable birth control medication that was originally approved by the FDA in 1992. Depo-Provera became linked 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.  Lawsuits against Depo-Provera increased after studies were published within the last year, solidifying this causal connection.

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.  

Ultra Processed Foods

Nearly 70% of U.S. children’s calories come from ultra-processed foods, but new research shows that some children are more vulnerable than others. Ultra-processed foods are products that are high in additives and engineered for overconsumption. The foods can disrupt our body’s natural hunger and fullness cues, leading to eating even when not hungry and continuing to eat even when full. 

Some children are more vulnerable to what psychologists call a strong food reward drive, which is when they feel an extra strong motivation to eat. This leads to eating quickly and having difficulty feeling full or satisfied. These children can regulate better with whole or minimally processed foods, but ultra-processed foods make self-control significantly harder. 

However, parents can create a home environment that supports healthy eating habits. Experts recommend limiting the availability of ultra-processed foods at home, saving them for special occasions or treats, not relying on portion control alone, and modeling balanced habits for children. Too many ultra-processed foods are tied to health issues, including a higher risk for diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Beasley Allen lawyers are actively investigating cases involving minors who regularly consumed ultra-processed foods and were later diagnosed with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and/or Type 2 diabetes.

FDA Takes Steps To Restrict The Kratom Byproduct, 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) Amid Consumer Protection And Safety Concerns

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently recommended a scheduling action to control 7-hydroxymitragynine (aka “7-OH” or “7-Hydroxy”) under the Controlled Substances Act. This is due to the high potential of 7-OH for abuse, lack of accepted medical use, and safety concerns. 7-OH poses significant opioid-like risks, and data shows it can be more potent than morphine. The high potential for abuse results from its ability to bind to opioid receptors. 

7-OH is a synthetic version of the compound found naturally in Kratom.  As previously reported, 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. Spurred on by a national lobbying effort by the American Kratom Association, sales in the United States have increased dramatically in recent years, turning Kratom into a billion-dollar industry.  

The FDA warns that manufacturers are now creating and selling highly concentrated forms of 7-OH. These are sometimes sold in the form of vapes or edibles, and are frequently sold in gas stations, corner stores, and vape shops. In fact, Kratom and its 7-OH byproduct are so potent that the products are commonly referred to on the streets as “gas station heroin.” 

 If the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) accepts the scheduling recommendation, it will become illegal to manufacture, distribute, or possess 7-OH outside of approved research. This would effectively remove 7-OH from the consumer market. Officials state that the move of 7-OH to a Scheduled Drug is intended to prevent the spread of a dangerous synthetic opioid before it becomes an epidemic.  Hopefully, the DEA will take the action necessary to control 7-OH. 

New Ozempic Study Raises Hair Loss Concerns

The legal battle surrounding Ozempic, a popular GLP-1 receptor agonist, continues to intensify as new research highlights yet another troubling side effect: hair loss. A preliminary study involving over 3,000 participants found that those taking Ozempic experienced significantly higher rates of hair loss than those who did not. Men on Ozempic had a 52% increased risk, while women faced double the rate compared to their non-Ozempic counterparts. 

This finding adds to a growing list of complications linked to Ozempic, including gastroparesis, intestinal blockages, blood clots, and vision loss. As of August 2025, more than 1,800 lawsuits have been consolidated into multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 3094) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly failed to adequately warn users of these risks.

While some experts suggest hair loss may stem from rapid weight loss rather than the drug itself, the study underscores the need for further investigation. As more patients report adverse effects, the litigation is expected to grow, potentially reshaping the future of GLP-1 drug regulation and patient safety.

TOXIC TORT LITIGATION

$2.5 Billion PFAS Pollution Settlement – A Record For A Single State

E.I. du Pont de Nemours and New Jersey have reached what has been described as a “landmark settlement” of over $2 billion to address long-standing contamination by “forever chemicals” at DuPont’s manufacturing sites across the state, including the Chamber Works facility in Salem County, New Jersey.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced this settlement, saying it is the largest environmental settlement ever achieved by a single state. The settlement resolves the state’s 2019 lawsuit over the Chamber Works site and three other lawsuits regarding specific sites in New Jersey, as well as statewide claims related to aqueous film-forming foam and DuPont’s responsibilities under a PFAS directive.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, DuPont and its related entities will pay $875 million in natural resource and other damages to New Jersey and fund abatement projects, including drinking water treatment at several sites. The companies will make payments annually over 25 years, with $875 million allocated primarily for restoration and abatement, and approximately $125 million for costs, fees, penalties, and punitive damages. Additionally, they will create a remediation funding source of up to $1.2 billion and a reserve fund of $475 million to ensure taxpayers are not left with the bill if any company fails to fulfill its responsibilities.

The state sued Old DuPont and its subsidiaries in 2019, accusing them of discharging hazardous substances, including PFAS, over 125 years of operations at the Chamber Works site. Despite efforts to allow Old DuPont to remediate the site without enforcement action, the state alleged the company operated in bad faith and knowingly hid the chemicals it disposed of. Old DuPont argued that the state was trying to hold it liable for emissions beyond what the data showed.

A series of bench trials took place in federal court in May to determine liability. The court rejected DuPont’s argument that a 2005 consent order resolved the state’s claims for groundwater natural resource damages. The landmark settlement follows another settlement earlier this year between New Jersey and 3M valued at up to $450 million.

This settlement is expected to advance New Jersey’s PFAS abatement efforts, improve drinking water quality, and restore injured natural resources.

The state is represented by Matthew J. Platkin and Gwen Farley of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Geoffrey W. Castello, William J. Jackson, John D.S. Gilmour, Lana M. Rowenko, Jennifer C. Barks, David Zalman, Fanny Turcios and David M. Reap of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, John K. Dema, John T. Dema, Scott E. Kauff, Briana Dema, Alex Latanision and Elizabeth B. Petersen of the Law Offices of John K. Dema PC, and Robert A. Bilott and David J. Butler of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

The case is New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. et al., case number 1:19-cv-14766, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Source: Law360

States Push Against Unregulated Substance Contributing To Overdose Deaths

Twenty-one state attorneys general have requested that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) schedule an unregulated substance known as “designer Xanax” under the Controlled Substances Act. The Attorneys General contend that this substance, bromazolam, is contributing to overdose deaths and poses a growing threat to public health. 

In their letter, the coalition of attorneys general requested the DEA to take emergency action to schedule bromazolam, describing it as a “dangerous and unregulated designer benzodiazepine” that has never been approved for medical use and is causing significant harm on the streets. They emphasized that bromazolam is highly potent and unpredictable, especially when combined with opioids or other depressants, and lacks quality controls, making it particularly lethal.

States are seeing increases in usage and deaths. Despite its dangers, bromazolam remains unscheduled at the federal level, complicating efforts for law enforcement and public health officials to address the crisis. 

The attorneys general are asking the DEA to use its authority to either initiate emergency or permanent scheduling of bromazolam, which would help law enforcement remove it from circulation and give prosecutors the tools to target traffickers. 

Attorneys general from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia signed the letter.

Law enforcement must be given the tools to proactively target traffickers. Naloxone, known as Narcan, is ineffective against bromazolam and other benzodiazepines. Classifying bromazolam as a Schedule I substance would give law enforcement the power to remove it from the streets and prosecute traffickers. Making the classification nationwide will provide all states with the needed tools to protect their communities from this synthetic benzodiazepine.

Source: Law360

Paraquat Settlement Update And Broader Implications

Since the April 8, 2025, announcement of a tentative settlement agreement, plaintiffs and defendants (Syngenta and Chevron) have not yet finalized all aspects of the Master Settlement Agreement.

On July 31, 2025, the court issued a third extension of the stay on case-specific discovery deadlines, moving the date to September 26, 2025. If the parties cannot reach an agreement on the final settlement terms by that time, case-specific discovery will resume, with trial deadlines currently projected for October 26, 2025, and April 6, 2026.

Despite the delays, most observers remain confident that a finalized agreement will be reached and announced in the near future. In complex multidistrict litigation of this scale, slow progress should not be mistaken for a setback. Rather, it reflects the extensive detail and negotiation required to craft a Master Settlement Agreement that will govern thousands of claims. Careful negotiation ensures that the final settlement is fair, comprehensive, and sustainable for all potentially eligible claimants. Both sides are actively working to ensure the outcome serves the best interests of those impacted.

Meanwhile, outside of the MDL, litigation continues to expand in state courts. In Pennsylvania, more than 1,100 Paraquat cases have now been filed. This surge follows a key ruling that opened the door for out-of-state plaintiffs to bring claims in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas—even if their exposure occurred elsewhere. Given that court’s longstanding experience with complex mass torts, it is no surprise that claimants view it as an attractive alternative to the federal system, which is often mired in uncertainty.

How the Paraquat Settlement May Influence Other Toxic Exposure Cases

The tentative Paraquat settlement has reignited broader questions: when will pesticide and herbicide manufacturers truly be held accountable, and what can be done to reduce reliance on toxic products? For decades, companies such as Syngenta have benefited from legal shields that limit their liability.

In response, Senator Cory Booker recently introduced the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act. Unlike prior proposals, this legislation would amend existing federal law to ensure that those harmed by pesticide exposure, including farm workers, families, and rural communities, have meaningful legal recourse. The bill would prevent manufacturers from escaping liability at the outset of litigation, and it would give greater weight to peer-reviewed scientific research linking commonly used pesticides to cancer, birth defects, Parkinson’s disease, infertility, and other severe conditions.

Although the proposal represents a significant step toward reshaping pesticide accountability, its future remains uncertain. In the current political climate, passage faces an uphill battle. Still, the growing attention around Paraquat litigation and pending federal legislation reflects an emerging shift: courts, policymakers, and the public are increasingly demanding accountability from manufacturers of hazardous chemicals.

CONSUMER CORNER

Beasley Allen Files Its First Video Game Addiction Case

Our firm recently filed its first lawsuit involving video game addiction, marking a significant step in a rapidly developing area of law. The case, filed in California, involves a nine-year-old child who began gaming around the age of seven and quickly developed compulsive playing patterns. Like many families, this family assumed video games were simple entertainment. Instead, they found that some platforms are intentionally designed to maximize engagement, quite often at the expense of children’s wellbeing. 

The complaint alleges design defect, negligence, misrepresentation (both negligent and intentional), and fraud against the developer. We allege that the platform was crafted to be addictive, and that the creators were aware of the risks, yet they continued to aggressively market towards children with no safeguards in place. We are seeking to have the case transferred to JCCP No. 5363 to streamline the pretrial process. The JCCP, which involves major gaming companies such as Epic Games, Roblox Corporation, Microsoft, and Mojang, is coordinated under the oversight of Judge Lawrence P. Riff in the Los Angeles Superior Court.  

These allegations resonate with new research. A May 2025 study of Australian children found that 4% of children aged ten to fourteen meet clinical or subclinical thresholds for Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD), with nearly 10% showing problematic smartphone use. Overuse of smartphones and IGD has been linked to impacts on emotional and physical development. This highlights the urgency of legal accountability and consumer protections for children in digital environments. 

Chad Cook, Mary Cam Raybon, Leighton Johnson and Roger Smith, lawyers in our Mass Torts Section, are handling this case.

AT&T Customers Reach A Settlement In Privacy Litigation

Millions of AT&T customers impacted by two significant privacy breaches can now submit claims as part of a $177 million settlement. Multiple lawsuits against AT&T were consolidated into two class-action cases, leading to a proposed settlement of $149 million for the first class and $28 million for the second. 

These breaches, which took place in March and July 2024, compromised data from both cellular and landline customers. The first breach affected 7.6 million current and 65.4 million former account holders. The second breach in July 2024 exposed information on 109 million customers, involving call and text messages. Some of the data from the second breach was uploaded to a third-party cloud platform hosted by Snowflake. For the record, AT&T has denied any wrongdoing. Neither was there any ruling on liability by the court.

Eligible customers will receive a letter or email with a claims number and can file a claim by visiting http://www.TelecomDataSettlement.com before the deadline on November 18. Customers affected by the first breach can receive up to $5,000 if they can document their losses, while those affected by the second breach can receive up to $2,500. The exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims filed.

The settlement awaits approval, with a final hearing set for December 3, 2025. Impacted customers can file claims until November 18, 2025, and must provide documentation of losses traceable to the breaches. Payments could begin in December if the settlement is approved.

Source: CBS News

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 
• 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.
•  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, Beasley Allen 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

Impeaching Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Testimony With Employee Witnesses: A Tactical Guide

This month’s trial tip is from Clay Barnett, a lawyer in our Atlanta office. Clay recently tried a class action auto defect case in the Northern District of California, in which the jury returned a $102.6 million verdict. The trial court has since preliminarily certified a class, and notice was sent to all class members. Final approval of this class will take place in October. This month, Clay, a tremendously talented and skilled trial lawyer, gives us some insight on how to effectively handle testimony from a corporate representative. Let’s see what Clay has for us. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) allows parties to depose a corporate representative designated to speak on behalf of the organization.  A 30(b)(6) witness testifies to the “corporate knowledge” on designated topics, not necessarily their personal knowledge. The curated testimony given by a 30(b)(6) witness is ripe for impeachment—especially when contradicted by other employee witnesses. To impeach a 30(b)(6) witness, consider the following steps:

Establish Personal Knowledge of Employees: Employee witnesses often have firsthand experience. Their testimony can be more credible than that of a 30(b)(6) designee who was educated for the deposition. Courts have recognized that personal knowledge carries more weight, especially when the 30(b)(6) witness lacks it.

Identify Contradictions: Compare the 30(b)(6) testimony with statements or depositions of other employees who have direct involvement or personal knowledge of the subject matter. Look for inconsistencies in facts, timelines, or corporate practices. When a corporate employee testifies to firsthand knowledge that contradicts the corporate representative’s testimony, the contradiction can be used to challenge the credibility and reliability of the corporation’s official position.

Live Testimony at Trial: If the 30(b)(6) witness is called live, cross-examine them using prior inconsistent statements from employee witnesses. Highlight gaps in their corporate knowledge or reliance on hearsay. Courts permit such impeachment, especially when the 30(b)(6) testimony is used to assert corporate positions.

Use Rule 32(a)(2) and (a)(6): These provisions allow introduction of deposition testimony for impeachment and to complete the context of testimony already introduced. If the 30(b)(6) witness’s statements are misleading or incomplete, use employee depositions to clarify or contradict.

Prepare for Rebuttal: Be ready for the opposing party to argue that the 30(b)(6) witness spoke for the corporation. Counter this by emphasizing the reliability and specificity of the employee’s personal knowledge, especially if the 30(b)(6) witness was selected for strategic reasons (e.g., being more articulate or skilled from previously testifying on the corporation’s behalf).

Employee witnesses are the “eye witnesses” to relevant corporate conduct. Often, they were the employees who designed and built the part or conducted the activity at the focus of the litigation. Build your evidence from the knowledgeable employee witnesses, and you will be ready to mitigate any damage that is coming from the well-prepared and victory-focused corporate representative.

Beasley Allen Lawyer And Employee Spotlights

Ben Baker

Ben Baker has been a cornerstone of Beasley Allen since 2001, where he serves as a principal in the firm’s Personal Injury and Products Liability Section. Focusing on serious bodily injury and death cases involving defective products, Ben has built a reputation for thorough preparation and unwavering dedication to his clients—values that have earned him numerous honors throughout his legal career. Drawn initially to law as a potential path into politics, Ben shares that his perspective shifted during a summer clerkship at a plaintiff’s firm. “I realized lawyers have a unique opportunity to help people on their worst day,” he reflects. That realization continues to drive Ben’s passion for advocacy and justice.

Outside of work, Ben is active in his community, having served with the Paseo movement, the Landmarks Foundation of Montgomery, and as past president of The Least, a prison ministry. He and his wife, Kimberly, have three children: Isabella, Benjamin, and Liam. Ben enjoys lake outings, cheering on his youngest son at sporting events, and kicking back in his favorite way.

Ben finds deep fulfillment in working at Beasley Allen, citing the firm’s value-driven culture as a significant reason. “Mr. Beasley’s philosophy—God first, family second, and work third—creates a rare and meaningful foundation,” he says. “There’s a genuine focus on doing what’s right for the client. When you prioritize people, everything else falls into place.”

Ben is a tremendously talented trial lawyer and a good person in every respect. We are blessed to have him at Beasley Allen.

Beau Darley

Beau Darley, a principal in Beasley Allen’s Mass Torts Section, has been with the firm since 2011. His focus is on complex litigation involving defective medical devices and dangerous pharmaceuticals, representing clients in state and federal courts nationwide.

Beau is known for his deep compassion and fierce advocacy. He believes in being the voice for those who feel unheard, and he takes time to truly understand each client’s story. From a young age, Beau says he was drawn to standing up for others and making a meaningful impact through the law. Inspired by stories of justice and advocacy, he pursued a legal career to help people navigate difficult and often overwhelming circumstances. “I’ve always believed in the power of the law to protect the vulnerable and hold wrongdoers accountable,” Beau shares. 

Outside of work, Beau enjoys life with his wife, Nikki, and their two sons, David and Hayes. Whether spending time with family or working on his farm, Beau brings the same dedication and heart that drives his legal career. His time away from the office helps him stay grounded and reminds him of the importance of the work he does every day.

Beau shares that he has found a professional home at Beasley Allen that aligns with his values and passion for justice. He appreciates the firm’s commitment to integrity, teamwork, and client-centered advocacy. “What I love most about working here is the culture of collaboration and the shared mission to make a difference,” he says. “Every case we take on is an opportunity to fight for fairness and support to those who need it most.”

Beau is another tremendously talented trial lawyer and is a credit to his profession. We are blessed to have Beau at Beasley Allen.

Niall Davies 

With over 17 years at Beasley Allen, Niall Davies has become a cornerstone of our Mass Torts Section. As the Mass Torts Section Project Manager, Niall leads a dedicated group of Medical Analysts focused on maximizing client compensation through strategic settlement evaluations. His role spans writing detailed guides for lawyers, developing systems to manage case inventories, and providing critical metrics and projections. Niall has contributed greatly to major litigations, including Transvaginal Mesh, Xarelto, JUUL, Talcum Powder, and CPAP.

Outside of work, Niall enjoys spending time with his wife, Penny, a Beasley Allen team member, and their son, Benjamin, an Auburn University engineering graduate. Their household includes three beloved pets: Ninja, Bandit, and Ronin. Niall is an avid runner, hiker, and reader, always finding time to recharge in nature or with a good book.

Niall’s favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the collaborative spirit. He says, “Our successes wouldn’t be possible without the full team effort from our staff and attorneys.”  Niall’s commitment to excellence and teamwork continues to help Beasley Allen lead the way in achieving justice for clients.  

Niall is a dedicated, hard-working employee. He is a definite asset to the firm and our clients. We are fortunate to have Niall with us!

Robin Parkhurst

Robin Parkhurst has built a meaningful career at Beasley Allen through various stages of service. She joined the firm full-time in October 2013, took a break in 2017 due to relocation, and returned part-time in 2018. Since August 2023, she’s been back full-time at the firm, handling payroll for all employees. As a payroll accountant in the accounting department, Robin’s role demands accuracy, precision, focus, and specialized knowledge, all of which she brings to the firm’s accounting operations.

Outside of work, Robin leads a vibrant family life. Married to John Parkhurst for 13 years, they share a blended family of four children and care for their 13-year-old grandchild. Their home in the country is filled with love—and dogs! —including two Boston Terriers and two Olde English Bulldogs. Robin’s weekends are spent at the ballfield, cheering on her son Hyland in baseball and football, and her daughter Callista, who cheers for Cottonwood JV. 

Robin’s favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the professional, friendly, and caring culture. She describes the firm as a family, where employees are genuinely valued. Her gratitude for being part of this environment shines through in everything she does.  Robin has an extremely important job at Beasley Allen, and she does it extremely well. We are thankful to have Robin with us!

Brenda Russell

Brenda Russell has been a dedicated member of the Beasley Allen team for 10 years, serving as a paralegal in the Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. She works closely with Beasley Allen lawyers Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, Dylan Martin, and Trent Mann—collectively known as the “auto defect class action team.” Their work focuses on complex automotive class actions involving vehicle and part defects that impact consumer safety. Brenda plays a pivotal role in case management, document preparation, e-filing, assisting in discovery, and client communication. Her hands-on approach and attention to detail help keep the team organized and efficient.

Outside of work, Brenda enjoys spending time with her daughter, Sarah, a special education teacher and Camp ASCCA volunteer, a camp for children and adults with disabilities. She’s also a devoted pet mom to 10 rescued cats and two dogs. Brenda loves traveling, reading, thrifting, and tackling DIY projects around her home. As the youngest of four siblings, she cherishes time with her 92-year-old mother, who lives nearby.

Brenda’s favorite part of working at Beasley Allen is the supportive, family-oriented environment. She values the camaraderie among staff, lawyers, and section leaders and is proud to contribute to meaningful work that makes a difference. Brenda’s warmth, dedication, and passion for helping others make her a cherished part of the Beasley Allen family.

Brenda’s role as a litigation paralegal is very important and appreciated at Beasley Allen. As an “experienced” trial lawyer, I know firsthand how important paralegals are at Beasley Allen. Brenda is a dedicated, hard-worker and an asset at the firm. We are fortunate to have her with us. 

Special Recognitions

Beasley Allen Lawyers Honored In 2025 Lawdragon 500 Civil Rights & Employment Guide

We are pleased to announce that four Beasley Allen lawyers — Dee Miles, Larry Golston, Leon Hampton, and Ali Hawthorne — have been named to the prestigious 2025 Lawdragon 500 Leading Civil Rights & Plaintiff Employment Lawyers list.

This honor recognizes lawyers who fight for justice in the face of discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, and other civil rights violations. These lawyers are champions for individuals whose dignity, freedom, and livelihoods have been unfairly threatened—and they deliver results.

Larry Golston: Featured Honoree

Larry Golston has built a career advocating for individuals and small businesses harmed by negligence and misconduct. He holds a Martindale-Hubbell AV rating and has been recognized in multiple Lawdragon guides, including the 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers and 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. 

Larry’s track record speaks volumes. He has helped whistleblowers, injured workers, and victims of fraud and environmental abuse win the justice they deserved. 

Some of Larry’s most impactful victories include a $4.6 million False Claims Act win against the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority and a $14.7 million recovery in a whistleblower case exposing illegal kickbacks at the Alabama Organ Center. His work also includes successful outcomes in business fraud and wage disputes, including a $1.7 million verdict for a small business and actions on behalf of underpaid police officers. Larry’s inclusion as a featured honoree underscores his leadership in civil rights litigation and his unwavering commitment to justice.

Dee Miles: Hall of Fame Litigator

Dee Miles has been a cornerstone of Beasley Allen Law Firm since 1991, pioneering consumer fraud and commercial litigation across the nation. His exceptional leadership has led to numerous record-setting verdicts for clients in various legal areas. Beyond his courtroom successes, Dee heads the firm’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section. In that role, Dee oversees all cases in the Section. He is also actively involved in a number of cases, being the lead lawyer in a number of important cases. 

Dee was inducted into the Lawdragon Hall of Fame in 2025 and is also listed among the top 500 plaintiff financial and civil rights lawyers. Dee is a highly accomplished leader in complex national litigation, often appointed by federal judges to coordinate major cases. Dee has played pivotal roles in securing significant settlements, recently including a record-breaking $2.8 billion settlement in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust case, the largest in U.S. healthcare history.

Ali Hawthorne: Civil Rights Trailblazer

Ali Hawthorne is a principal in our firm. She has led high-impact litigation across multiple states. She has recovered millions for state Medicaid agencies and has exposed fraudulent conduct by major pharmaceutical companies. Ali’s great work helped recover over $1.5 billion for the states and led to a transformative change in how Medicaid reimburses for prescription drugs, resulting in long-term savings for public health programs. Ali assists with managing Beasley Allen’s Consumer Fraud & Commercial Litigation Section and is a dynamic leader in the legal community.

Leon Hampton: Rising Star

Inspired by the book Arc of Justice, Leon entered the legal profession to make a difference—and he has done exactly that. He has been named to the Lawdragon 500 X – The Next Generation since 2023, as well as being listed in the Financial Lawyers and Civil Rights guides. Leon’s accolades include the Alabama State Bar Award of Merit and a spot among the Mid-South Super Lawyers “Rising Stars.” Leon’s legal passion is deeply rooted in his respect for the civil rights movement, inspired by those who fought against injustices despite overwhelming odds. Since joining the firm in August 2017, Leon has helped secure a large number of significant settlements and jury verdicts. An example is his serving as lead counsel in a qui tam case that led to a $417 million judgment. 

Aigner Kolom Elected Regional Deputy Director For Region 11 And Is Poised To Lead In 2026

At the recent National Bar Association conference, Aigner Kolom, a Principal in the Mass Torts Section at Beasley Allen, was elected as the Regional Deputy Director for Region 11. This region encompasses Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Leadership among the three states is noted annually.

Aigner’s election marks a significant milestone in her already distinguished legal career. Known for her advocacy in high-profile litigation such as the chemical hair relaxer cases and her leadership in numerous professional organizations, Kolom brings both legal acumen and a deep commitment to community service to her new role.

Looking ahead, Aigner has announced her intention to run for Director of Region 11 next year – when it will be Alabama’s turn to lead. 

Her leadership is expected to bring a strong focus on equity, mentorship, and regional collaboration. Aigner currently serves as President of the Alabama Lawyers Association and Vice President of the Black Women Lawyers Association of Alabama. She also holds several other leadership roles across bar associations and nonprofit boards.

With her election, Aigner continues to build on a career defined by service, advocacy, and a passion for justice. We are most fortunate to have this tremendously talented and driven lawyer at Beasley Allen. We support Aigner in all of her various roles and activities. 

FAVORITE BIBLE VERSES

One of our lawyers and a staff employee who are being featured in this issue share their favorite Bible verses with us.

Beau Darley

Beau Darley provides one of his favorite verses below.

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

Robin Parkhurst

Robin Parkhurst offers several of her favorite verses below. The first is her “go to” and a reminder not to worry.

Give all your worries to Him because He cares for you. 1 Peter 5:7

The second verse brings her comfort in times of uncertainty and serves as a reminder that He is always with her. 

Your ears will hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right or to the left. Isaiah 30:21

The third verse reminds her that He has a plan for us even when things feel like they are falling apart, and to have faith in Him and leave it in His hands. 

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

Closing Observations

Ghost Gun Shooting Settlement In Georgia

We live in a nation where acts of gun-related violence, including a huge number of deaths, are reported daily. No state is exempt from the problem. We will mention one case below. It’s different because it involves the scale and use of what is called a “ghost gun.”

A maker of ghost gun kits, Polymer80 Inc., has settled a lawsuit in Georgia federal court brought by Shamiah Sharp. The company was blamed in the lawsuit for her son’s severe brain injuries after he was accidentally shot by a friend with a ghost gun. 

U.S. District Judge W. Louis Sands Sr. has given the parties 45 days to finalize the settlement and file a stipulation of dismissal. The lawsuit alleged that Polymer80 negligently allowed Sharp’s friend, a minor, to buy a kit online without any background check or age verification, leading to the shooting. 

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that restricts ghost gun kits, reversing a previous decision that had struck down the rule. 

The court ruled that these kits are considered firearms under the Gun Control Act and are subject to regulation. At press time for this issue, the terms of the settlement had not been disclosed.

Plaintiff Sharp is represented by Edward S. Schwartz of Gerson & Schwartz PA and Michael Davis of Boone & Davis.

The case is Sharp v. Polymer80 Inc. et al., case number 7:23-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Source: Law360

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

America Has A Gun Problem

The news broke on the morning of August 25 that a Minnesota church had been attacked by a gunman, leaving two young children dead and 17 more injured. This kind of shocking news at a time in our nation’s past would have been beyond “shocking,” it would have been unbelievable. Nowadays, this type of news story has become almost routine.  That’s a sad commentary on the times we live in.

When are the American people and our political leaders from all sides going to say this senseless gun violence and mass killings have to stop? I thought that when churches, hospitals, and schools became targets, that would be enough. Sadly, I was wrong! Whose family will be hit next, and where?

The time has come for Congress to adopt reasonable, but effective, gun reform laws that apply in every state. Is that asking too much? 

Members of Congress can support the Second Amendment and still take the necessary action designed to stop the mass murders. The existing laws are not working, and that’s quite obvious. Members of Congress can support the Second Amendment and still act on reforming our gun laws. I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people agree. Am I wrong? 

My prayer is for an end to gun-related violence and mass shootings!

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

This is an advertisement.