A federal judge has been asked to approve a plan that would allow faster and more efficient filing of Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which is likely to be necessary as the litigation continues to grow.

Boston Scientific currently faces dozens of claims by individuals who were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator that was supposed to alleviate chronic pain. Most cases indicate the implants were defectively designed and have been linked to numerous complications, frequently requiring surgical removal, which can leave the patient in more pain than they were in before.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) consist of electrodes, lead wires and a battery-powered pulse generator implanted under the skin, along with an external remote control used to adjust stimulation. These devices are designed for long-term use, delivering electrical pulses intended to interrupt pain signals before they reach the brain.

However, many individuals report experiencing spinal cord stimulator implant problems and complications instead of lasting pain relief. Reported side effects include device failures, lead migration and fractures, painful electrical shocks, implants eroding through the skin and permanent nerve damage.

As a result, Boston Scientific and several other manufacturers face a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, alleging they knew or should have known about these risks but failed to adequately warn consumers or make necessary design changes to prevent injuries.

Many complaints also raise concerns about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) oversight of spinal cord stimulators, questioning whether changes to the devices underwent sufficient safety testing before being allowed on the market.

Boston Scientific Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL

As the number of claims rose, all Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits were consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in June, and were centralized in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who has begun pretrial proceedings in likely preparation for a series of early “bellwether” trials.

These trials will put cases before actual juries, whose decisions may indicate which way most of the litigation would go if all of the claims were tried individually. While not binding on the other claims, the outcomes of these trials will be closely watched.

The goal of such trials is to create a basis of negotiation for a potential Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreements, which could reverberate throughout claims brought against other implant manufacturers as well.

Attorneys met with Judge Staton on October 7 for a status conference (PDF), indicating that the litigation has grown to 59 claims involving 72 plaintiffs.

The judge later set a schedule for future status conferences (PDF) on October 9. Those conferences will be held on:

• November 6, 2026
• December 4, 2026
• February 5, 2027
• March 5, 2027
• April 9, 2027

Boston Scientific Master Complaints

Previously, Judge Staton issued a pretrial order (PDF) on September 23, calling for plaintiffs to submit a Master Complaint to her court by October 23, involving all of the claims against the FDA, which are proceeding on a separate, but parallel, track from the personal injury claims. Counsel for both sides are calling for the judge to give them until October 30.

Two days later, attorneys filed a joint memorandum (PDF) asking the judge to do the same for the personal injury cases, along with the same due date.

A Master Complaint is a single document that would include all claims and injuries common to most Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuits. Once agreed upon and approved, new lawsuits can be submitted as short-form complaints, which is a much simpler and more efficient process than each individual having to file a full lawsuit.

The process is usually accompanied by a direct filing order that would allow all future claims to be immediately sent to the MDL court in Central California, regardless of where in the federal court system they were originally filed.

In addition to expediency in filing, the Master Complaint and short-form complaints will make it easier to sort through the claims to find the most common types of injuries and alleged device failures. This will allow the court to build a profile of what a typical, representative Boston Scientific SCS implant lawsuit looks like, guiding attorneys in selecting the best cases for bellwether trials.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Soon after the Boston Scientific SCS MDL was established earlier this year, plaintiffs pursuing claims against other manufacturers asked for Nevro implant lawsuits and Abbott SCS lawsuits to be centralized in the Central District of California as separate MDLs.

The panel heard oral arguments on the proposed consolidations last month and agreed to centralize Abbott and Nevro complaints in separate MDLs in the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of California, respectively. Each of those proceedings will also likely move toward selecting representative cases for bellwether trials.

As the amount of lawsuits ramp up nationwide, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to investigate potential claims involving complications linked to implant failures and malfunctions, including:

Individuals who experienced complications that may be associated with a defective implant can request a free evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Attorneys investigating these cases handle claims on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal fees and payment only if compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A federal judicial panel is being asked to consolidate six product liability lawsuits that raise similar allegations involving severe finger injuries caused by tow handles on recalled Igloo 90 Quart Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers.

The motion (PDF) was brought by Igloo on October 2, asking the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to establish In re: Igloo 90 Quart Rolling Cooler Tow Handle Products Liability Litigation and transfer the cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Hall overseeing the coordinated proceedings.

Igloo argues the lawsuits involve overlapping questions about the tow handle design, whether it poses a safety hazard, available alternative designs, the company’s knowledge of the alleged problem and its 2025 recall. The company maintains that allowing the cases to proceed separately would result in duplicative discovery and potentially inconsistent pretrial rulings.

Igloo Cooler Recall

The petition follows a recall of more than 1 million Igloo coolers announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in February 2025, due to fingertip amputation risks. At the time, federal regulators had received reports of at least 12 fingertip injuries, including lacerations, bone fractures and incidents where fingertips were cut off. The recall was later expanded to include at least 1.2 million coolers.

To date, at least six federal lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer involving serious fingertip injuries allegedly caused by the tow handles on Igloo’s 90 Quart Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers. The claims generally maintain that the handles can trap or pinch fingers during foreseeable use due to an alleged design defect.

Igloo Cooler Finger Injury Lawsuits

The six federal lawsuits identified in Igloo’s motion involve similar finger injuries allegedly caused by the tow handles on 90 Quart Flip & Tow Rolling Coolers. While the circumstances vary, most of the incidents occurred as consumers were lifting, unloading or moving the coolers.

Gary Lee and Robert Randall McAlary III both claim they injured their left index fingers, with Lee’s injury occurring while lifting a cooler from a truck and McAlary’s while removing one from a bear-proof storage locker.

David Bruce also alleges he injured his left index finger while retrieving a cooler from a bear box. Erwin Carlin Jr. suffered an alleged injury to his left middle finger while unloading a cooler. Although Carlin’s original complaint did not identify the component involved, Igloo indicates that he subsequently linked the injury to the tow handle during informal discovery.

In another case, Eric Daniel Cooke claims the tow handle injured his right ring finger while unloading a cooler from a pickup truck. Jose Porfirio Lardizabal-Cueva similarly alleges an injury to his left index finger while moving a cooler inside his vehicle.

All six lawsuits raise product liability claims involving the alleged finger-entrapment hazard, citing Igloo’s 2025 cooler recall as evidence supporting their allegations.

Igloo Cooler Lawsuit MDL

According to the motion, the cases will require much of the same discovery involving company documents, interrogatory responses, corporate witnesses and experts. Igloo maintains that most case-specific discovery would be limited to how each cooler was being handled and the resulting injuries.

Igloo argues that without centralization, five or more federal courts could establish separate schedules and resolve overlapping discovery disputes, expert challenges and summary judgment motions. The company maintains an MDL, or multidistrict litigation, would reduce litigation costs and the risk of inconsistent rulings involving the alleged defect, its knowledge of the problem and potential alternative designs.

Judge Hall is already overseeing In re: Igloo Products Cooler Recall Litigation, a consolidated proposed class action involving the same recall and alleged tow handle defect. That proceeding has been pending for more than 18 months, with a protective order and discovery schedule already established and substantial document production completed.

Igloo is not asking the JPML to include that class action in the proposed personal injury MDL, acknowledging it involves different claims, liability theories and remedies. However, the company argues Judge Hall’s familiarity with the underlying defect and recall makes Delaware the logical venue for the coordinated proceedings.

The company maintains further filings are likely, noting that four of the six federal cases were filed within the previous 60 days. The company says it has already received five additional injury demands, potentially resulting in a dozen or more federal cases.

The JPML is expected to schedule a hearing where attorneys for the parties can present arguments supporting or opposing the proposed centralization. Following that hearing, the panel will decide whether the Igloo cooler lawsuits should be consolidated into an MDL for coordinated pretrial proceedings and, if so, which federal judge should oversee the litigation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Artificial stone manufacturers and quartz countertop installation companies facing silicosis lawsuits may be forced to pay settlements and legal costs out of their own pockets, as many insurance policies contain exclusions that allow insurers to deny coverage for silica dust-related injuries.

One of those coverage disputes now involves Architecture Surfaces Group, which does business as ASG Holding LLC. The company faces more than 100 lawsuits filed by stonecutters, fabricators and installers who allege they developed serious lung injuries from exposure to silica dust while working with artificial stone products, including countertops.

However, ASG’s insurer, Liberty Insurance Company, maintains that it is not responsible for covering those claims.

On October 5, Liberty filed a complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, seeking a ruling that it does not have to pay ASG’s legal defense costs or any resulting settlements or judgments.

The dispute centers on a provision known as a Silica Exclusion, which is included in many commercial insurance policies and can bar coverage for injuries arising from silica dust exposure.

Liberty argues that the lawsuits against ASG fall directly within that exclusion because the workers’ injuries allegedly resulted from inhaling silica dust. Despite the policy language, ASG has sought insurance coverage for the claims, prompting Liberty to ask the court to determine its obligations.

Silica Dust Exposure and Silicosis

Silica exposure is a major risk among workers who cut, grind, polish and install artificial stone countertops, due to particles released by the stone into the air. With repeated exposure and inhalation, the workers face the risk of life-threating injuries, including a lung condition known as silicosis, which can lead to death.

Silicosis is a progressive lung disease caused by inhaling silica dust, triggering inflammation and permanent scarring in the lungs. As the disease progresses, breathing becomes more difficult, with severe cases resulting in respiratory failure, the need for a lung transplant or death. The damage from silicosis is irreversible.

In light of these concerns, many stoneworkers are pursuing silicosis lawsuits against the artificial stone industry, centered in California. Each alleges that their employers failed to provide proper warnings, silica dust prevention or effective protective equipment for workers.

Silica Dust Insurance Exclusions

Almost all insurance companies include what is known as a silica exclusion in all Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies when covering businesses in the construction, manufacturing and stone fabrication industries. First introduced by the Insurance Services Office (ISO) in 2005, the policies are specifically designed to exclude coverage of silicosis injuries.

Companies wishing to bypass the exclusion must sign up for either a specialized Contractors Pollution Liability (CPL) policy or an Environmental Impairment Liability (EIL) policy. Liberty claims AGL did not choose such a policy, but is now asking for silica lawsuit coverage.

“The Silica Lawsuits fall squarely within the language of the Silica Exclusions, as each of the Silica Lawsuits alleges injuries caused by exposure to silica, either alone or in combination with other substances.”

– LM Insurance Corporation and Liberty Insurance Corporation v. ASG Holding LLC

The complaint states that ASG began seeking defense and indemnity for 49 silica lawsuits between December 2022 and November 2024. Liberty provided defense for the company in connection with 26 of those lawsuits but reserved the right to deny coverage based on the Silica Exclusion clause.

Liberty indicates it sent a letter to ASG in November 2024, denying coverage for the silica lawsuits after determining that the injuries in the workers’ lawsuits were caused by silica exposure. However, ASG has continued to file claims with the insurer, seeking compensation.

The lawsuit seeks two declaratory judgments: one requesting the court declare Liberty has no duty to defend ASG from silica lawsuits, and another seeking no duty to indemnify ASG.

Silica Lawsuits

The insurance company’s rejection of coverage comes as silica lawsuits continue to be filed in federal and state courts nationwide by workers who developed silicosis while working as installers, fabricators and stone cutters in the artificial stone industry. Those workers may be eligible to pursue compensation if they were diagnosed with:

• Silicosis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Lung infections, including tuberculosis

Silicosis lawyers are evaluating potential claims for quartz countertop workers throughout the United States who developed silicosis following workplace exposure to silica dust. Free consultations are available to help determine whether affected workers may qualify to pursue financial compensation.

Sign up for more legal news that may affect you or your family.

An Ohio man has filed a product liability lawsuit after a Werner ladder allegedly collapsed while he was using it, causing him to fall and suffer severe fractures and permanent nerve damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Bruce Sheridan on October 7, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, naming Werner Co., New Werner Holding Company Inc., doing business as ProDriven Global Brands, and The Home Depot Inc. as defendants.

Sheridan claims Werner and The Home Depot knew or should have known the ladder posed a fall hazard but failed to adequately warn consumers.

Werner Ladder Recall

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall for 122,000 Werner 20- and 24-foot Multi-Max Pro multi-purpose ladders on August 14, 2025. According to the recall notice, locking mechanisms on certain ladders had the ability to become jammed and not fully lock into place, posing a fall hazard.

At the time, the notice indicated Werner had received 18 reports of falls and 14 reports of injuries including lacerations, head injuries, fractures to the legs, ribs and wrist, and bruising.

A similar product liability lawsuit was filed against Werner in April, alleging a Missouri man fell from a defective Werner ladder and suffered severe injuries, including a displaced fracture of his right wrist that required surgery. The complaint indicates the ladder’s I-beam side rails buckled and bent, causing it to collapse while the man was near the roofline of his home.

Werner Ladder Injury Allegations

According to the new lawsuit, Sheridan was working as a project manager at a job site in Galena, Ohio, on October 21, 2024. He was using a Werner Multi-Max Pro multi-purpose ladder in its four-legged A-frame configuration to install permanent address numbers on a transom approximately eight feet above the ground.

Sheridan indicates that he placed the ladder on a flat concrete surface, extended it and locked it into position before climbing. He had already climbed up and down several times without incident when the locking mechanism at the base allegedly failed, causing the ladder to collapse and sending him falling approximately three feet to the ground.

Sheridan suffered severe injuries that required emergency medical treatment. He was initially taken to a local hospital before being transferred to another facility for surgery.

Among his injuries was a shattered left tibial plateau, which required surgery to repair the knee joint using two metal plates and eight screws. He also suffered compartment syndrome in his left leg, a fractured left fibula and left arm, a torn left meniscus and stress fractures in his left foot.

Sheridan claims he was left with permanent nerve damage, chronic pain in his left foot and ankle, arthritis in his left big toe, weakness in his left thigh muscles and difficulty walking.

Following multiple medical procedures, Sheridan was unable to put weight on his injured leg for three months. He required a hospital bed in his home, a stairlift and accessibility modifications, including a ramp. He was also treated for suspected deep-vein thrombosis and continues to receive medical care for ongoing pain, limited mobility and other lasting complications.

The lawsuit alleges that the ladder was defectively designed and that safer alternative designs were available, but Werner prioritized profits over consumer safety.

The Werner Multi-Max Pro ladder was sold exclusively through The Home Depot between November 2021 and February 2024. Sheridan claims both companies knew or should have known about the potential defect but failed to warn consumers about the risk of injury during normal use.

“The foreseeable risks of the design of the locking mechanism (including the risk that it would jam or fail to fully lock, causing sudden collapse and serious fall injuries) were of a nature, magnitude, and likelihood that outweighed any utility or benefits of the design.”

— Bruce Sheridan v. Werner Co. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict product liability—defective design or formulation, strict product liability—defective manufacture or construction and strict product liability—inadequate warning or instruction.

Sheridan seeks compensation for physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent disability, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity and commissions and other economic and non-economic damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging she suffered severe neurological injuries and lost control of basic bodily functions after becoming addicted to nitrous oxide products allegedly marketed and illegally sold for recreational use at smoke shops and vape stores.

Kimberly Green filed the complaint (PDF) in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County on September 29, naming United Brands Products Design Development and Marketing Inc., Ramdon Corporation and Cavedwellers Inc., doing business as The Cave Smoke Shop, as defendants.

Green alleges that nitrous oxide canisters sold at smoke shops, gas stations and convenience stores are unreasonably dangerous and marketed to encourage recreational inhalation, despite the risks of addiction and serious neurological damage. She claims the companies knew or should have known about these dangers but continued to distribute and sell the products without adequate warnings, ultimately contributing to her injuries.

Nitrous Oxide Injury Risks

Nitrous oxide gas is used as an anesthetic in dental and medical procedures and for culinary purposes. It can also be inhaled for a temporary high, a practice known as doing “whippets,” which deprives the brain of oxygen.

Inhaling the gas can lead to addiction as well as physical, neurological and cognitive injuries such as paralysis, brain damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, frostbite injuries and death. Selling nitrous oxide for recreational use is a violation of the Federal Analog Act, and many states and cities have even more explicit laws regarding its use, marketing and sale.

However, that has not stopped companies like Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad and Miami Magic from selling excessively large canisters, often with accessories designed to help with inhalation in vape shops nationwide, as well as through online dealers, particularly on Amazon.com.

This has led to concerns over nitrous oxide recreational use, as well as the resulting injuries. Former users often suffering severe adverse health effects are now filing nitrous oxide injury lawsuits in courts nationwide.

Nitrous Oxide Side Effect Allegations

According to the complaint, Green began buying nitrous oxide canisters in 2023 and quickly became addicted. For the first year or so, her lawsuit states she bought smaller, 8-gram whipped cream charging canisters and inhaled them on a daily basis.

Over time the size of the canisters she purchased increased, until she was inhaling one or two 4.5-liter tanks of nitrous oxide every day. Green states that she has likely spent more than $50,000 on nitrous oxide canisters over the past three years.

Along with the addiction came an increasing number of side effects and health problems. Green was hospitalized for six to eight months in September 2025, due to increasingly debilitating health problems caused by her nitrous oxide addiction, the lawsuit alleges.

“Immediately after inhaling Defendants’ products, Ms. Green experienced the following symptoms: short, fleeting feelings of euphoria, sometimes followed by unconsciousness, burns, and more. Approximately six months into inhaling such products, Ms. Green began experiencing alarming, long-term effects such as loss of feeling in her extremities, losing her ability to walk and talk, loss of the ability to conduct basic bodily functions, and severe vitamin B-12 depletion.”

– Kimberly Green v. United Brands Products Design Development and Marketing Inc. et al.

The lawsuit indicates Green has been diagnosed with severe nitrous oxide use disorder and vitamin B12 deficiency, as well as neurological complications affecting her mobility, coordination and mental state, including peripheral polyneuropathy, neurotoxicity concerns and symptoms consistent with psychosis. She also claims she has lost the ability to walk and speak normally and developed severe mental health problems.

On top of the physical and mental injuries, Green’s lawsuit states she also has suffered mounting costs for medical problems, physical and mental therapy, and other expenses caused by her nitrous oxide addiction. She raises allegations of negligence, design defect and failure to warn, and seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Nitrous Oxide Injury Lawsuits

Green and many other individuals pursuing nitrous oxide injury lawsuits claim retailers and manufacturers know exactly what they are doing by marketing large nitrous oxide canisters in bright colors and fruity flavors and then selling them out of vape shops.

In addition, the retailers are accused of ignoring the risk of nitrous oxide injuries and addiction in order to increase profits. The complaints allege the retailers never warn users of the true risks of injuries and addiction.

Nitrous oxide injury lawyers are reviewing potential lawsuits for individuals who suffered addiction, neurological damage or other serious side effects from recreational nitrous oxide use. Those affected, as well as their families, may be eligible to pursue financial compensation through a nitrous oxide lawsuit.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive nitrous oxide lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

An Oklahoma woman has filed a SmartPort port catheter lawsuit alleging that the device’s allegedly defective design led to her husband’s death from infection and sepsis.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Darla Meyer, on behalf of herself and the estate of Robin Dean Meyer, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 1, naming AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc. as defendants.

Meyer indicates her husband’s death could have been avoided if the SmartPort would have been properly designed. She argues that the manufacturer either should have changed the design or warned patients and health care professionals about the potential health risks.

Port Catheter Risks

Port catheters are subdermal medical implants designed to provide long-term access to a patient’s veins for chemotherapy, blood transfusions, medications and other frequent and repeated intravenous treatments. They consist of an access port connected to a polyurethane catheter.

AngioDymanics, and C.R. Bard, both leading medical device manufacturers, currently face hundreds of port catheter lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide, who say they suffered bloodstream infections, blood clots, damage to veins and other serious complications, which could include death. Complaints suggest the design and materials used in the port catheters can cause the material to deteriorate after implantation, creating irregular surfaces where bacteria and blood products may collect and contribute to infections and other problems.

In particular, AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits maintain the manufacturer was aware of faulty design features and chose to continue promoting and selling the devices without additional warnings.

SmartPort Sepsis Allegations

According to the complaint, Robin Dean Meyer received an AngioDynamics SmartPort catheter in August 2024 to facilitate chemotherapy treatments. Just weeks later, in early October, he was hospitalized with a serious infection and diagnosed with sepsis.

Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that occurs when the body’s response to an infection causes widespread inflammation and organ dysfunction. It can develop from infections involving the lungs, bloodstream, urinary tract or skin, as well as infections associated with implanted medical devices.

Symptoms of sepsis may include fever, chills, confusion, rapid heart rate, difficulty breathing and dangerously low blood pressure. Without prompt treatment, the condition can progress to organ failure and death.

Doctors ultimately determined that Meyer’s implanted port was the source of his infection and surgically removed the device on October 15, 2024. However, the lawsuit alleges that the infection had already progressed too far, and Meyer died from sepsis four days later, on October 19.

“Defendants were aware or should have been aware that the SmartPort had a substantially higher failure rate than other similar products on the market, yet Defendants failed to warn consumers of this fact. Defendants also intentionally concealed the severity of complications caused by the SmartPort and the likelihood of these events occurring.”

– Darla Meyer v AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of fraudulent concealment, negligence, failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, wrongful death and survival action. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Meyer’s complaint will be consolidated with hundreds of similar AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits currently before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The judge is eventually expected to order attorneys to identify a limited number of representative claims for early bellwether trials.

A similar MDL has been consolidated before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona to handle all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits. The first Bard PowerPort bellwether case went before a jury earlier this year leading to an incomplete verdict and the plaintiff seeking a new trial, with claims that jurors received improper instructions.

The second bellwether trial resulted in a $40 million verdict for a New Mexico woman who alleged her PowerPort broke apart inside her body, allowing fragments to travel to her heart and resulting in a pulmonary embolism.

Judge Campbell has planned additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials throughout the year. While the outcomes of these early test trials are not binding on any other claims, they are being closely watched to see if they can help plaintiffs and defendants in reaching a potential port catheter lawsuit settlement agreement.

If no settlement or other resolution is reached, individual claims could eventually be sent back to their originating federal courts for separate trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An analysis involving nearly 9 million adults found that the risks of a wide range of serious health problems rose as individuals consumed greater amounts of ultra-processed foods.

The findings were published in The BMJ on September 22, adding to growing concerns about the long-term health effects of heavily processed diets.

Researchers found that adults who consumed the most ultra-processed foods faced elevated risks across every major health outcome examined, with particularly strong associations involving digestive diseases, mental health conditions, cardiovascular problems and metabolic disorders.

Ultra-Processed Foods Health Concerns

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are industrially manufactured products made primarily with refined ingredients, additives and other substances rather than whole foods. Designed for convenience, flavor and longer shelf life, they include soft drinks, frozen meals, sweetened cereals and packaged snacks. Many contain high levels of added sugar, saturated fat, sodium and preservatives while offering relatively little nutritional value.

Concerns about the health effects of ultra-processed foods have increased as these products have become a major part of the American diet, particularly among children. Research has linked diets high in UPFs to an increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes and other chronic metabolic conditions.

As more studies identify potential health risks, major food manufacturers are facing a number of ultra-processed food lawsuits. The complaints allege that companies knew or should have known about the dangers associated with their products but continued to aggressively market them, particularly to children, without adequately warning consumers.

Ultra-Processed Foods Risks Study

For the new study, researchers reviewed prospective cohort studies published through April 28, 2026, using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify research examining ultra-processed food consumption among adults. The analysis included 51 studies conducted across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania, with participants followed for periods ranging from two to 32 years. Researchers assessed UPF intake using dietary questionnaires, food consumption records and the NOVA food classification system.

Led by Xiao Liu, the research team found that adults who consumed the most ultra-processed foods faced significantly higher risks of several chronic health conditions compared to those who consumed the least. The findings included:

• 31% increased risk of digestive diseases
• 27% increased risk of depression or anxiety
• 24% increased risk of cardiovascular events
• 24% increased risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes
• 23% increased risk of obesity or being overweight
• 18% increased risk of death from any cause
• 12% increased risk of cancer

Researchers also identified a dose-response relationship, with risks generally increasing alongside UPF consumption. For every additional 100 grams consumed per day, the risk of cardiovascular events increased 14%, hypertension increased 11%, cancer increased 4% and death from any cause increased 3%.

Each additional 100 grams per day was also associated with a 2% increased risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes. However, the risk increased 16% for every 10% increase in the proportion of a person’s daily food weight or energy intake that came from UPFs.

“Given that UPF related chronic diseases often cluster as multimorbidity, reducing consumption of UPFs and replacing them with minimally processed alternatives may be relevant for chronic disease prevention and primary care management.”

— Xiao Liu, Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of multiple chronic diseases among 8,819,894 adults from 51 prospective cohorts: a dose-response meta-analysis

The researchers identified several possible explanations for the findings but cautioned that the associations do not establish causation. They noted that UPFs generally have lower nutritional value and higher energy density, potentially encouraging faster eating, delayed feelings of fullness, greater food consumption and weight gain.

The study also points to potential effects on gut bacteria, inflammation, oxidative stress and insulin resistance, as well as exposure to combinations of food additives and compounds formed during industrial processing, including acrylamide and acrolein. Researchers also noted that food packaging may expose consumers to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Ultra-Processed Foods Lawsuits

Ultra-processed food lawsuits are being pursued by young adults and families of children who developed metabolic conditions, including type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, after allegedly consuming large amounts of UPFs during childhood.

The lawsuits allege food manufacturers deliberately formulated and marketed ultra-processed products to promote compulsive eating and excessive consumption. Plaintiffs claim the companies aggressively targeted children and other vulnerable consumers to establish long-term purchasing habits despite knowing about potential health risks.

Ultra-processed food attorneys are continuing to investigate potential claims nationwide involving individuals who regularly consumed UPFs as children and were later diagnosed with metabolic diseases.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Nearly 30 Apple AirTag stalking lawsuits alleging the Bluetooth tracking devices made it easier for stalkers to secretly monitor victims by hiding them in cars, purses and other personal belongings have been transferred to the Northern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The complaints, mostly filed by women across the country, allege that Apple designed and sold AirTags without adequate safeguards, despite repeated warnings that the devices could be used for stalking. Before their release, technology experts and domestic violence organizations warned that the trackers could be hidden in personal belongings to secretly monitor victims and questioned whether Apple’s advertised anti-stalking features would provide meaningful protection.

Despite those concerns, Apple launched the AirTag in April 2021. Individuals allege they were subsequently stalked, harassed and, in some cases, assaulted by people who secretly used the devices to track their movements.

The lawsuits claim Apple’s safety alerts often came too late, allowing stalkers to monitor victims for extended periods before they were notified. Some claims even allege Apple failed to help them locate hidden AirTags, even after learning they were being stalked.

According to the complaints, Apple received more than 40,000 reports of AirTag stalking between 2021 and 2024, averaging roughly 1,000 per month. The lawsuits raise questions about the effectiveness of Apple’s tracking alerts, the availability of safer designs and the company’s response to reported stalking incidents.

Apple AirTag MDL

Last month, plaintiffs involved in the Apple AirTag litigation filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) calling for the consolidation of all federal complaints in the District of Arizona. Apple opposed centralization, claiming there were too many individual factors in each case for consolidation to increase efficiency.

Following oral arguments held late last month, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on October 2, creating an Apple AirTag stalking lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Noël Wise. The panel noted that they did not believe the differences in individual cases would negate the benefits of consolidation. Apple is headquartered in the district.

The JPML cited the thousands of Uber driver sexual assault lawsuits, also consolidated in the Northern District of California, saying the conditions were similar, in that each alleged victim suffered various kinds of sexual assaults under a wide variety of circumstances.

“Each plaintiff alleges that someone used an AirTag to stalk them, that Apple designed the AirTag with insufficient safety features to prevent its use for stalking, and that they suffered serious harm because of the stalking. The AirTag’s design and whether alternative designs were available will be central questions in each action here, just as Uber’s policies and procedures were a core issue in the actions we centralized in Uber.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

When the petition was first filed, there were 17 Apple AirTag stalking lawsuits filed across 13 different federal districts. Since then, another 12 have been filed in 10 different districts, according to the order. The panel noted that with tens of thousands of reports brought against Apple over AirTag stalking events, that number was likely to grow much larger in the coming weeks and months.

Now that the claims are consolidated, Judge Wise will lead the litigation through coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings, seeking to help those involved reach a potential settlement agreement. She is likely to order the parties to prepare a series of bellwether trials that would provide a chance to see how juries are likely to weigh evidence and testimony which are core elements of most AirTag lawsuits.

The bellwether trial outcomes won’t be binding on other claims, but could be determinative in helping resolve the litigation. If not, Judge Wise would likely remand the cases back to the original federal courts where they came from. There, the cases would be prepared for individual trials.

Apple AirTag Lawyers

As the number of claims continues to grow, Apple AirTag lawyers are reviewing potential cases nationwide involving allegations that the tracking devices were misused for:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal activity

These potential claims are being pursued on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are paid only if they recover compensation for the individual.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A California mother has filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming her son died after regularly consuming kratom products that contained dangerous and undisclosed levels of compounds that produce opioid-like effects.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mary Soria individually and as successor in interest of her son, Martin Soria, in California Superior Court on September 30. It names Ashlyn Marketing Group Inc., doing business as Krave Kratom, as the defendant.

Mary Soria maintains her son would not have consumed Krave products if he had been adequately warned about the risk of acute mitragynine intoxication.

Kratom Addiction Risks

Kratom is a psychoactive substance made from the leaves of the Mitragyna tree, which grows naturally in Southeast Asia. Products derived from the plant are readily available online and at gas stations, convenience stores, smoke shops and wellness retailers nationwide, where they are frequently promoted as dietary supplements.

The substance is available in powders, capsules, tablets, concentrated extracts, shots, gummies and beverages. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved kratom to treat any medical condition. In addition, compounds found in kratom interact with some of the same brain receptors targeted by opioids such as morphine and heroin.

Federal regulators have increasingly expressed concerns about kratom-related addiction and serious health risks. In August, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) placed three highly potent kratom-related opioids into Schedule I, pointing to risks that include addiction, respiratory depression and other potentially severe complications.

Those concerns have also fueled a growing number of personal injury lawsuits, which claim kratom manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers that their products may lead to addiction, withdrawal symptoms and other health problems.

Kratom Overdose Allegations

According to the complaint, Martin Soria regularly used several Krave kratom products, including KRX Extra Strength Gold, Krave 100X and 200X Kratom Extracts, Krave Botanics Maeng Da Kratom Extract and Krave Kratom Extract capsules. He allegedly believed the products were natural and safe for consumption.

However, the lawsuit claims the products contained dangerous levels of mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), compounds that can produce opioid-like effects and increase the risk of overdose.

On May 30, 2025, Martin died in Los Angeles County from what the complaint describes as acute mitragynine intoxication. A medical examiner reportedly found kratom in his system, and his mother maintains that Krave products contributed to his death.

Mary Soria alleges Krave marketed its products as “all natural” and “botanical” supplements without adequately disclosing their addictive potential or the dangers associated with their ingredients.

The complaint claims Krave failed to warn consumers about the risks of respiratory depression, sedation and fatal overdose, or disclose the amount of 7-OH contained in its products. It also alleges the company provided inadequate instructions for safe use, leaving consumers like Martin unaware of the potential dangers.

Mary further claims Krave continued selling the products despite knowing or having reason to know about the risks, without conducting adequate safety testing, research or monitoring of reported adverse effects.

“KRAVE products executives knew that the Krave products’ formula contained ingredients that were dangerous and that individually and in combination could cause acute mitragynine intoxication and addiction, like MARTIN SORIA suffered.”

— Mary Soria v. Ashlyn Marketing Group Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn, manufacturing and design defects, breach of implied warranty and violations of California’s unfair competition law. It seeks wrongful death and survival damages, funeral and burial expenses and punitive damages, as well as court orders requiring corrective notices and stronger warnings if Krave continues selling the products.

Kratom Addiction Lawsuits

As concerns mount over the potential for kratom to cause addiction and serious health problems, personal injury lawyers are investigating kratom lawsuits for individuals who suffered severe side effects or injuries, including:

• Kratom addiction or physical dependence
• Severe withdrawal symptoms
• Heart complications, including rapid or irregular heart rhythms
• Seizures
• Liver or kidney damage
• Respiratory depression or breathing difficulties
• Fatal overdoses and other kratom-related deaths

Kratom injury lawyers are pursuing these cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or case expenses, and attorneys are paid only if they obtain compensation through a settlement or jury award.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Nebraska widow has filed a Trifecta GT heart valve failure lawsuit, blaming an alleged manufacturing defect for her husband’s death.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Amy Nachman in Nebraska state court on August 31, following the death of her husband, Alan Potash. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska on October 1 by the defendants, which include St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division Inc., the original developer of the Trifecta heart valve, and Abbott Laboratories Inc., which acquired St. Jude in 2017.

Nachman alleges that the Trifecta GT heart valve implanted in her late husband was manufactured outside required specifications and that, when the device was surgically removed, doctors discovered structural damage that she claims contributed directly to his death.

Trifecta Heart Valve Complications

The Trifecta heart valve is implanted in patients suffering from damaged or diseased aortic valves, which are a key part of the circulatory system, delivering oxygenated blood to the rest of the body. The original model was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2011. The Trifecta GT model followed in 2016.

In July 2023, Abbott Laboratories pulled all Trifecta heart valves from the market due to concerns of premature structural valve deterioration (SVD). The move followed FDA warnings that some Trifecta prosthetics were experiencing early valve failure at unacceptably high rates. The FDA received approximately 3,000 adverse event reports involving Trifecta devices between 2011 and 2023, linking the implants to nearly 200 deaths.

This has led to several Trifecta heart valve lawsuits being filed in recent months, each indicating that design or manufacturing of the devices was defective. Individuals claim the valves suffered early SVD, leading to serious and life-threatening health complications for themselves, or the deaths of loved ones.

Trifecta Heart Valve Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Potash received a 21-mm Trifecta GT with Glide Technology during an implantation procedure in February 2018. However, Nachman alleges that the device he was implanted with had a structural flaw, which means it did not meet the device specifications set when the Trifecta GT was first approved.

Nachman alleges that the Trifecta heart valve failed, causing severe aortic regurgitation that required replacement surgery in September 2024. During the procedure, surgeons discovered that one of the valve’s leaflets had completely torn away.

The leaflet that doctors found torn away from Potash’s Trifecta GT heart valve was supposed to be treated and properly sewn onto the valve to provide support. Nachman argues that had the device been made to the proper specifications, it would not have failed.

Just days after the replacement procedure, Potash died from health complications, according to the lawsuit. Nachman claims that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about this problem for years and St. Jude should have never placed the devices on the market.

“Peer-reviewed clinical literature confirmed that Defendant Abbott and Defendant St. Jude’s Trifecta Valve exhibits reduced durability and heightened susceptibility to premature structural valve deterioration compared to other surgical bioprostheses. However, these findings were not reported by Defendant Abbott and/or Defendant St. Jude as required by its PMA (premarket approval).”

– Amy Nachman v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of manufacturing defect, negligent manufacture, negligence, failure to warn, breach of express and/or implied warranty, wrongful death and survivor action. It seeks compensatory damages for Potash’s pain, suffering, disability, medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages linked to the Trifecta GT heart valve failure.

Trifecta Heart Valve Lawsuits

While the implants are no longer sold, there are still individuals who are implanted with the devices that may experience valve failure. Those individuals may qualify for a Trifecta Heart Valve lawsuit if they suffered the following complications:

Trifecta heart valve attorneys are currently reviewing potential claims. Free consultations are available to individuals seeking to determine whether they may be eligible for compensation. These cases will be handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys only receive a fee if they obtain a settlement or verdict.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The families of four people killed in a 2023 Chevrolet Bolt EV have filed a lawsuit alleging defects in the vehicle’s high-voltage lithium-ion battery caused it to ignite following a crash, preventing any chance of escaping.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in California state court on August 18, asserting wrongful death claims on behalf of four individuals. Francisco Soriano Cruz and Benilda Jovel Gonzalez filed on behalf of Maria Patricia Soriano Jovel’s estate, while Jaime Leonel Hernandez Garcia represents the estates of Christopher Leonel Hernandez Soriano and Grace Carmen Hernandez Soriano. Autumn Ayala and Luna Del Rosario also joined the lawsuit on behalf of the estate of Jose De Jesus Tovar.

It names General Motors LLC, Chevrolet, Hertz Vehicles LLC and Christopher Lee Harris as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 30.

The families claim the defendants knew or should have known about the battery fire risks based on prior complaints, lawsuits and regulatory investigations, yet failed to adequately address the hazards or warn consumers.

Electric Vehicle Battery Fire Risks

The Chevy Bolt is a popular all-electric vehicle manufactured by General Motors. However, concerns about defective batteries and the risk of vehicle fires have led to recalls, safety investigations and lawsuits involving GM and other major electric vehicle manufacturers.

In 2021, General Motors recalled more than 50,000 Chevrolet Bolt electric vehicles following reports of battery fires involving vehicles that had already undergone repairs as part of an earlier recall.

Tesla has faced similar allegations in lawsuits involving fires allegedly caused by defective lithium-ion battery packs. In one case, a woman claimed that a Tesla battery defect caused her vehicle to suddenly catch fire while she was driving, causing her to lose control and crash.

Chevy Bolt EV Battery Fire Allegations

According to the complaint, the 2023 Chevy Bolt EV was equipped with a high-voltage lithium-ion battery pack located beneath the vehicle, with a portion extending under the rear passenger seats.

The fatal crash occurred on September 9, 2024, on Gilman Springs Road in Riverside County, California, when a Honda Insight attempted to pass a Dodge Durango and collided with it. Both vehicles crossed into oncoming traffic, where the Honda struck a Chevy Bolt rented from Hertz and driven by Jose De Jesus Tovar, who was traveling with three passengers.

The Chevy Bolt then struck a guardrail and fence before becoming airborne and landing in a drainage ditch. However, the families allege the collision itself was not solely responsible for the four deaths.

According to the lawsuit, battery cells beneath the rear seats began smoking and ignited after the impact, causing a fire that quickly engulfed the passenger compartment. All four occupants died, with the complaint alleging that burns, smoke inhalation and carbon monoxide poisoning contributed to their deaths.

The families claim General Motors and other defendants knew or should have known that Chevy Bolt batteries were susceptible to internal short circuits, thermal runaway and fires, citing prior complaints, lawsuits and regulatory investigations.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to adequately warn consumers about these dangers or implement safer battery designs, including improved cell separators, underbody protection, thermal management and fire-containment systems that could have reduced the risk of a deadly post-crash fire.

“The subject vehicle was unreasonably, dangerously, and defectively designed and/or manufactured in that the battery enclosure and containment system failed to prevent fire originating within a battery cell from spreading to adjacent cells and out of the battery pack, through the passenger compartment, to the rest of the vehicle.”

— Francisco Soriano Cruz et al. v. General Motors LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict and negligent products liability, breach of implied warranty, wrongful death and survival action, as well as negligence claims against Harris, who was driving the Dodge Durango.

It seeks economic and non-economic damages, including lost wages, medical and funeral expenses, emotional distress, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A West Virginia man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging DraftKings used artificial intelligence to sniff out consumers who may have gambling addiction traits and then exploit them, causing serious financial and personal losses.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Daniel Vest in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on September 30, naming DraftKings Inc. as the defendant. It seeks class action status to pursue damages on behalf of all consumers who received targeted e-mails, push notifications and other tailored promotions from DraftKings.

Vest claims DraftKings’ AI system looks for signs of problem gambling and addictive patterns, then bombards the user with promotions specifically designed to encourage larger and more frequent wagers, milking customers until they are financially destitute.

Sports Betting App Concerns

Sports betting expanded rapidly after a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowed each state to decide whether to legalize the practice. That ruling helped fuel the growth of mobile sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel.

Instead of traveling to a casino or other gambling venue, consumers can now place bets from home or anywhere they have a phone. Sportsbooks have taken advantage of that access by offering live betting during games, sending push notifications about new wagering opportunities and marketing directly to users throughout the day.

The growth of mobile sportsbooks has also increased concerns about gambling addiction, particularly among young adults and college-age men. Many in this age group are comfortable making quick digital transactions and may be managing their own finances for the first time when they are heavily targeted by sportsbook promotions.

A growing number of consumers are now filing DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits, alleging the apps use algorithms and, in some cases, AI to identify users who are more likely to develop problematic gambling behavior.

The lawsuits claim those users are then targeted with promotions and other incentives that encourage them to keep betting, potentially leading to significant financial losses, debt and strained personal relationships. Critics have also argued that the same technology could instead be used to identify warning signs of gambling addiction and alert consumers before the problem becomes worse.

DraftKings AI Marketing Allegations

Vest’s lawsuit comes days after a New York Times report highlighting DraftKings’ use of AI. The article indicated that former and current DraftKings employees warned the system is designed to offer “free bets” and other promotions to consumers who are likely to lose and keep losing, in an effort to get them to gamble even more.

According to the Times, the employees noted DraftKings has the technology and ability to warn consumers they are showing signs of addiction but has refused to do so.

Vest states he was a target of those types of AI promotions, resulting in the loss of thousands of dollars in wagers on the sportsbook. His lawsuit notes that in just one 30-day period leading up to September 25, 2026, Vest received about 70 e-mails, texts, in-app notifications and other messages from DraftKings urging him to keep spending.

The lawsuit notes consumers were never warned their data was being used to foster further gambling addiction.

“Upon information and belief, DK, which has intentionally, willfully, and/or knowingly engaged in unfair and/or deceptive acts and/or practices, did not disclose to its users that it was using the Model, AI, machine learning, or their personal information in this manner.”

– Daniel Vest v. DraftKings Inc.

Vest presents claims of breach of contract, breach of implied contract and money had and received. In addition to seeking compensatory damages, he also calls for injunctive relief, asking the court to prohibit DraftKings from continuing to use its AI model to encourage consumers to keep gambling.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

DraftKings and other gambling apps face a number of sportsbook gambling addiction lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide who say they were victims of the apps tracking their actions and looking for ways to encourage addictive wagering.

Now, some may even argue the companies used AI to collect extensive information about their betting patterns and behavior, in order to target them with specific promotions meant to keep them wagering.

Sportsbook gambling addiction attorneys continue to review potential claims for individuals who experienced significant financial losses or psychological damage due to addictive gambling behaviors, allegedly fueled by sportsbook promotions and rewards. Companies that may be involved in these claims include:

Individuals who experienced serious gambling-related losses can request a free and confidential case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. These claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A New York mother has filed a lawsuit alleging Roblox exposed her young daughter to a sexual predator, who used the game’s chat and virtual currency features to gain the child’s trust before sending her sexually explicit material and attempting to arrange an in-person meeting.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a mother identified only as Jane Doe A.D.7299, on behalf of her minor daughter, Jane Doe T.D.7299, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 29, naming Roblox Corporation as the sole defendant.

Jane Doe A.D.7299 claims her daughter is among numerous children who have suffered devastating harm as a result of Roblox’s alleged misrepresentations and defective platform design.

Roblox Child Safety Concerns

Roblox is one of the world’s most popular online gaming platforms, allowing users to create avatars, play games and communicate with others through a variety of social features.

Although Roblox has marketed the platform as appropriate for children, it has drawn increasing criticism from parents, child safety advocates and regulators over concerns that its communication systems, virtual currency and other features may allow sexual predators to identify, contact and groom young users.

Those concerns have led to a number of Roblox lawsuits, which allege the company prioritized expanding its user base and increasing engagement over protecting children. Critics also argue the platform failed to implement sufficient age verification, parental controls, content moderation and other safeguards that could limit predators’ access to minors.

Roblox Grooming Allegations

According to the complaint, Jane Doe T.D.7299 was about 7 years old when she was allegedly contacted by a predator through Roblox in 2017. Using the account name “Johnb360,” the individual allegedly approached her through the platform’s public chat feature and gave her Robux, Roblox’s virtual currency, in an effort to gain her trust.

The lawsuit claims the interactions continued for about a month, during which the predator allegedly made sexual comments, sent the child a sexually explicit photograph of himself, provided sexually explicit cartoon images and directed her to pornographic websites.

He also allegedly asked the girl to send photographs or videos of herself, threatened her and instructed her to keep their communications secret. The complaint indicates he invited the child to his home and attempted to arrange an in-person meeting, although the two never met. 

The girl did not tell her mother about the alleged grooming and sexual exploitation until about 2020, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint specifically claims Roblox failed to require meaningful age and identity verification, restrict communications between adults and children or prevent adult users from transferring Robux to minors. It also alleges the company failed to provide adequate warnings to children and their parents about the risk of sexual predators using the platform. 

Jane Doe A.D.7299 argues those shortcomings allowed the alleged predator to contact her daughter without her knowledge or supervision.

“The predator who targeted Minor Plaintiff is just one of many who regularly use Roblox to gain access to and prey on children. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against Defendant for the devastating damages caused by its tortious and punitive conduct in designing, managing, and promoting the app, which facilitated the grooming, and sexual exploitation of Minor Plaintiff (and countless other children).”

— Jane Doe A.D.7299 v. Roblox Corporation

The lawsuit raises allegations of design defect, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligence, negligent undertaking, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks past, present and future general, economic and special damages.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

Doe A.D.7299’s complaint joins at least 180 Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits pending before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, where the federal claims have been centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

As the litigation moves forward, Judge Seeborg is expected to establish a bellwether process involving a limited number of representative cases selected for early trial dates. Although those verdicts will not determine the outcome of other claims, they may help the parties evaluate how juries respond to evidence and arguments that are likely to arise repeatedly across the litigation.

The court also appointed a special master earlier this year to assist with preliminary settlement discussions. If those negotiations are successful, they could help establish a framework for resolving large numbers of claims without requiring every family to proceed through an individual trial.

However, if settlement discussions and the bellwether process do not lead to a broader resolution, remaining federal cases could ultimately be returned to their originating courts for separate trials.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers continue to evaluate potential claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning families pay no attorney fees or litigation costs unless compensation is recovered through a settlement or jury award. 

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Washington man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that incidental contact activated a burner on a recalled Samsung electric range, sparking a fire that destroyed much of his home.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Justin Hall and Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 25, naming Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Inc. as defendants.

Hall claims Samsung marketing indicated the knobs on its electric range could not turn on without pressure, yet the company knew of similar accidental activations.

Samsung Range Recall

Electric ranges rely on electrically powered heating elements on the cooktop and inside the oven to provide heat for cooking and baking. Many newer models place burner controls on the front of the appliance, allowing users to adjust temperatures without reaching over hot surfaces.

However, lawsuits and recalls have raised concerns that some front-mounted knobs can be unintentionally activated through incidental contact, potentially turning on a burner while the range is unattended.

In August 2024, a recall was issued for at least 1.1 million Samsung electric ranges after more than 300 reports of unintentional knob activations caused 250 fires, 40 injuries and seven pet deaths. The Samsung model in Hall’s home was allegedly among those recalled in that action.

Samsung Range Knob Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Hall purchased the Samsung electric range from Lowes in June 2023. On September 27, 2024, a fire occurred in his home in Bellingham, Washington.

At the time of the fire, Hall indicates he was not using the range or cooking, but was installing a dishwasher in his kitchen. He says that he placed a fan on top of the range and left the house to pick up his daughter from school. When he returned, Hall says he found his home on fire, resulting in extensive property damage.

The cause of the fire was determined to be the Samsung range turning on and melting the plastic base of the fan, which spread into a house fire. The complaint alleges Hall made accidental contact with the control knobs on the range before leaving the house. This incidental contact with the knob allegedly caused one or more of the range burners to turn on, remain on, reach cooking temperatures and ignite the plastic on the fan.

According to Hall, the fire spread quickly and caused extensive damage and destruction to his home and personal property, for which he filed a claim with Garrison Property and Casualty in excess of $772,000. Hall also claims to have incurred damages that were not covered by Garrison of more than $60,000.

The lawsuit states the Samsung knobs are meant to have a two-step push and turn activation to ignite the burners. However, the alleged defect allows the heating elements to be turned on by incidental contact with the knob, without the two-step process.

Hall claims the prior Samsung recall indicates the company knew of the knob defect since at least 2013, when it was notified of similar incidents of range knobs turning on with accidental pressure. However, the Samsung website continues to advertise allegedly false claims that the “knobs will not turn on unless force is being applied to push it inwards.”

“As a result, the front-mounted control knobs on the Subject Range were prone to inadvertent activation by casual, incidental contact by persons or objects under foreseeable circumstances, including incidental contact during ordinary household activity such as the installation of an adjacent appliance. But for the Knob Defect, incidental contact with the control would not have energized the heating element, and the Subject Fire would not have occurred.”
— Justin Hall v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product liability, design defect, failure to warn and construction defect. It seeks compensation for property damages and personal property damages paid out by Garrison and incurred separately by Hall.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A U.S. District Judge has selected the lawsuit that will serve as the third Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial, involving a man who alleges his ProGrip mesh caused severe complications that ultimately resulted in the loss of a testicle.

The case is part of about 2,500 Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits filed by individuals who allege products such as ProGrip, Symbotex and Parietex were defectively designed and can cause adhesions, recurring hernias and other complications requiring additional surgery.

Many claims focus on an absorbable collagen barrier intended to prevent the permanent polyester mesh from adhering to the bowels and other organs. Plaintiffs allege the barrier can degrade too quickly, allowing the mesh to attach to internal tissue, and that Covidien knew about the risk but failed to adequately warn patients or the medical community.

Each of the claims filed in federal court have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris in the District of Massachusetts for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. As part of that process, Judge Saris has been preparing a series of bellwether trials intended to test recurring allegations, defenses and evidence before juries.

The first bellwether trial was held in late July and early August and involved claims by Larry Patterson, who alleged a Symbotex mesh became adhered to his bowels after its collagen barrier failed. Patterson suffered a bowel obstruction and recurring hernia and required multiple surgeries to remove the mesh, including a procedure in which doctors removed a portion of his intestines.

The jury ultimately returned an $88 million verdict, awarding Patterson $77 million for his injuries and damages and another $11 million to his wife, Tammy Patterson, for loss of consortium.

Future Covidien Hernia Mesh Trials

Judge Saris has scheduled a second bellwether trial for January 11, 2027, and a third for March 2027. The plaintiff in the second bellwether trial will be Regina Stephen, who suffered small bowel adhesions and had to have her mesh removed.

The judge issued a scheduling order (PDF) on September 18, calling for summary judgment and case-specific Daubert motions to be filed by October 2, 2026. A final pretrial conference is slated for December 10.

Counsel for plaintiffs and defense both submitted proposals last week for the third trial’s plaintiff, which Judge Saris declared must involve a ProGrip mesh lawsuit.

Plaintiffs put forward a claim by Stephen Passmore (PDF) on September 22. He was implanted with a Parietex ProGrip mesh in May 2017, but over the following months suffered extreme pain, which he said felt like a piece of chicken wire was constantly stabbing him in the groin. Passmore’s removal operation cost him one of his testicles, and he needed multiple revision surgeries.

Despite the third case’s selection being put aside for plaintiffs to choose, defendants pushed for the selection of a ProGrip mesh lawsuit filed by Vandon Kelly (PDF), claiming Kelly’s case was more representative of the claims, involving one failed mesh and one removal surgery.

The judge issued a notice on September 23 indicating she decided to choose Passmore’s claim for the ProGrip mesh lawsuit trial, stating that she decided to stay with the original schedule, which called for the third case to be chosen by plaintiffs. A final pretrial conference has been set for March 10, 2027, with a trial date scheduled to start on March 29, 2027.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuits

The bellwether verdicts will not be binding on other Covidien claims, but the results may help both sides evaluate the litigation and determine whether a broader settlement can be reached.

Covidien is also not the only hernia mesh manufacturer facing large-scale litigation. C.R. Bard has faced more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits consolidated in a separate federal MDL in the Southern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus.

Last October, Bard and plaintiffs’ counsel announced a hernia mesh settlement intended to resolve a substantial portion of those claims. However, the agreement does not end the litigation entirely, and new lawsuits may still be filed by individuals whose injuries were only recently diagnosed.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Kentucky widow has filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging inadequate safeguards in connected diabetes management devices exposed her husband to a fatal insulin overdose.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Shannon Johnson, individually and on behalf of the estate of her husband, Bennie Johnson, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on October 1. It names Abbott Laboratories Inc., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Beta Bionics Inc. as defendants.

Johnson claims the Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensor falsely indicated her husband’s glucose level was extremely high, causing a wirelessly connected iLet ACE Pump from Beta Bionics to administer insulin twice overnight.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Recalls

FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus are wearable continuous glucose monitoring systems that track glucose levels throughout the day, providing information users can rely on to manage diabetes and determine appropriate insulin doses.

In July 2024, Abbott issued a recall for certain FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors that could report inaccurately high glucose levels. The FDA designated the action as a Class I recall in September 2024, indicating use of the affected sensors could lead to serious injuries or death.

Abbott initiated another corrective action in November 2025, involving more than 3 million FreeStyle Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus sensors that could generate falsely low readings. After hundreds of injuries and deaths were reported, the FDA designated that action as a Class I recall in January 2026.

Since then, a series of FreeStyle Libre lawsuits have been filed, alleging inaccurate glucose readings led users to make inappropriate treatment decisions, resulting in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and other serious health complications.

DKA is a potentially fatal complication of diabetes that develops when insufficient insulin causes ketones to accumulate to dangerous levels in the blood.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Bennie Johnson was working at a job site in North Carolina on the evening of October 8, 2025, when his FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensor allegedly reported a glucose level of approximately 400.

The complaint indicates the system administered insulin at about 8 p.m. based on the sensor reading and its communication with the Beta Bionics pump. Approximately four hours later, around midnight, Johnson allegedly received another dose of insulin.

However, his widow claims the glucose readings were inaccurate and the insulin was contraindicated. The lawsuit alleges the FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus malfunctioned by failing to accurately measure Johnson’s glucose, while the iLet ACE Pump failed to adequately evaluate or verify the data, limit or suspend insulin delivery, or warn against an inappropriate dose.

Johnson subsequently experienced a severe drop in blood sugar, causing him to become hypoglycemic, lose consciousness and become incapacitated, the lawsuit claims. After he failed to appear at the work site the following morning, a coworker found him dead.

The filing maintains Johnson’s diabetes was well-managed before the incident and alleges he would have survived if the glucose sensor had provided accurate readings and the insulin pump had prevented the inappropriate doses.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and defective products, Mr. Johnson died and his Estate and surviving spouse suffered substantial damages.”

— Shannon Johnson v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al.

Johnson’s widow claims Abbott knew before her husband’s death that FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors could produce dangerously inaccurate high-glucose readings, pointing to the company’s prior recall as evidence that it was aware of the potential problem.

Despite that knowledge, the lawsuit alleges Abbott failed to adequately disclose the scope and consequences of the inaccurate-reading risk, implement sufficient corrective measures or prevent potentially affected sensors from remaining on the market.

The complaint also raises allegations against Beta Bionics, claiming the iLet ACE Pump lacked sufficient safeguards, dose limits, verification protocols, suspension features and alerts to prevent inappropriate insulin delivery based on inaccurate glucose information.

Johnson maintains both companies failed to adequately test and monitor how the devices functioned together and failed to provide sufficient warnings about the potential for inaccurate readings, unsafe device interactions, inappropriate insulin delivery, severe hypoglycemia and death.

The complaint raises allegations of strict product liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent concealment and omission, wrongful death and loss of consortium. It seeks compensatory and wrongful death damages, funeral and related expenses, punitive damages and other relief.

Abbott FreeStyle Libre Lawsuits

Abbott faces a number of claims brought by individuals who allege inaccurate FreeStyle Libre sensor readings led to serious injuries after they relied on incorrect data to make insulin dosing and other diabetes treatment decisions.

Individuals who experienced serious health complications after using a recalled FreeStyle Libre 3 or FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus continuous glucose monitor may be eligible to seek financial compensation. Injuries linked to allegedly inaccurate glucose readings include:

• Wrongful death
• Severe hypoglycemia
• Seizures
• Confusion
• Loss of consciousness
• Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)
• Other acute metabolic emergencies requiring hospitalization

FreeStyle Libre 3 lawyers are evaluating potential claims nationwide for individuals and families who experienced serious injuries after relying on inaccurate glucose readings. Free consultations are available to determine whether a claim may be pursued and there are no legal fees unless compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Uber Technologies has settled a Texas woman’s sexual assault lawsuit just days before it was set to go before a jury, which would have marked the third bellwether trial in the federal litigation.

The lawsuit was brought by a woman identified as Jane Doe, who alleged she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver during a June 2020 ride in Tarrant County, Texas.

A jury had already been selected, and opening statements were scheduled to begin Monday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. However, Uber reached a settlement before the trial could begin, avoiding another potential jury verdict over allegations that the company failed to take adequate steps to protect passengers from sexual assaults by its drivers.

Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits

The rideshare giant currently faces thousands of Uber sexual assault lawsuits filed by passengers who allege the company knew for years that some drivers were sexually assaulting riders, yet failed to take adequate steps to protect passengers.

The claims similarly allege Uber placed growth and expansion of its driver network ahead of passenger safety, while failing to implement protections that could have reduced the risk of sexual assaults, including more extensive background checks, in-vehicle cameras and other measures designed to identify potentially dangerous drivers or deter attacks.

As similar claims began mounting in federal courts nationwide, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation established MDL No. 3084 in October 2023, consolidating Uber passenger sexual assault lawsuits before U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in the Northern District of California for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

As of October 1, 2026, nearly 5,000 lawsuits are pending in the federal MDL. Additional claims are also moving forward in state courts, including a coordinated proceeding involving Uber sexual assault lawsuits in California state court.

Similar allegations have also been raised in a series of Lyft sexual assault lawsuits, where more than 2,000 claims have been filed in both California state court and a separate federal MDL.

Uber Sexual Assault Settlement Before Texas Trial

Doe originally filed her complaint (PDF) in the 415th District Court of Parker County, Texas, before later bringing the claim into the federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Breyer on December 5, 2024.

Her claims stem from an Uber ride on June 9, 2020, which began in Arlington and was headed to Cresson, Texas. According to the complaint, Doe alleges she was sexually assaulted, harassed, battered or otherwise attacked by the Uber driver during the trip.

One of the focal points of Doe’s case was that she was not the account holder who requested the ride. Uber relied on that fact in arguing that she could not show she personally relied on representations about passenger safety, or that additional warnings would have changed her decision to take the trip.

Those defenses were expected to be tested before a jury after the case was selected as the third federal bellwether trial. Bellwether trials are early test cases used to give both sides a clearer sense of how juries may respond to recurring allegations, evidence and defenses in the broader litigation.

As the trial neared, the scope of the dispute began to narrow after Uber agreed it would not contest that the sexual assault occurred, leaving jurors to focus more directly on the company’s potential responsibility for what happened.

A jury was then selected in the Western District of Texas on September 30, with opening statements scheduled to begin on Monday, October 5. However, before either side could present its case, Uber reached a confidential settlement with Doe on October 2, just three days before the trial was set to start.

Previous Uber Sexual Assault Bellwether Verdicts

The settlement means the third federal bellwether will not produce another jury verdict, leaving the parties with two earlier federal trial results that reached very different conclusions about Uber’s responsibility and the damages owed to individual passengers.

The first federal bellwether ended in February, when an Arizona jury returned an $8.5 million Uber sexual assault verdict for a woman who alleged she was raped by an Uber driver. Jurors rejected claims that Uber was negligent in the design or implementation of its safety measures and declined to award punitive damages, but still found the company legally responsible after determining that the driver was acting as Uber’s agent.

A second federal bellwether produced a much smaller award in April. In that case, a North Carolina jury ordered Uber to pay $5,000 in damages after finding a driver committed battery against a passenger who alleged that he grabbed her leg during a 2019 ride. The plaintiff did not ask jurors for a specific dollar amount and testified that she was seeking accountability and an apology more than financial compensation.

Those federal cases followed an earlier trial in the parallel California state court litigation, where jurors found that Uber was negligent in failing to protect a passenger, but concluded that the company’s negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the assault. As a result, no damages were awarded against Uber in that case.

Collectively, the verdicts have produced mixed results, with juries reaching different conclusions about Uber’s negligence, responsibility for driver conduct and the damages warranted in individual cases.

While bellwether verdicts are not binding on other plaintiffs, they can help both sides evaluate recurring claims and defenses as settlement discussions continue.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Wisconsin couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging they suffered more than $300,000 in property damage after the thermostat on an Amazon Basics 5-cup Coffee Maker failed and started a house fire.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Mutual of Wausau Insurance Corporation as the subrogee of Nathanael Johnson and Krystle Johnson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on October 1, naming Amazon.com Inc. as the sole defendant.

Mutual of Wausau claims the coffee maker was defectively manufactured because its safety components failed to limit or stop heating as intended.

Coffee Maker Injuries

While the Wisconsin lawsuit focuses on an alleged component failure that caused the coffee maker to overheat and ignite, other lawsuits have raised allegations that defective components in residential coffee makers can malfunction in different ways, resulting in severe burn injuries.

Gourmia is facing product defect allegations connected to its coffee makers after a California woman suffered second-degree burns. Her Gourmia single-serve coffee maker allegedly malfunctioned and began spewing scalding water onto her arm.

A similar lawsuit was filed earlier this year claiming a Nostalgia MyMini single-serve coffee maker malfunctioned, causing the coffee pod to explode into a woman’s face and resulting in second- and third-degree burns.

In addition, a Connecticut woman filed a lawsuit in March alleging a single-serve coffee maker sold by Brentwood Appliances suddenly exploded without warning, ejecting hot water onto her body and causing burns.

Amazon Basics Coffee Maker Fire Allegations

According to the complaint, Mutual of Wausau insures the Johnsons’ property in Denmark, Wisconsin. The couple purchased an Amazon Basics 5-cup Coffee Maker with Reusable filter from the online platform in 2023 and used the device consistently. On October 2, 2024, a fire erupted in the Johnson’s home, which allegedly originated in the area of the kitchen where the coffee maker was located.

The fire caused substantial damage to the Johnsons’ property including the home’s structure and personal property contents, requiring remediation, mitigation and rebuilding, as well as temporary relocation of the family.

The lawsuit alleges a laboratory examination determined the coffee maker’s thermostat and thermal protectors failed, which resulted in a thermal runaway condition that ignited the plastic housing of the coffee maker and caused the house fire.

Thermal runaway is a rapid and uncontrolled rise in temperature in electronics equipment that may cause the device to catch fire or explode. Such failures often involve lithium-ion batteries and can happen during charging, ordinary use or while devices are being carried, resulting in severe burns and other injuries. The condition has been known to occur in vaping devices, portable power banks and other household items.

Mutual of Wausau paid the Johnsons $301,936 in compensation for damages to their home. The complaint alleges the Amazon coffee maker was defective, and that the manufacturer did not follow its own design specification, since the thermostat and thermal protector failed to limit or stop warming of the coffee maker’s heating element, as intended. This caused a thermal runaway condition that is unreasonably dangerous for consumers.

The insurance company argues there were safer alternative designs available that would have prevented the fire. It claims those designs, if used, could have reduced the risk of a thermal runaway event.

“The foreseeable risks of harm posed by the design of the Coffee Maker’s heating and thermal-protection system exceeded the utility of that design, and the design was not one that a reasonable consumer would expect when using the Coffee Maker for its intended purpose.”

— Mutual of Wausau Insurance Corporation v. Amazon.com Inc.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability—manufacturing defect and strict products liability—design defect. It seeks compensation for damages Mutual of Wasau paid out on behalf of the Johnsons’ insurance policy.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A panel of federal judges has ordered lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Nevro over allegedly defective spinal cord stimulators to be consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued separate transfer orders on October 2, sending Abbott claims (PDF) to the Northern District of Illinois and Nevro claims (PDF) to the Northern District of California for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The orders come amid a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits alleging manufacturers repeatedly modified the implants through FDA premarket approval supplements without conducting adequate safety testing.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Defects

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants designed to treat chronic pain. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator and electrodes that are implanted under the skin near the spine, as well as an external remote control. Intended to be permanent implants, the systems use electric stimulation to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain.

However, individuals say the devices are poorly designed and deceptively marketed, indicating that they are prone to migrating out of position under the skin, breaking through the skin, causing painful electric shocks, increased pain, nerve damage and total device failure.

Recipients argue that the problem is compounded by manufacturers deploying sales representatives, who are unlicensed and not trained to conduct medical procedures, yet are the only ones allowed to program the devices to fine tune their effectiveness.

Lawsuits accuse the reps of often telling patients that problems with the devices are due to programming, when in actuality they suffered some kind of mechanical failure. Individuals allege this has led to delayed removals of failed devices and potentially unnecessary nerve damage.

In addition to spinal cord stimulator lawsuits filed against Abbott and Nevro, similar claims have been brought against Boston Scientific and Medtronic.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDLs

Plaintiffs initially asked the JPML to place claims involving Abbott, Nevro and Boston Scientific before a single federal judge earlier this year. However, the panel rejected that approach, finding that differences between the manufacturers, devices and alleged defects made one combined proceeding inappropriate.

Instead, Boston Scientific lawsuits were centralized in the Central District of California earlier this summer in June. Plaintiffs pursuing claims against Abbott and Nevro later filed separate requests for their own coordinated proceedings, arguing that centralization would reduce duplicate discovery and help avoid conflicting pretrial rulings.

Following oral arguments held late last month over whether the Abbott and Nevro claims should be consolidated, the JPML agreed on October 2, ordering Abbott cases to proceed in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins and Nevro cases in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

However, the panel again declined to place all three proceedings before the same judge, explaining that little efficiency would be gained by combining litigation involving different manufacturers.

“We are not persuaded, as several parties suggest, that the litigation should be assigned to the same judge in the Central District of California who is presiding over the MDL involving Boston Scientific SCS devices. Little efficiency will be gained by placing SCS device MDLs against multiple manufacturers before one judge.”

— U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

According to the transfer orders, Abbott currently faces 26 pending lawsuits across 13 federal district courts, while Nevro faces 23 claims filed in 10 different districts.

Centralization allows lawsuits involving the same manufacturer to move through discovery and other pretrial proceedings together, while still remaining individual claims. Each plaintiff will still be required to prove that problems with their specific spinal cord stimulator caused their injuries.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

With three separate federal proceedings now underway, attention will eventually turn to the selection of bellwether cases for early trial dates.

Bellwether trials involve representative claims selected to help the parties evaluate how juries may respond to evidence and arguments that are likely to be repeated throughout the litigation. While the outcomes are not binding on other plaintiffs, they can influence settlement discussions and help both sides assess the potential value of remaining claims.

In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers will continue to review claims of injuries caused by implant system problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Texas woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she received a defective LINX implant that had already been included in a recall months before her surgery.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cheryle Barbisch in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 29, naming Torax Medical Inc. and Ethicon Inc. as defendants.

Barbisch argues her LINX device was manufactured by Torax and Ethicon outside the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approved specifications and Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements, and that the companies failed to prevent defective devices from reaching patients.

LINX Reflux Device Problems

LINX Reflux Management Systems are small rings made of magnetic beads connected by titanium wires, which are surgically placed around the lower esophageal sphincter to reinforce the muscle and reduce the backward movement of stomach acid associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

The FDA approved the LINX system in March 2012, but subsequent reports raised concerns about device failures that could allow components to separate, potentially resulting in migration, organ damage and additional medical complications. A LINX recall was initiated in 2018 after a manufacturing problem was identified that could cause a bead to separate from an adjoining wire.

Barbisch’s complaint now joins a number of LINX device lawsuits filed in courts nationwide, which raise allegations that manufacturing and design problems caused the implants to fail, exposing recipients to preventable health risks.

LINX System Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Barbisch underwent surgery to receive a LINX implant on August 28, 2018. However, the device she was implanted with was allegedly subject to the May 2018 recall, which identified an “out of specification condition” that could allow a bead to separate from an adjacent wire link. This could potentially cause the normally closed LINX ring to become discontinuous or open.

Barbisch claims the implant subsequently failed because of this manufacturing defect, resulting in a severe recurrence of her GERD symptoms. She ultimately underwent another surgery in August 2026 to have the LINX removed.

The filing argues that Barbisch’s LINX implant was manufactured outside FDA-approved specifications and Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements. It claims Torax and Ethicon failed to adequately control manufacturing, inspect and test devices and prevent nonconforming implants from reaching patients.

“Defendants Torax Medical, Inc. and Ethicon, Inc. manufactured a defective medical device such that Plaintiff suffered significant injury.”

— Cheryle Barbisch v. Torax Medical Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability, negligence and negligence per se against both defendants. It seeks damages for past and future medical care, lost wages, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and disfigurement.

LINX Implant Lawsuits

Barbisch’s complaint is among a growing number of similar LINX implant lawsuits being pursued in the District of Minnesota, where Torax Medical is headquartered and the reflux device was initially developed.

Lawyers handling LINX implant claims expect additional lawsuits to be filed as more individuals experience device failures and learn that problems with their implants may be linked to an alleged manufacturing defect.

Attorneys are continuing to evaluate potential LINX lawsuits on behalf of individuals seeking compensation for injuries or complications involving:

• Device failures
• Migration and organ punctures
• Need for additional revision surgery to remove a failed device

Product liability lawyers pursue LINX reflux system claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning individuals pay no legal fees or expenses unless a settlement or other financial recovery is obtained.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The first Roundup cancer trial since a major U.S. Supreme Court ruling began in Missouri on September 29, where three women are pursuing claims that years of exposure to the weed killer caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The trial is being closely watched because the Supreme Court recently blocked one of the main legal claims that has been used in Roundup lawsuits for years.

Since 2015, Bayer and its Monsanto subsidiary have faced more than 120,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits alleging that Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, increase the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. About 65,000 claims remain unresolved.

Most of the lawsuits have accused Monsanto of failing to warn consumers about the potential cancer risks associated with Roundup. However, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on June 25 that those state-law failure-to-warn claims are blocked because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved Roundup labels without requiring a cancer warning.

That ruling significantly narrowed the claims Roundup plaintiffs may be able to pursue, but it did not address every allegation raised in the lawsuits.

Missouri Roundup Trial Tests Remaining Claims

The case, Theresa Aretino et al. v. Monsanto Company, does not rely only on allegations that Monsanto failed to warn users about a potential cancer risk.

The three women also argue that Roundup was defectively designed and that Monsanto failed to adequately test the weed killer before selling it to the public.

Those distinctions are important because the Supreme Court ruling focused specifically on failure-to-warn claims. The justices found that states generally cannot require Monsanto to provide a cancer warning that was not required by the EPA.

However, the court did not decide whether claims involving the design of Roundup itself, or allegations that Monsanto failed to adequately test the product, are also blocked.

That makes the Missouri trial an important early test of how much of the Roundup litigation may still be able to move forward following the Supreme Court decision.

Although several Roundup trials have already been held in state and federal courts, this is the first to go before a jury since the ruling. The case is therefore being viewed as an unofficial bellwether that may provide an early indication of how juries and courts will handle the remaining claims.

The outcome could also help determine whether other Roundup plaintiffs can continue pursuing defective design, inadequate testing and other claims that were not directly addressed by the Supreme Court.

Roundup Cancer Trials

Roundup lawsuits have produced several major jury verdicts since the first case went to trial in California state court in August 2018.

That trial ended with a $289 million verdict for a former school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of Roundup exposure. The award was later reduced to $78 million.

In 2019, the first federal Roundup bellwether trial resulted in an $80 million verdict. Later that year, a California jury awarded more than $2 billion to a married couple who both developed cancer after years of using Roundup, although that award was later reduced to $87 million.

As those verdicts mounted, Bayer increasingly turned to courts, lawmakers and state legislatures in an effort to limit future Roundup liability.

The company had mixed success. Some states considered or adopted protections for pesticide manufacturers, but Bayer repeatedly failed to convince the Supreme Court to intervene in earlier Roundup cases. The justices declined to hear one appeal in 2019 and rejected another Roundup appeal in June 2022.

Bayer continued pressing the issue through the courts and through an extensive lobbying campaign. When the Supreme Court agreed to take up the issue again, the federal government and more than a dozen state attorneys general filed briefs supporting the company’s position.

That effort ultimately produced the June ruling that now hangs over the remaining Roundup litigation and has made the Missouri trial an important test of which claims may still survive.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Illinois woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered serious burn injuries after a Bedsure heating pad failed to automatically shut off while she slept.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Therese Corvino in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 29, naming Bedshe International Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of Bedsure heating pads, as the sole defendant.

Corvino claims the Bedsure device she used was defectively designed and manufactured despite the company advertising extensive safety testing and an automatic shut-off feature.

Heating Pad Injuries

Heating pads and electric blankets use integrated heating elements to provide additional warmth, making them a common choice during cold weather. However, defective electrical components, manufacturing problems or inadequate safety features may cause the products to overheat and create serious hazards.

A number of electric blanket recalls have been announced in recent years over problems that may cause excessive heat, potentially resulting in fires, burn injuries and other safety risks.

In 2024, Bedsure issued a recall of more than 350,000 heating blankets and pads after the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) received at least 137 reports of the devices catching fire, burning, melting and overheating in consumer homes.

Similar risks have prompted lawsuits against manufacturers, retailers and online marketplaces such as Amazon, alleging they allowed potentially dangerous heated blankets to be sold to consumers.

An Amazon product liability lawsuit filed earlier this year alleged an electric blanket purchased through the platform caught fire while an Ohio man was sleeping, causing severe burns and life-altering injuries that ultimately left him paraplegic.

Bedsure Heating Pad Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Corvino was preparing for bed on November 8, 2024, when she turned on the Bedsure heating pad and fell asleep beneath it. Since she had been using the device several times per week, she says she expected the automatic shut-off feature to turn the heating pad off while she slept. However, the device allegedly remained on throughout the night and was still hot the following morning.

Corvino indicates that she went to the bathroom to get ready for work and noticed that her right breast was wet. When she wiped the area with a tissue, she discovered that the skin had sloughed off. Corvino previously underwent reconstructive surgery following breast cancer and has no sensation in her breasts, which prevented her from feeling the alleged burn as it occurred.

The lawsuit states that Corvino initially did not know what had happened. She covered the area with a bandage and went to work, but over the course of the morning her breast became increasingly raw and red, leading her to suspect that she had suffered a burn.

Corvino treated the injury with Silvadene cream and bandages before seeking medical care. According to the complaint, the burn injuries were severe enough to ultimately require skin grafts.

Bedsure allegedly advertised that its heating blankets and pads undergo “74 safety checks beyond UL standards” and are “certified with default 8-hour auto shut-off for complete peace of mind.” However, Corvino claims the heating pad was defectively designed and prone to overheating, creating a risk of fires and serious burn injuries.

The complaint alleges Bedsure knew or should have known about problems with its heating products after more than 130 reports involving fires, burns and other injuries associated with similar devices were submitted to the CPSC. Despite those reports, Corvino claims the company failed to issue a timely recall and continued selling the heating pads, placing profits ahead of consumer safety.

“The aforementioned heating pad was defectively designed and manufactured by Defendant in that it overheated and gravely injured the Plaintiff during the ordinary, foreseeable and proper use of the product; placing the Plaintiff and similar consumers in danger while using the heating pads.”

— Therese Corvino v. Bedshe International Co. Ltd.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks compensation for significant and painful bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A federal judge has rejected a last-ditch effort by C.R. Bard to dismiss the Bard PowerPort lawsuit scheduled to serve as the next bellwether trial case, just two weeks before it is set to begin.

The lawsuit was filed by May Lattanzio of Florida, who says she suffered a serious infection due to the defective design of Bard’s PowerPort line of port catheters. Her complaint is just one of more than 3,700 similar product liability lawsuits brought against the manufacturer nationwide by individuals who say the medical implants are prone to infections, catheter fractures and migration, causing severe health complications and frequently requiring the devices to be surgically removed.

Port Catheter Risks

Port catheters are medical devices implanted just below the skin that provide continued access to the bloodstream without repeated needle sticks. They consist of the subdermal access port and a catheter that extends into a large vein for the delivery of medications and other fluids. The implants are often provided to patients receiving chemotherapy or other long-term treatments.

However, individuals like Lattanzio allege the catheter can fracture due to excessive amounts of a substance known as barium sulfate used in its construction. This allegedly increases the risk of cracking, fractures, infections and debris and device migration.

As the number of similar complaints grew, all federal Bard PowerPort lawsuits were centralized before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona into a multidistrict litigation (MDL). Judge Campbell is overseeing the litigation through its pretrial proceedings and a series of bellwether trials, used as early test cases to see how juries interpret evidence and testimony that would be repeated throughout the litigation.

Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trials

Two Bard PowerPort bellwether trials have already been held. However, they resulted in very different outcomes, which have not helped counsel determine the comparative strengths and weaknesses of their arguments.

The first federal Bard PowerPort lawsuit to go to trial resulted in a defense verdict earlier this year, with the plaintiff having since filed a motion for mistrial, claiming the jury was improperly instructed. The second bellwether trial ended in a $40 million verdict in favor of a New Mexico woman who said her PowerPort fractured inside of her, sending pieces into her heart and causing a pulmonary embolism.

The third trial is scheduled to begin on October 13. However, the defendants, including C.R. Bard and its parent organization, Becton Dickinson and Company, filed a motion to dismiss the case. The defendants argued that Lattanzio’s claims were barred by Florida’s statute of limitations law, that the design defect claims should be thrown out because port catheters are “unavoidably unsafe,” and that the warning labels were sufficient as a matter of law.

In a court order (PDF) issued on September 25, Judge Campbell rejected Bard’s arguments, clearing the way for the October 13 trial to proceed.

“Defendants contend that a warning is adequate as a matter of law where it warns of the possibility of the adverse event the plaintiff experienced. But the PowerPort’s IFU (instructions for use) does not warn that the device may cause a catheter-related bloodstream infection, the adverse event Plaintiff claims she experienced. The Court cannot find the PowerPort’s warnings adequate as a matter of law.”

– U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

The judge also denied the defendants’ request to bar punitive damages, stating that they will have to argue the merits of punitive damages before the jury but that their arguments were “not sufficient to warrant summary judgment.”

According to a case management order (PDF) Judge Campbell issued on September 24, a fourth Bard PowerPort bellwether trial is already scheduled to begin on December 1, involving claims by Judy Hicks, of Missouri. A final pretrial conference for that trial is scheduled to begin on October 26, 2026.

Neither the outcome of Lattanzio nor Hicks’ bellwether trials will have any bearing on the other Bard PowerPort lawsuits. However, the Court hopes they could lead to settlement negotiations that resolve most or all of the litigation without the need for thousands of separate trials.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

In addition to Bard PowerPort trials brought in federal courts nationwide, hundreds of AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits have also been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta is currently leading those cases through coordinated discovery and addressing common pretrial issues involving allegations that the company marketed defective implantable port systems.

Those cases also allege design and manufacturing problems with AngioDynamics devices could make the implanted catheters prone to fractures, blood clots, infections and other potentially serious injuries.

Judge Ohta is ultimately expected to direct attorneys to select a small group of representative AngioDynamics claims for early bellwether trials. While the outcomes will not be binding on other cases, they may indicate how juries respond to common evidence and allegations, potentially influencing future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement discussions.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Hundreds of individuals pursuing lawsuits against the makers of Paraquat over alleged Parkinson’s disease risks have rejected a tentative settlement to resolve thousands of claims.

Syngenta and Chevron currently face more than 6,600 Paraquat lawsuits in the federal multidistrict litigation (MDL), primarily involving farmers, agricultural workers, landscapers and others who allege repeated exposure to the herbicide caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease.

The lawsuits allege the manufacturers knew or should have known about evidence linking Paraquat exposure to neurological damage, but failed to adequately warn users about the potential risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Paraquat Parkinson’s Disease Risks

Originally introduced under the brand name Gramoxone in the 1960s, Paraquat has been used for decades to kill broadleaf weeds and grasses, as well as to clear fields and dry certain crops before harvesting or processing.

While Paraquat has long been recognized as highly toxic if swallowed, lawsuits filed in recent years have focused on the potential neurological effects associated with repeated exposure, particularly among individuals who mixed, sprayed or otherwise worked around the herbicide for extended periods.

Thousands of claims have been filed alleging that long-term Paraquat exposure may damage brain cells involved in producing dopamine, which plays an important role in movement and is depleted in individuals with Parkinson’s disease.

The mounting claims led to the creation of the federal Paraquat MDL in the Southern District of Illinois in June 2021, where U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel has presided over coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and efforts to select representative cases for early test trials.

Similar allegations are now being raised in a developing group of chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits, involving another widely used pesticide. Recent claims allege agricultural workers and others developed Parkinson’s disease after years of exposure to chlorpyrifos products while mixing, loading, applying pesticides or working in treated areas.

Paraquat Settlement Rejections

For more than a year, Judge Rosenstengal has put the litigation on pause to give attorneys the opportunity to work out a Paraquat settlement agreement. However, a September 29 report by SWI, a Swiss media outlet, indicates that many plaintiffs do not like the proposed agreement. Syngenta is based in Switzerland.

The report indicates more than 900 plaintiffs have rejected the deal, which would leave the parties far short of the necessary buy-in to ensure the deal is approved. Some individual law firms representing large numbers of plaintiffs involved in the litigation say they have rejection rates ranging from 80% to 100%.

In April, a Special Master appointed by the court was ordered to meet with the plaintiffs holding out, but it does not appear that those meetings resolved the issue. Neither the law firms, the court, nor the defendants have revealed the sticking points in the proposed settlement.

If the agreement falls through, Judge Rosenstengal is likely to revive plans for a series of bellwether early test trials that would put representative cases before juries to see how they respond to evidence and testimony that would be commonly put forward throughout the litigation. One of those bellwether trials was settled out of court in January.

Those plaintiffs who refuse the settlement and move forward with their litigation would have to show evidence of Paraquat exposure and a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis. Currently, efforts to reach a suitable settlement continue.

Syngenta ended production of Paraquat in June, but maintains claims the herbicide was safe and that it will continue to fight any lawsuits that move forward without agreeing to the settlement.

Herbicide & Pesticide Parkinson’s Lawsuits

Paraquat and chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits are being investigated nationwide for individuals who experienced repeated occupational, residential or environmental exposure to these herbicides and pesticides before being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

Individuals who may face the greatest risk of substantial exposure include:

• Farmers and farm workers
• Herbicide and pesticide applicators
• Tank fillers, mixers and transporters
• Landscapers, groundskeepers and municipal workers
• Pest control technicians
• Individuals living or working near agricultural areas where Paraquat or chlorpyrifos products were regularly used

Parkinson’s disease lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals who may be eligible to pursue compensation over allegations that manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the neurological risks associated with repeated exposure to Paraquat, chlorpyrifos and other pesticides.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up for more Paraquat lawsuit updates to be sent directly to your inbox.

Federal safety regulators have announced a recall of more than 4.4 million Expert wire grill brushes sold through Walmart due to the risk that metal bristles may detach and become embedded in food.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the Walmart Expert wire grill brush recall on October 1, warning that loose bristles may remain on grill surfaces and later be swallowed by consumers. Ingesting the sharp wires may cause serious internal injuries.

Although Walmart has not received any injury reports to date, several other manufacturers have recalled wire grill brushes following multiple incidents that resulted in hospitalizations and the need for surgery.

Wire Grill Brush Recalls

The Expert grill brush recall is the latest in a series of similar safety actions involving wire-bristle cleaning products this year.

In July, Cuisinart recalled 1.7 million grill brushes. A subsequent class action lawsuit alleged Conair continued selling defective Cuisinart grill brushes for years without warning consumers about the risk that detached bristles could be swallowed and cause serious injuries.

Earlier this year, an Oregon man also filed a Nexgrill class action lawsuit alleging the company failed to adequately address problems with more than 10 million recalled grill brushes and did not fully compensate consumers who purchased the affected products.

In addition, federal safety officials announced a Weber wire bristle grill brush recall involving 3.2 million units in February, following nearly 40 reports of injuries linked to the products. Since then, multiple Weber grill brush lawsuits have been filed across the country, alleging the manufacturer knew metal bristles could break free during use but failed to adequately warn consumers or remove the brushes from the market before injuries occurred.

Expert Grill Brush Recall

The Walmart Expert grill brush recall affects 4,477,655 wire bristle brushes with black plastic or stainless steel handles. Some brushes also come equipped with a metal scraper.

The following grill brush models are included in the recall:

• EX5607031616002
• EX5607031616003
• XG1310700206
• XG1136178597003
• XG1410700124

All grill brushes were sold either at Walmart locations or online through Walmart.com from January 2021 through August 2026 for between $1 to $28. The recalled grill brushes were manufactured in China and imported by Walmart Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas.

Consumers are being urged to immediately stop using the recalled Expert grill brushes and contact Walmart for a refund. The company is offering either a full cash refund or a credit for use at any Walmart store or on Walmart.com.

Individuals will be required to either return the recalled grill brushes to a Walmart location or discard them after submitting a claim.

Additional information is available by calling Walmart at 800-925-6278 from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Central time Monday through Friday, visiting Walmart’s recall page, or going to Walmart.com and clicking “Product Recalls” at the bottom of the page.

Sign up for more safety and legal news that could affect you or your family.

Attorneys pursuing Dupixent cancer lawsuits have proposed appointing 12 lawyers to leadership positions in the consolidated federal litigation, where they would coordinate discovery, motions and other pretrial proceedings on behalf of plaintiffs.

The litigation currently includes 35 product liability lawsuits alleging that Dupixent may cause or worsen cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. Plaintiffs claim Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. knew about the potential cancer risk but did not adequately disclose it to patients or the medical community.

Dupixent Concerns

Dupixent (dupilumab) was initially approved to treat atopic dermatitis, commonly known as eczema, and has since been cleared for several other inflammatory conditions, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Questions about the drug’s safety emerged after studies identified a potential association between Dupixent side effects and certain T-cell lymphomas, particularly CTCL. Those concerns are heightened by how CTCL can cause symptoms that resemble eczema and other inflammatory skin conditions.

Dupixent lawsuits allege this overlap may cause doctors and patients to mistake signs of lymphoma for worsening eczema, delaying recognition of the cancer.

Some plaintiffs claim they continued receiving Dupixent injections while their CTCL progressed because they were unaware the medication could potentially cause, worsen or mask signs of the disease.

All federal Dupixent cancer lawsuits are currently consolidated in the District of New Jersey before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Qurashi, who is guiding the litigation through certain pretrial proceedings and the collection of relevant evidence, known as the discovery process.

The judge is expected to eventually order the parties to select several representative claims to serve as early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will put cases before juries for the first time to test how they react to evidence and testimony key to most Dupixent cancer lawsuits.

Dupixent MDL Leadership Appointments

In a joint initial management report (PDF) issued on September 10, attorneys noted that there likely needs to be a plaintiffs’ leadership counsel and other appointments who will be key in choosing bellwether trial cases and making other key decisions on behalf of all plaintiffs.

About two weeks later, on September 28, an unopposed motion (PDF) by plaintiffs’ attorneys proposed the appointment of 12 attorneys to leadership positions in the litigation. The proposal calls for two attorneys being appointed to co-lead counsel, three assigned to an executive committee, six other lawyers for a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and one attorney to serve as a federal-state liaison.

The selected attorneys will take certain actions that benefit all plaintiffs, such as conducting discovery and depositions of witnesses, arguing motions before the court and possibly helping negotiate a Dupixent settlement agreement. However, each individual plaintiff will still maintain their own lawyer to meet various deadlines and establish a link between their specific injuries and the medication, as well as negotiate any potential individual Dupixent payout.

The initial management conference is scheduled for today. However, the judge denied attorneys’ requests to appear by telephone at the hearing in a September 28 order. Instead, he stated that counsel who are unable to attend must consult with attorneys who are present.

Dupixent Lawsuits

Individuals who were prescribed Dupixent and subsequently diagnosed with CTCL or another type of T-cell lymphoma may be eligible to pursue compensation through a Dupixent lawsuit.

Dupixent T-cell lymphoma lawyers are offering free consultations to review potential claims and help individuals and families determine whether they may have legal options against the drug manufacturers.

Attorneys are handling these claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees, and costs are only collected if compensation is recovered through a settlement or jury verdict.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Vermont man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Coowalk heated insole purchased through Amazon exploded inside his boot, causing severe partial-thickness burns to his left foot.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jason Bingham in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on September 24, naming Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon.com Sales Inc. as defendants.

Bingham claims Amazon knew before his injury that Coowalk heated insoles posed a burn risk, yet failed to remove the products or provide purchasers with timely warnings.

Heated Insoles Burn Risks

Heated insoles are battery-powered devices intended to keep feet warm inside shoes or boots during cold-weather activities. Most use thin heating components built into the footbed and rechargeable lithium-ion batteries to provide sustained warmth while users work, hike or spend long periods outdoors.

Because the heating elements and batteries are enclosed inside footwear and positioned directly against the foot, overheating or battery failures may expose users to intense heat before they can remove the affected shoe or boot.

Safety concerns involving rechargeable heated insoles have surfaced in connection with products sold through Amazon and other online retailers. Reports of overheating, fires and burn injuries have led to safety warnings and recalls, as well as heated insole lawsuits alleging defective products caused serious foot burns.

Coowalk Heated Insoles Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Bingham was wearing a Coowalk left insole inside his boot on February 17, 2024, when the footbed exploded and overheated, causing partial-thickness and deep partial-thickness burns along the bottom and side of his left foot. He sought emergency care followed by treatment at a specialized burn center.

Bingham claims he continues to experience daily pain and sensitivity, particularly during activities that place pressure on the injured area. As a self-employed carpenter who also performs logging and maple sugaring work, he says the injury has interfered with climbing ladders, prolonged standing and other physically demanding tasks, forcing him to decline jobs and resulting in lost income.

The filing indicates Amazon received actual notice of the hazard in December 2023, roughly two months before Bingham’s injury, when a consumer in Burlington, Ontario, contacted the company from a hospital to report serious injuries from Coowalk heated insoles. That consumer allegedly urged Amazon to remove the listing and notify previous purchasers.

Bingham maintains Amazon nevertheless failed to adequately investigate the reports, suspend sales, quarantine inventory, remove the listing or provide timely warnings to previous purchasers. He claims the insoles remained available through Amazon until at least late 2025 or early 2026.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer physical pain and discomfort, loss of enjoyment of life, interference with his usual activities, lost income and earnings, and other economic and noneconomic damages.”

— Jason Bingham v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence, negligent undertaking, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty and violation of the Connecticut Consumer Protection Act.

It seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, physical pain and suffering, emotional distress and mental anguish, permanent scarring, disfigurement, impairment or disability, lost wages and diminished earning capacity and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as exemplary and punitive damages.

Heated Insole Lawsuits

As battery-powered heated insoles have become more widely available, reports have surfaced involving devices that allegedly overheated, ignited or caught fire, including incidents attributed to lithium-ion battery failures and thermal runaway.

Some consumers have reported suffering severe second- and third-degree burns to their feet, with injuries serious enough to require extensive medical treatment, including surgical debridement and skin grafting.

Amid these safety concerns, heated insole injury lawyers are investigating potential claims nationwide for consumers who experienced serious injuries after the devices allegedly malfunctioned during normal use. Reported injuries and complications have included:

• Burns to the feet and toes
• Fires or overheating inside shoes or boots
• Emergency treatment or hospitalization
• Surgical debridement or skin graft procedures
• Persistent pain, scarring or reduced mobility

Foot warmer lawsuits allege manufacturers and sellers placed defective products on the market without adequate testing, safety protections or warnings about the potential for battery failures and serious burn injuries.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Amid growing concerns that chlorpyrifos exposure may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease, European Union member states can no longer manufacture, use, import or export the pesticide.

Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been on the global market since the 1960s under a variety of brand names, such as Vulcan, Lorsban and Dursban. Over the decades, it has been used in agricultural, residential, commercial and military settings, with those mixing, loading and spraying it suffering regular exposure.

The European Commission announced on September 10 that it has decided to officially prohibit chlorpyrifos use in the EU, declaring the insecticide a persistent organic pollutant (POP) under international law. The decision comes amid increasing pressure to ban chlorpyrifos in the U.S. due to concerns over potential neurological damage.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Risks

Researchers worldwide have been warning over the last several years that long-term chlorpyrifos exposure may increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, even at levels that were previously deemed safe.

In 2025, a study published in Molecular Neurodegeneration warned that long-term and long duration chlorpyrifos exposure increased the risk of the neurological disorder at 2.5 times the rate as when compared to those not exposed to the chemical. Conducting animal studies, the researchers say they found a mechanism of action in chlorpyrifos that progressively destroys dopamine-producing neurons and other effects, working in a way that is virtually identical to Parkinson’s disease.

The EU’s ban comes as the fight to remove the insecticide from the U.S. market continues. Chlorpyrifos lawyers are currently investigating potential chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits for Gulf War veterans, agricultural workers, landscapers, pest control technicians and others who experienced regular or extensive exposure to products such as Dursban, Lorsban, Raid, Ortho and other products before being diagnosed with the neurological disease.

Chlorpyrifos Bans

In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a ban on the use of chlorpyrifos on American food or crops. At that time, the pesticide was already identified as toxic, damaging to the nervous system, and was linked to brain damage, developmental delays, low birth weight, reduced intelligence and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

However, on November 2, 2023, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the chlorpyrifos ban, declaring that the EPA had acted too rashly in banning the chemical before considering whether there was any other way to modify its use. In November 2024, the Biden Administration’s EPA indicated it intended to try another ban in the near future, but those efforts have stalled under the current White House.

Some U.S. states already have chlorpyrifos bans in place, including Maryland, California, New York, Hawaii and Oregon.

European Union Chlorpyrifos Regulations

In the same year that a U.S. federal court was overturning a chlorpyrifos ban, international regulators with the Stockholm Convention’s Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee determined chlorpyrifos carried significant risks for human health and the environment. The committee placed it on a list of chemicals to be eliminated from use and manufacturing in the future.

Agreeing with the classification, the European Commission adopted new regulations on June 30, 2026, adding chlorpyrifos to its own POP list, which calls for it to be removed from the market. While the manufacturing, use, import and export restrictions go into effect at the end of September, the EU has generally already stopped using it.

However, a number of chemical companies in the EU still manufacture chlorpyrifos for export to countries where it is not banned, and that production must stop as well, according to the new regulations. The commission also included language calling for limits for chlorpyrifos occurring as an unintentional trace chemical in other substances. Those limits have not yet been announced.

In the U.S., Corteva was the leading manufacturer, but it ceased making the insecticide in 2020. Most chlorpyrifos is currently manufactured in relatively small amounts, primarily in China and India.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Lawsuits

Chlorpyrifos injury lawsuits are being reviewed nationwide for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease who experienced repeated or direct exposure to the pesticide. Potential claims may involve individuals who:

• Mixed, loaded or applied a known chlorpyrifos insecticide on at least five occasions
• Lived in or were present inside a home where chlorpyrifos was sprayed for termites or general pest control
• Experienced repeated pesticide drift while living or working on or near a farm
• Encountered chlorpyrifos while working at construction sites where soil, foundations or building perimeters were treated
• Experienced repeated exposure while working on golf courses, landscaping crews or other treated grounds
• Served in the military during the First Gulf War between 1990 and 1992, when chlorpyrifos was used for insect control around camps and facilities

Consultation is free and fees are handled on a contingency fee basis for individuals who choose to move forward with a chlorpyrifos lawsuit.

A chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease attorney can help review the products involved, the frequency and duration of exposure, the location of the exposures and the individual’s medical history to determine whether they may be entitled to pursue compensation through a chlorpyrifos lawsuit settlement.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Washington man has filed a lawsuit alleging a defect in Tesla’s Autopilot system caused a crash that injured him and his teenage daughter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Linh Nguyen and Nga Thi Bich Vo, parents of Chi Nguyen, in the King County Superior Court of Washington on June 23, naming Tesla Inc. as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 23.

Nguyen maintains Tesla’s Autopilot system acted without command, failed to respond appropriately to traffic conditions and interfered with his ability to regain control of the vehicle.

Tesla Defect Injuries

Tesla has faced a number of lawsuits alleging vehicle defects caused serious injuries and deaths, including claims involving its Autopilot technology and electronic door systems.

In one 2024 lawsuit, the family of a California man alleged his Tesla failed to stop while traveling at more than 70 mph with Autopilot engaged, causing the vehicle to crash into the back of a firetruck. The complaint also claimed that Tesla misrepresented the safety of its self-driving features.

Another lawsuit alleged a defective Tesla Autopilot system caused a crash that killed a woman and seriously injured her boyfriend. A jury later awarded more than $329 million in damages to the surviving plaintiff and the woman’s family after finding Tesla partially responsible for the accident.

Tesla has also faced claims that its electronic door systems are faulty and may prevent occupants from escaping after a crash. In one case, a New York woman was allegedly trapped inside her Tesla after a collision caused the lithium-ion battery to catch fire and the electronic doors stopped working.

Tesla Autopilot Defect Allegations

According to the new complaint, Nguyen was driving his 2023 Tesla Model X on June 29, 2023, and returning home with his 14-year-old daughter, Chi. He says that he brought the Tesla to a stop at a red light when the vehicle accelerated with extreme force on its own. It allegedly surged forward through the light and into the intersection at high speed. Nguyen claims he was unable to stop or control the vehicle until it struck a curb and the tires burst.

The lawsuit indicates Nguyen and his daughter suffered shock and distress, with Nguyen undergoing injuries to his left side from head to toe, including to his neck, back, shoulder and knees. His daughter also suffered bodily injuries and severe emotional distress.

Both family members underwent medical treatment and therapy. However, Chi allegedly remains distressed and is receiving ongoing care at a mental health treatment facility. Nguyen indicates that Tesla paid to repair the vehicle, but the car lost value and the insurance premium increased because of the accident.

The complaint alleges the Tesla’s Autopilot failed to keep Nguyen and his daughter safe, acted without command, and failed to respond to traffic conditions, including the red light and oncoming traffic. Furthermore, it prevented Nguyen from braking and steering the vehicle to safety.

Nguyen claims the Autopilot technology was overpromised by Tesla, arguing that the company hid defects and encouraged consumers to rely on unsafe and unproven technology while operating their vehicles on public roads.

“Despite having knowledge of the unreasonably dangerous nature of the Autopilot technology responsible, in part, for the injuries to Mr. Nguyen and his minor child, Defendant Tesla advertised the Autopilot technology in a way that greatly overestimated its capabilities and hid its deficiencies.”

— Linh Nguyen et al. v. Tesla Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of product defect, defective design, defective manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of express and/or implied warranties, violation of Washington State’s consumer expectation test, violation of Washington State’s risk-utility test, negligent misrepresentation and corporate negligence. It seeks general, special, economic and punitive damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Dozens of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits are currently being worked up as potential early test cases, which are expected to help both sides evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the claims before thousands of similar lawsuits move closer to trial.

Suboxone is an opioid addiction treatment designed to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms as individuals stop using more powerful opioids. First approved in tablet form in 2002, the drug was later reformulated as a dissolvable film strip that is placed under the tongue or inside the cheek.

That film formulation has since become the focus of concerns over serious dental injuries. Plaintiffs allege the medication’s acidic properties, combined with prolonged contact with the teeth and mouth, can contribute to enamel erosion, tooth decay and other Suboxone side effects.

Reports of dental problems accumulated over time, and in June 2022 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required new warnings about the risk of tooth decay, cavities, oral infections and tooth loss associated with buprenorphine medicines that dissolve in the mouth.

Even before the FDA warning, a series of Suboxone tooth decay lawsuits had already been filed by individuals who say they suffered severe dental damage after using the film strips. The claims allege Indivior knew or should have known about the risks earlier, but failed to provide adequate warnings to users and doctors.

As the number of cases increased, each of the claims filed in federal court were centralized in the Northern District of Ohio before U.S. District Judge J. Philip Calabrese, who is now overseeing discovery and the selection of claims that could serve as the first bellwether trials.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawsuits

According to a census report (PDF) issued on September 17, more than 20,000 Suboxone dental erosion lawsuits have been served on Indivior and consolidated in the MDL. However, the number of lawsuits on the federal docket does not represent the actual number of individuals pursuing claims. Some cases were filed as multi-plaintiff complaints involving dozens of people, with certain filings including as many as 100 plaintiffs, each asserting a separate claim involving their own Suboxone use and dental injuries.

Abbreviated filings, known as “Schedule A,” were also permitted by Judge Calabrese prior to the second anniversary of the FDA-required Suboxone warning label change in June 2024, as that date may have represented a statute of limitations deadline in many states.

Although these filings did not contain many of the details typically included in individual complaints, such as medical records, injury information and Suboxone use histories, the process allowed individuals to preserve their claims while attorneys gathered the documentation needed to support them.

In April, Judge Calabrese called for those cases to be moved into the main litigation, requiring claimants to file individual lawsuits or face dismissal. While the Schedule A list initially contained more than 9,600 Suboxone claims, the latest census indicates that 4,814 abbreviated claims remain.

Judge Calabrese is currently leading the centralized Suboxone tooth decay litigation through pretrial proceedings, such as the collection of evidence, known as discovery, and the selection of claims to serve as potential bellwether trials.

These early test cases put lawsuits representative of the litigation as a whole before juries ahead of the bulk of the lawsuits, which provides a chance to see how attorneys’ arguments hold up under courtroom scrutiny. The first Suboxone bellwether trial is not expected to go before a jury until March 2028.

Suboxone Status Conference

On September 21, attorneys met with Judge Calabrese for a conference to update the court on the status of the litigation. According to the minutes and orders (PDF) issued after the conference, they discussed progress on the preparation of lawsuits by 35 claimants whose cases have been selected to form the core discovery pool. This will eventually be whittled down to four claims, according to the judge’s previous orders, which will then form the first wave of bellwether trials.

Depositions for the individuals represented by these “core discovery pool” lawsuits have been scheduled, with 22 completed to date. Counsel also told the court they are working on depositions of the plaintiffs’ healthcare providers.

How the bellwether trials are resolved, the verdicts juries hand down, and the rulings on matters of law during the trials are expected to be highly influential in any Suboxone settlement agreement reached by attorneys involved in the litigation. However, Judge Calabrese may need to remand the bulk of complaints back to the original districts where they were filed for individual trials if no resolution is reached.

The next status conference is scheduled for October 27, 2026.

Suboxone Tooth Decay Lawyers

Individuals considering a Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit can submit information about their potential claim for review by a product liability lawyer to determine whether they may qualify for compensation.

Lawsuits allege Suboxone’s acidic formulation, combined with its potential to cause dry mouth, may increase the risk of tooth decay and various dental problems, including:

Suboxone lawyers offer free consultations and claim evaluations, with no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Suboxone tooth decay lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Michigan woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Filshie Clip migrated from her fallopian tube and was later discovered in her abdomen, causing years of abdominal and pelvic pain.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Cherylynn Vassil in Connecticut Superior Court on September 11, naming CooperSurgical Inc., The Cooper Companies Inc., Femcare Ltd. and Utah Medical Products Inc. as defendants.

Vassil claims the manufacturers knew or should have known that Filshie Clips may migrate after implantation, but failed to adequately disclose how frequently the problem occurs or warn women and their doctors about the potentially severe complications.

Filshie Clip Complications

First approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1996, Filshie Clips are small titanium devices with silicone rubber linings that are placed around the fallopian tubes during laparoscopic tubal ligation. They apply pressure to the tubes, cutting off blood flow to a small section and creating scar tissue intended to permanently block the passage of an egg into the uterus.

However, a number of women in recent months have filed Filshie Clip lawsuits alleging the birth control devices migrated from their original positions, resulting in chronic pelvic pain, internal scarring, endometriosis, inflammation and other long-term health problems. The claims allege Filshie Clips are defectively designed and may require additional surgery to remove, including hysterectomies in some cases that permanently eliminate a woman’s ability to become pregnant.

Filshie Clip Migration Allegations

According to the complaint, Vassil underwent a tubal ligation procedure at Henry Ford Macomb Hospital in Clinton Township, Michigan, in approximately 2012, during which Filshie Clips were implanted for permanent birth control.

On September 13, 2023, Vassil underwent laparoscopic surgery to remove a pelvic mass. During the procedure, doctors discovered a Filshie Clip in her omentum, a fold of fatty tissue in the abdomen, and removed the migrated device.

Vassil alleges she has suffered significant physical and emotional injuries associated with the Filshie Clips, including abdominal and pelvic pain, difficult and painful bowel movements, uterine pain, stabbing pain in her abdomen and legs and pain during intercourse. She also claims she will likely require additional medical care and lives with concerns that she may experience further complications.

The lawsuit alleges the Filshie Clip was defectively designed in a manner that created an unreasonably high risk of migration, and that the manufacturers failed to conduct adequate testing, monitor post-market complications and provide sufficient warnings about problems reported after the devices reached the market.

Vassil also maintains that the companies failed to adequately report adverse events involving Filshie Clips to federal regulators and continued selling the devices despite information that allegedly showed the migration risks were greater than initially reported.

Had those risks been adequately disclosed, Vassil claims she would not have agreed to receive Filshie Clips, and her physician would have discussed the risks with her or recommended a different form of birth control.

“As a direct and proximate result of having Filshie Clips implanted in her, Plaintiff has experienced significant mental and physical pain and suffering, has sustained injuries which include or more likely than not may include any of the following: abdominal and pelvic pain, difficult and painful bowel movements, pain in and around her uterus, stabbing pains in her abdomen and legs, and pain during intercourse.”

— Cherylynn Vassil v. CooperSurgical Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of violations of the Connecticut Product Liability Act. it seeks punitive damages, as well as past and future general, economic and special damages.

Filshie Clip Lawsuits

Similar Filshie Clip lawsuits are being filed in Connecticut state court, each raising allegations that the birth control devices can migrate from the fallopian tubes and cause serious injuries.

As awareness of potential Filshie Clip migration problems increases, product liability lawyers are reviewing claims for women who experienced complications after undergoing tubal ligation procedures involving the devices. Reported injuries and complications in these cases have included:

• Chronic abdominal or pelvic pain
• Internal scarring or organ damage
• Endometriosis
• Inflammation and swelling
• Painful or irregular menstrual cycles
• Filshie Clip migration requiring additional surgery
• Hysterectomy or other major surgical procedures

Women who experienced serious complications following a Filshie Clip tubal ligation procedure may be eligible to pursue financial compensation. Individuals can submit information for review by a lawyer to determine whether they may qualify to file a Filshie Clip lawsuit.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Kentucky woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging her Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant (SCI) was marketed as being a permanent device, yet it failed approximately one year after being recalled.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Sandra K. Downey in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on September 23, naming Cartiva Inc., Wright Medical Technology Inc. and Stryker B.V. as the defendants.

Downey claims the defendants waited months to warn doctors and patients before officially pulling the Cartiva SCI from the market, suggesting they knew about alleged design defects while she was preparing to undergo surgery.

Cartiva Implant Problems

The Cartiva SCI is a molded cylindrical implant placed in the big toe of patients suffering from degenerative and post-traumatic arthritis known as hallux limitus and hallux rigidus. The typical treatment for the condition is often fusion of the big toe, which permanently lessens the individual’s mobility and can profoundly affect those with an active life.

Constructed from polyvinyl alcohol-based gel and first approved in 2016, the Cartiva SCI was promoted as an alternative to big toe fusion. According to Downey, Cartiva Inc. marketed the implant as providing 97% pain reduction and an 87% success rate, telling doctors it would last a “lifetime.”

When the Cartiva recall was announced in October 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimated the actual success rates only ranged from 21% to 46%, meaning even the agency’s most generous estimate indicates most Cartiva implants failed.

A series of Cartiva toe lawsuits filed nationwide allege the manufacturers knew the design was dangerous, defective and prone to failures that often led to patients needing the implant to be surgically removed. These complications also resulted in most individuals requiring the big toe fusion procedure they sought to avoid in the first place.

Cartiva Implant Failure Allegations

Downey’s lawsuit was filed almost exactly two years after she first underwent a procedure to receive the Cartiva SCI implant in her right big toe. She began developing chronic pain after the surgery.

On October 30, 2024, all Cartiva implants were recalled due to their high failure rate. Like many recipients, Downey’s implant also allegedly failed, with the device being removed in October 2025 due to persistent pain. Her big toe was fused into place as a result.

Following the experience, Downey indicates she continues to suffer chronic pain and stiffness in her right foot, as well as limited range of motion.

Downey says her injuries, permanent mobility loss and medical expenses could have been avoided if the manufacturer had warned the medical community that it already knew about the failure rates. Instead, the lawsuit indicates the company waited, at the expense of Downey and others.

“Defendants had already made the decision to issue the recall prior to Plaintiff’s implant surgery, and already had conducted a Health Hazard Evaluation and/or Health Risk Assessment which showed the Cartiva’s high failure rate. Defendants had the ability to disclose this information to Plaintiff and her medical providers, but they did not do so.”

– Sandra K. Downey v. Cartiva Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of failure to warn, misbranding and adulteration, negligent training, product liability and negligence for class II/class III Devices and breach of warranty. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Cartiva Lawsuits

All Cartiva implant lawsuits were consolidated this summer in the Eastern District of Arkansas before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in what is known as a multidistrict litigation (MDL).

The MDL is just getting underway, with the judge issuing an initial management order on August 31, which included the appointment of about a dozen plaintiffs’ attorneys to leadership positions in the litigation.

The judge has called for a continuing series of status conferences to keep all involved in the case up to date. The next status conference is scheduled for October 8, 2026.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Cartiva toe implant lawsuit updates sent directly to our inbox.

A California woman has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming an Insignia pressure cooker malfunctioned and released scalding food onto her even though the appliance appeared to have finished depressurizing.

Denise Fuller-Hines brought the complaint (PDF) against Best Buy Co. Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on September 24.

According to the lawsuit, the pressure cooker was able to remain dangerously pressurized while giving users the impression it was safe to open. Fuller-Hines alleges the defect allowed the lid to be opened before the internal pressure had fully dissipated, causing hot contents to erupt from the cooker and strike her body.

Pressure Cooker Injury Risks

Best Buy’s Insignia pressure cookers are designed with safety features intended to keep the lid locked while pressure remains inside the appliance.

However, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a recall of about 930,000 Insignia pressure cookers in October 2023 after determining that incorrect volume markings on the inner pots could lead users to overfill the devices. That could cause hot food and liquid to be expelled during pressure release or if the cooker was opened before it had fully depressurized.

At the time of the recall, Best Buy had received 31 reports of contents being ejected under pressure, including 17 reports of burn injuries.

Similar allegations have been raised in a number of pressure cooker lawsuits, with plaintiffs claiming defects in lid-locking and pressure-release systems may allow the appliances to open while dangerous pressure remains inside.

When that happens, lawsuits indicate scalding food, liquid and steam may suddenly erupt from the cooker, potentially causing severe burns that require hospitalization, skin grafts and other extensive medical treatment.

Insignia Pressure Cooker Burn Allegations

According to the complaint, Fuller-Hines was using an Insignia 6 Qt Multi-Function Pressure Cooker, model NS-MC60SS9, to prepare food on December 14, 2024, when she was allegedly able to rotate and open the lid while pressure remained inside. Scalding contents were forcefully ejected onto her body, resulting in severe burns.

Fuller-Hines maintains she was using the cooker normally and as directed at the time.

Best Buy allegedly represented that the cooker’s safety features would prevent the lid from being removed while pressurized. However, the lawsuit claims the device could retain dangerous pressure even after appearing to have fully depressurized, leaving consumers unable to detect the alleged hazard, as evidenced by the 2023 Insignia pressure cooker recall.

As a result, Best Buy knew or should have known of the defects, but put profit over safety and continued to sell the pressure cookers to consumers. Fuller-Hines also claims safer, economically feasible designs could have prevented the lid from opening under pressure and alleges Best Buy failed to adequately test and inspect the pressure cooker.

“Further, Defendant’s representations about ‘safety’ are not just misleading, they are flatly wrong and put innocent consumers like Plaintiff directly in harm’s way.”

— Denise Fuller-Hines v. Best Buy Co. Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of defective design, defective manufacture, failure to warn and negligence. It seeks compensation for significant bodily injuries, medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain, mental anguish and diminished enjoyment of life.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Texas woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she had a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator removed after she experienced no pain relief, only for doctors to discover the device had suffered a mechanical failure.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Gloria Castleberry in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 23, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as the defendants.

Castleberry was implanted with a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulation system in December 2021, but says the device never provided meaningful relief. According to the lawsuit, company representatives repeatedly attempted to reprogram the stimulator and encouraged her to keep the device in place, but those efforts failed and Castleberry ultimately underwent surgery to have it removed.

Spinal Cord Stimulators

A spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is a medical device implanted in a patient’s back. It consists of a battery-powered pulse generator, leads and wires implanted beneath the skin, and an external control to adjust frequency modulation.

While the devices are supposed to work by using electrical pulses to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain, the implants have been linked to a number of complications and problems, including failures, lead migration and fractures, battery failures, painful shocks, nerve damage and the need for revision surgery.

As a result, Boston Scientific and other manufacturers including Abbott Laboratories, Nevro and Medtronic face numerous spinal cord stimulator lawsuits claiming that the devices have undergone repeated mechanical changes over the years without adequate testing or approval by federal regulators.

Former SCS implant recipients, like Castleberry, further allege that sales representatives reprogramming spinal cord stimulators take on roles that should be handled by medical professionals. Some claims maintain that company representatives repeatedly adjust device settings and discourage removal, even when the implants continue to provide little or no meaningful pain relief.

Boston Scientific Device Failure Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Castleberry’s device was immediately programmed by Boston Scientific sales representatives when she was implanted with it at the end of 2021. However, after the device was activated Castleberry experienced no relief from her pain.

The representatives allegedly told her they just needed to find the right settings, reprogramming it multiple times in an effort to give the relief they had promised when convincing her to receive the implant, but to no avail. Castleberry notes they reprogrammed the device at least five times without success.

“Plaintiff’s implanting physician declined to remove the device. Plaintiff was forced to seek treatment at a different pain management clinic, where her new treating physician administered a nerve block injection to evaluate whether removal of the SCS device was warranted.”

– Gloria Castleberry v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

Two weeks after the nerve block, Castleberry’s new treating physician surgically removed the Boston Scientific SCS system in September 2024. A postoperative diagnosis determined that the implant had suffered a mechanical failure.

Castleberry alleges that company sales representatives persuaded her to spend years repeatedly reprogramming the stimulator, even though the device had already suffered a mechanical failure and was not capable of providing meaningful pain relief. She claims the failure stemmed from a known design defect that Boston Scientific failed to adequately disclose to physicians or patients.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer protection laws and unauthorized practice of medicine. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Boston Scientific SCS Implant Lawsuits

Castleberry filed her complaint in the Central District of California, where other Boston Scientific SCS lawsuits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL). As of the beginning of September, there were 25 cases filed. However, that number has continued to climb.

Shortly after the Boston Scientific SCS MDL was established earlier this year, plaintiffs with claims against other companies called for Nevro implant lawsuits and Abbott SCS lawsuits to be consolidated, which would centralize those complaints in the Central District of California as well, but as separate MDLs.

The panel met last week to hear oral arguments on the additional consolidations, but has yet to issue a ruling or opinion.

If the lawsuits are consolidated, all three would likely begin preparations for selecting a few key, representative cases to serve as bellwether test trials, designed to give counsel the opportunity to see how juries weigh evidence and testimony that would be applicable to most of the claims.

Given that the litigation is still ramping up, such trials could be years away. In the interim, spinal cord stimulator lawyers will continue to review claims of injuries caused by implant system problems, including:

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit can request a free case evaluation. Attorneys handling these claims work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and fees are only collected if compensation is recovered.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Virginia woman has filed a lawsuit alleging an error during preimplantation genetic testing disrupted her IVF treatment, forcing her remaining embryos to undergo additional procedures that exposed them to unnecessary risks.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by a woman identified as Jane Doe in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on September 10. It names FPG Labs LLC, doing business as Ovation Fertility, as well as several entities associated with the Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist Center for Fertility and Reproductive Surgery.

Doe alleges Ovation Fertility made misleading claims about the accuracy and benefits of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, or PGT-A, then mishandled biopsy samples taken from three of her embryos.

According to the lawsuit, the samples could not be used, requiring the embryos to be thawed and biopsied again so new samples could be collected. One of the three embryos allegedly did not survive the additional procedure.

PGT-A Testing Concerns

IVF is a common fertility treatment that involves fertilizing eggs outside the body and transferring selected embryos into the uterus in an effort to achieve pregnancy.

PGT-A is an optional screening test that may be performed during IVF to identify potential chromosomal abnormalities in embryos. After an embryo reaches the blastocyst stage, a small number of cells are removed and analyzed, with the findings used to help guide decisions about which embryos should be considered for transfer.

Prior PGT-A genetic testing lawsuits have challenged claims about the accuracy and benefits of the screening, alleging companies promote the tests as nearly 100% accurate and suggest they can increase implantation and IVF success rates, lower miscarriage risks and shorten the time needed to become pregnant.

However, plaintiffs argue those representations exaggerate the reliability and clinical benefits of PGT-A while downplaying its limitations, which may lead patients to reject potentially viable embryos and suffer significant financial and emotional losses.

PGT-A Testing Error Allegations

According to the complaint, Doe first sought fertility treatment in 2017 due to diminished ovarian reserve, with the clinic ultimately freezing 14 eggs for future use. She returned in June 2023 for IVF, resulting in three embryos that underwent biopsies for PGT-A testing by Ovation.

Doe alleges Ovation promoted its testing as highly accurate and capable of improving pregnancy outcomes. However, after the three biopsies were analyzed using Ovation’s LifeView platform in September 2023, all returned no result due to an amplification failure.

The lawsuit indicates an Ovation representative later attributed the failed testing to human error and recommended that Doe’s embryos be thawed and biopsied again using a different testing platform. Doe claims she was told the procedure would not harm the embryos, but neither Ovation nor the IVF clinic adequately warned her about the risks of another thawing and biopsy cycle.

Doe followed their recommendations, but one embryo did not survive the thaw. The two remaining embryos were rebiopsied and tested using Ovation’s NextGen platform, with one classified as low-level mosaic and the other as abnormal. Based on recommendations from Ovation and the IVF clinic, neither was transferred.

Ovation allegedly failed to disclose before Doe’s initial testing that another available platform carried a lower risk of the type of amplification failure she experienced. In addition, she challenges representations that PGT-A was more than 98% accurate and could improve pregnancy and IVF success rates while reducing miscarriage risks.

The lawsuit claims Ovation failed to adequately train and supervise employees or implement sufficient safeguards against testing errors, with a fluid-transfer error identified as a potential cause of the failed amplification. Doe also alleges the IVF clinic failed to adequately disclose the risks of rebiopsy or obtain informed consent.

Doe says the testing error and subsequent procedures cost her months of fertility treatment, caused additional expenses and prevented the transfer of embryos that may have been suitable, resulting in emotional distress and lost reproductive opportunities.

“Neither Ovation nor the IVF Clinic adequately informed Plaintiff that subjecting her previously biopsied and cryopreserved embryos to an additional warming and biopsy cycle carried incremental risks, including the risk of damage to or loss of an embryo and potential adverse effects on IVF outcomes.”

— Jane Doe v. FPG Labs LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligent misrepresentation, negligence, professional negligence, negligent hiring and supervision of employees, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment and violation of North Carolina’s Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It seeks compensatory, statutory, restitution and punitive damages.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Revelations from former and current DraftKings employees have prompted an investigation into how the sports betting app uses artificial intelligence, amid claims the technology is being used to identify losing gamblers and target them with “free bet” promotions designed to keep them wagering.

According to a recent report by The New York Times, some employees say the same machine-learning models used to identify customers likely to continue betting could also be used to detect signs of problem gambling and warn those users. However, they claim DraftKings officials have resisted using the technology for that purpose for years.

Following publication of the report, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission announced plans to review how licensed gambling operators in the state use artificial intelligence, with DraftKings expected to be the first company examined. The announcement came as the commission released sports wagering data showing online sportsbooks generated $47.09 million in revenue during August alone.

Sports Betting Addiction Concerns

The revenue figures highlight how widespread online sports betting has become since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that individual states could decide whether to legalize the practice. Since then, most states have authorized sports wagering, helping companies like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM grow into major online gambling platforms.

That growth has also brought increasing concern over gambling addiction linked to sportsbook apps. Young adults and college-aged men appear to be particularly vulnerable to gambling addiction risks, experts warn, in part because they are highly comfortable with instant online transactions while often having relatively limited experience managing their own finances.

The concerns go beyond the accessibility of the apps themselves. According to The New York Times report, DraftKings has developed machine-learning models capable of identifying gamblers who consistently lose more than they win, allowing the company to tailor “free bet” promotions and other incentives to users who may be more likely to keep wagering.

A growing number of consumers who say they were harmed by these practices are now filing sports betting lawsuits against DraftKings and other sportsbooks. The claims allege the companies used aggressive promotional tactics and personalized incentives to encourage continued betting among users showing signs of problem gambling, ultimately contributing to severe addiction and financial losses.

DraftKings AI Allegations

According to the Times report, DraftKings first built a machine learning model in 2023 after spending millions of dollars on promotions. The company did not know if the promotions were working or how, and a data analyst says he was brought in to test its effectiveness.

The analyst told the Times that the goals were to get the artificial intelligence to look for patterns in consumer data to discover what made people spend and who was most likely to fall prey to the tactics. He indicated the model was designed to look for those who gamble more and lose more.

Those same parameters turned out to be extremely similar to signs of gambling addiction, targeting those who will lose the most and still keep betting in an attempt to win their money back, a known losing tactic called “chasing the dragon,” which is often considered a sign of addiction.

However, the Times claims that numerous employees said they urged the company to pursue using the technology to help warn consumers that they were displaying addiction warning signs. They said the company refused, finding no use for it and questioning its viability, and shelved what work had already been done.

Similar allegations have now drawn the attention of Massachusetts gambling regulators. Jordan Maynard, who chairs the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, announced at a public meeting on September 24 that the commission would discuss the issue with DraftKings officials and will investigate how all licensed betting companies throughout the state use AI.

The workers interviewed at DraftKings already were of the opinion that the technology is dangerous to consumers, because of how accurately and ruthlessly they are targeted. DraftKings has refuted those claims.

Sports Betting Lawsuits

Consumers across the country have filed lawsuits against DraftKings and other sportsbooks, alleging that personalized promotions and repeated incentives encouraged them to continue betting despite mounting losses.

The claims describe resulting financial harm that includes substantial debt, depleted savings and, in some cases, serious emotional and mental health consequences.

Sports betting addiction attorneys are investigating potential claims for those who have experienced significant financial and psychological injuries after developing a gambling addiction due to sportsbook apps and promotions. Companies that may be involved in these cases include:

Consultations and case evaluations are free to help potential claimants determine if they are eligible to pursue compensation through a gambling addiction lawsuit. Each claim is handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

Alabama has reached a settlement with TikTok requiring the company to pay $100 million for consumer restitution and remediation, while also imposing new restrictions aimed at protecting children and teens who use the social media platform.

The stipulated final judgment and consent decree (PDF) was entered on September 25 in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, resolving claims brought by the state against TikTok Inc., TikTok LLC, TikTok U.S. Data Security Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., TikTok Ltd., ByteDance Inc. and ByteDance Ltd.

Social Media Addiction Risks

Companies like TikTok, Meta, Google and others face thousands of social media addiction lawsuits alleging the platforms were intentionally designed with features that encourage children and teenagers to become compulsive users.

Many of these lawsuits claim social media companies collect large amounts of information about young users and rely on sophisticated algorithms to deliver personalized content intended to sustain engagement. Families point to features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay and frequent notifications, which they say encourage children to repeatedly return to the platforms and spend increasing amounts of time online.

According to the claims, prolonged social media use has contributed to a range of mental health and behavioral problems among children and teens, including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, poor academic performance, suicidal thoughts and self-harm.

Similar allegations have also been raised by school districts, state governments and local municipalities, which claim widespread social media addiction among young people has increased demands on schools, mental health resources and other public services.

Those concerns have also led to large-scale enforcement actions by state officials. Earlier this year, Meta reached a proposed $17 billion settlement with a bipartisan group of 51 attorneys general over allegations that Facebook and Instagram used features that promoted compulsive behavior among children and teens while the company downplayed or misrepresented the potential risks.

TikTok Settlement Agreement

Under the settlement, TikTok must initially provide $116.2 million for consumer restitution and remediation. The agreement also establishes a contingent pool of up to $183.8 million that could become payable if additional state attorneys general enter qualifying agreements with the company.

Combined, the initial and contingent payments could reach $300 million, although the additional funds depend on the terms of future agreements with other states.

The settlement also requires TikTok to make substantial changes to how teen accounts operate. Teen users will be subject to a default two-hour daily screen-time limit that resets at midnight, while parents using the platform’s supervision system can set their own limits and review usage.

TikTok must also introduce “productive pauses” after 60 and 90 minutes of cumulative daily use, followed by additional notices for every 15 minutes of continuous use.

The agreement imposes a default Night Access Mode from midnight to 6 a.m. and requires most teen push notifications to be disabled between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., as well as during designated school hours. Parents may modify certain restrictions and schedule additional periods when their teens cannot access the platform.

TikTok must also adopt new age-assurance measures. Within six months, the company must maintain or implement methods for detecting suspected users under 13 and placing identified accounts into its enforcement process. Within one year, TikTok must develop, train and begin testing a prototype model designed to predict whether users are under 13.

For users ages 13 through 17, TikTok must establish an age-estimation system and provide an appeals process for users incorrectly classified as minors. The company must also take steps to prevent users from circumventing age checks, including limiting repeated verification attempts.

Parents will receive additional controls allowing them to review screen time, restrict searches for certain videos, hashtags, users and sounds, and exclude specified keywords or hashtags from supported feeds. TikTok must also maintain protections intended to limit potentially harmful interactions between teens and adults, including private teen accounts by default, discoverability restrictions and reporting and blocking tools.

Within nine months, teen users must also be given the option to make a non-personalized feed their default home feed. New teen users must be prompted to choose between personalized and non-personalized feeds rather than having TikTok make that selection for them.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

TikTok settlements like the one made with the state of Alabama are being reached at the same time as social media companies nationwide are being hit with substantial jury verdicts in a series of addiction lawsuits.

In March, a California jury awarded $6 million to a woman who claimed she developed anxiety and depression after becoming addicted to social media as a minor. Days earlier, a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay the state $375 million over claims involving teen social media addiction and related mental health problems.

Although these early settlements and verdicts will not determine the outcome of other pending cases, they may help attorneys evaluate how juries will respond to allegations, assess potential damages and determine whether broader settlements can be reached.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

In less than a year, a jury is expected to hear the first hair relaxer cancer lawsuit selected for a bellwether trial, providing the first courtroom test of allegations being raised across tens of thousands of similar claims against cosmetic manufacturers.

The lawsuits target companies including L’Oreal, Revlon and Soft-Sheen, alleging they failed to adequately warn women about reproductive cancer risks associated with chemicals used in popular hair relaxers and chemical straighteners, including Dark & Lovely, Optimum and Just For Me.

More than 32,000 claims have been filed by women who say years of hair relaxer use contributed to uterine, ovarian or endometrial cancer.

Hair relaxer cancer lawsuits began to mount in late 2022, after a National Institutes of Health study found that frequent use of chemical hair straighteners was associated with a substantially higher risk of uterine cancer. Women who used the products more than four times per year faced a 156% increased risk, while those who used them between one and four times annually had a 56% increased risk, according to the findings.

As the number of lawsuits increased, the federal claims were centralized in 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland. The consolidated proceedings are intended to streamline discovery and resolve common issues raised throughout the litigation, while also preparing a small group of representative cases for early trial dates.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Bellwether Trials

Judge Rowland and the parties initially began with a pool of 32 potential bellwether hair relaxer cancer lawsuits, which has since been narrowed to 10 possible selections. Those cases were filed by Bridget Boatwright, Carrie Chattman, Charlene Fennell, Gloria Ford, Areecia Jackson, Joanne Jones, Rosa Robinson, Karla Smith, Roxanna Wade and Janette Wallace.

Plaintiffs and defendants originally proposed 12 claims for the final bellwether pool, but Judge Rowland rejected those selections and chose 10 cases herself. She limited the pool to lawsuits involving at least three defendants and excluded claims involving plaintiffs with memory loss, certain mental health or learning conditions, as well as women simultaneously pursuing talcum powder cancer lawsuits involving similar reproductive cancers.

On September 24, a notification of docket entry (PDF) announced that the first hair relaxer cancer bellwether trial will begin on September 7, 2027. Judge Rowland has not yet announced which of the remaining cases will be presented to the jury.

The order also establishes a series of case management conferences leading up to the trial, with hearings scheduled for January 28, February 25, March 25, April 22, May 27, June 24, July 29 and August 26, 2027. Those conferences will allow the court and parties to address discovery disputes, expert issues, motions and other trial preparations as the first bellwether approaches.

“By 10/16/26, parties shall meet and confer, file on the docket, and submit to the Court’s proposed order box, a list of proposed dates for next year’s court call hearings, each of which should fall on the Wednesday immediately preceding a case management conference.”

— U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland, Northern District of Illinois

The September 2027 trial will provide the first opportunity for a jury to consider evidence about whether hair relaxer manufacturers adequately disclosed potential cancer risks and whether the products contributed to an individual plaintiff’s diagnosis.

Additional bellwether trials are expected to follow, giving both sides a clearer picture of how juries may respond to common evidence and arguments raised throughout the litigation. Although the outcomes will not be binding on other plaintiffs, the verdicts could influence how the parties approach future trials and any potential efforts to resolve large numbers of claims.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawyers Reviewing Claims

Hair relaxer cancer lawyers are continuing to pursue claims for women who regularly used chemical hair straighteners and were later diagnosed with serious reproductive cancers, including:

• Uterine cancer
• Endometrial cancer
• Ovarian cancer
• Uterine sarcoma and other uterine malignancies

Attorneys are reviewing the length and frequency of hair relaxer use, the specific products used, the timing of the cancer diagnosis and other medical and exposure history to determine whether an individual may qualify to pursue a claim.

Free consultations are available for women and families seeking to determine whether they may be eligible for compensation. Hair relaxer cancer lawyers handle these claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys only receive a fee if they obtain a settlement or verdict.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Hair Relaxer cancer lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Houswise Tabletop Fire Pit caused flames to shoot from a fuel bottle while he was refilling the device, leaving him with severe burns and permanent scarring.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Nathan Edward Ward in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 24, naming Furmia LLC as the sole defendant.

Ward claims the fire pit was defectively designed to burn liquid fuel in an open reservoir and lacked adequate warnings about flame jetting and flashbacks. He also alleges Furmia marketed the product as having “ASTM-Certified Construction,” despite failing to meet an applicable ASTM safety standard for portable fuel-burning devices.

Tabletop Fire Pit Risks

Tabletop fire pits are small, portable devices that use alcohol or similar liquid fuels to create an open flame for heat, decoration or cooking. They are commonly marketed for use on patios, decks and balconies, while some products are also promoted for indoor settings.

Many designs require users to pour liquid fuel directly into an open reservoir, which can make the refueling process especially dangerous if flames or hot surfaces remain present. Alcohol-based fuels can burn at temperatures above 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, and their flames may be difficult to see, increasing the risk of sudden ignition, flashback or flame jetting.

In recent years, reports of serious tabletop fire pit burn injuries have involved users refilling or operating the products, as well as nearby individuals struck by flames or burning fuel during sudden fires and explosions.

A number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits allege the products were sold with unsafe designs and inadequate warnings or instructions. The claims frequently raise concerns about open fuel reservoirs, difficult-to-see flames and flame jetting, which can cause fire to rapidly travel through fuel vapors and erupt from a container during refueling.

Houswise Tabletop Fire Pit Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Ward purchased the Houswise fire pit through Amazon on September 10, 2024. Less than a month later, on October 4, he was allegedly adding isopropyl alcohol to the reservoir as instructed when a flame suddenly jetted or flashed back from the bottle, striking his face, neck, ears and right arm.

Ward claims he suffered mixed partial- and full-thickness burns over approximately 18% of his body and continues to experience significant scarring on his face, neck and right forearm.

The lawsuit alleges Furmia failed to adequately test the product, conduct a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis or incorporate available safer alternative designs. It also claims the fire pit’s open-reservoir design failed to comply with ASTM F3363-19, including requirements for warnings about flame jetting and flashbacks on both the product and in its instructions.

In December 2024, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) warned consumers to stop using liquid-burning fire pits that violate ASTM F3363-19, indicating the products had been linked to two deaths and at least 60 injuries since 2019.

Federal regulators later issued a more specific warning on July 16, 2026, urging consumers to immediately stop using Houswise Tabletop Fire Pits. The CPSC identified at least 53,500 units and said it had received more than two dozen reports involving flame jetting, fuel leaks or unexpectedly high flames, resulting in seven injuries, including third-degree burns.

The agency also indicated Furmia had not agreed to recall the products or provide consumers with a remedy, instead advising owners to stop using and dispose of them.

“Furmia sold these fire pits, including the subject fire pit, with a series of fatal defects that make them inherently dangerous to consumers. Moreover, it continues to sell these dangerously defective fire pits to consumers, CPSC warnings urging it to stop doing so.”

— Nathan Edward Ward v. Furmia LLC

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict liability, common law negligence, negligent design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty. It seeks general and special damages for economic losses and pain and suffering.

Tabletop Fire Pit Burn Injury Lawsuits

As recalls and reports of serious burn injuries continue to surface, lawyers are reviewing potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits nationwide for individuals who suffered injuries in fires, explosions or flame-jetting incidents. Injuries reported in these cases may include:

• Second- and third-degree burns
• Permanent scars and disfigurement
• Nerve damage or reduced mobility
• Respiratory injuries from flames, smoke or burning fuel
• Severe burns caused by unexpected flare-ups during refueling
• Fatal burn injuries

Individuals injured by a tabletop fire pit may be entitled to seek financial compensation for medical costs, lost wages, reduced future earning potential, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other damages associated with their injuries.

Tabletop fire pit lawyers are providing free consultations to determine whether an incident may have involved a defective or recalled product and to help injured consumers understand their potential legal options.

Cases are pursued on a contingency fee basis, which means individuals pay no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys receive payment only if they obtain compensation on their client’s behalf.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

California regulators have introduced a proposed rule that would bar the fabrication of engineered stone countertops that contain more than one percent of crystalline silica in a bid to protect stone cutters, fabricators and installers from a deadly lung disease known as silicosis.

A draft proposed engineered stone ban was introduced on September 16 as an “emergency rulemaking” during an advisory meeting for the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). The ban seeks to combat rising rates of silicosis throughout the state that have been directly tied to the artificial stone countertop industry.

The ban was first proposed in a petition filed by the Western Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association (WOEMA) in late December 2025, which argues that the science linking engineered stone fabrication to silicosis is undeniable and requires action to protect workers.

Silicosis Lung Injury Risks

California is the heart of the countertop industry for engineered stone, also known as artificial stone and fabricated quartz. The industry is believed to be valued at between $1.5 and $2.5 billion.

However, cutting, grinding and otherwise working with engineered stone can release high concentrations of silica dust containing microscopic particles that can become embedded in the lungs when inhaled. Stone cutters, fabricators and installers may face repeated exposure to this dust during routine countertop fabrication and installation work.

This exposure can lead to a condition known as silicosis, a potentially deadly respiratory illness that causes inflammation and scarring of the lungs, leading to lung failure. Treatment often requires a lung transplant for any chance at survival.

Numerous workers have filed silicosis lawsuits against their former employers and stone manufacturers, indicating they were not properly warned about silica dust exposure risks. They also accuse employers of failing to provide proper protective equipment and the failure to use silica dust controlling measures.

California regulators have already tightened silica safety requirements in recent years, but WOEMA has argued those measures have not gone far enough to protect engineered stone workers.

The group first pushed for stronger protections in 2023, which helped lead to tougher Cal/OSHA rules for cutting, grinding and polishing artificial stone. In December 2025, WOEMA returned with a new petition (PDF) arguing that engineered stone containing crystalline silica could not be fabricated safely and calling for a broader prohibition.

“The evidence is now clear that engineered stone containing crystalline silica is too toxic to fabricate and install safely, and education and enforcement alone will not be sufficient to curtail the escalating occupational health emergency caused by this product.”

— Western Occupational and Environmental Medicine Association

On May 21, 2026, California regulators voted to move forward with developing restrictions on engineered stone containing more than one percent crystalline silica. That process led to the discussion draft presented during the September 16 advisory meeting.

California Engineered Stone Ban

Under the proposed rule, countertop employers would be required to notify workers verbally and in writing that manufacturing or cutting engineered stone is prohibited because of the health risks. Employers would also have to post highly visible warning signs in the workplace.

If the ban is adopted, businesses would generally have 60 days to stop manufacturing, shaping and installing covered engineered stone products or face enforcement action. Limited exceptions would allow certain existing orders to be completed for up to 180 days after the rule takes effect.

Violations could be treated as an “imminent hazard” and result in an Order Prohibiting Use. Cal/OSHA is accepting public comments on the proposal through September 30 at RS@dir.ca.gov.

The proposed rule also follows growing calls for similar restrictions outside California. Earlier this month, researchers from Queen’s University in Canada published a case study concluding that existing dust controls and protective equipment may not be enough to make engineered stone fabrication safe.

Engineered Stone Silicosis Lawsuits

The proposed ban is a culmination of years of evidence that silica dust has caused silicosis in engineered stone countertop workers nationwide. As a result, engineered stone silicosis lawsuits have been filed by many of those workers alleging their employers failed to adequately warn them about, or equip them for, the long-term health risks of breathing silica dust.

Former workers and their families allege that more steps could have been taken to protect them from silica dust. However, many critics say there is no current, economical way to make engineered stone manufacturing safe.

Silicosis attorneys are currently reviewing claims and providing free consultations for any engineered stone workers who have suffered severe respiratory injuries or other health problems due to silica dust exposure. These attorneys work on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Texas woman has filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging a Bridgestone tire catastrophically failed during ordinary use, causing her husband to lose control of his vehicle.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Lakeisha Durham-Duncan on behalf of the estate of her husband, Tharnell Duncan II, and their minor son, K.R.D., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on September 18. It names Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC and Bridgestone Corporation as defendants.

Durham-Duncan alleges that the Bridgestone tire on the vehicle her husband was driving was prone to premature oxidation and featured an inadequately thin inner liner. She claims those defects increased the risk of premature tread separation, causing the crash that resulted in Duncan’s death.

Vehicle Tire Defects

Tire manufacturers have faced similar product liability lawsuits alleging defects in tire construction can cause the tread to separate from the rest of the tire, resulting in sudden loss of vehicle control and serious crashes.

In December 2025, a jury awarded more than $220 million to the family of several people killed in a crash caused by defective Michelin tires. The lawsuit alleged the Michelin tire was prone to tread separation, which occurred while the family was traveling on a freeway and caused their vehicle to cross into oncoming traffic, where it was involved in a fatal collision.

The complaint identified alleged defects involving belt adhesion, curing, bonding and the tire’s internal construction. It also claimed the tire lacked adequate antioxidant and antiozonant protection, allowing deterioration that contributed to the tread separation and resulting crash.

Bridgestone Tire Defect Allegations

According to his wife’s complaint, Duncan was driving a 2023 Isuzu street sweeper in Denton County, Texas, on November 6 when the tread allegedly separated from one of the vehicle’s tires. He lost control of the street sweeper, which crossed several lanes of traffic before striking a concrete barrier and a light pole. Duncan died from injuries suffered in the crash.

The lawsuit alleges the Bridgestone M895 II tire was prone to tread separation because of defects in its design and construction. According to the complaint, the tire used a skim compound that was susceptible to premature oxidation, weakening the belt edge and increasing the risk that the tread would separate during normal use.

Durham-Duncan also claims the tire was manufactured with an inadequately thin inner liner, which may have allowed excessive oxygen and moisture to penetrate the tire and reach the steel belts. The complaint alleges this accelerated rubber degradation and weakened the internal components holding the tire together.

In addition, the lawsuit maintains Bridgestone failed to use tread, wedge and inner-liner materials capable of withstanding the heat and repeated stress associated with the tire’s rated service. Instead, the materials allegedly experienced thermal and mechanical degradation during ordinary use.

Durham-Duncan further alleges Bridgestone knew about the risk of tread separation but failed to adequately disclose the problem to consumers. The lawsuit claims safer alternative designs were available that could have reduced the risk of tire failure and prevented the crash that resulted in Duncan’s death.

“The Tire Defendants engaged in acts and omissions which (1) when viewed objectively, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (2) which Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risks involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others, including Plaintiffs.”

— Lakeisha Durham-Duncan v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence and gross negligence. It seeks compensation for Durham-Duncan and K.R.D. for pain and suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, funeral and burial expenses, loss of companionship and loss of inheritance.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Pennsylvania man has filed a lawsuit alleging DraftKings deliberately used targeted promotions, “free” bets, push notifications and personal “VIP” managers to push him into gambling addiction.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Christopher Evans earlier this summer in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, naming DraftKings Inc. and Crown PA Gaming Inc. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 16.

Evans claims that when he began using DraftKings’ mobile app in 2017, he was unprepared for the pernicious design of its tracking algorithms, which he says analyzed his gambling patterns and exploited them, resulting in more than $2 million in wagers and a gambling addiction he is still battling.

Online Gambling Addiction

Pennsylvania was among the first states to authorize sports wagering in 2017, before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal prohibition on state-authorized sports betting the following year. However, the state’s sports wagering provisions could not take effect unless the federal restrictions were removed, which occurred with the Supreme Court’s May 2018 ruling in Murphy v. NCAA.

Approval of online gambling and sports betting spread quickly to most states, with platforms like DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM gaining wide popularity by allowing consumers in many states to place bets from their phones on game outcomes and player performances. The platforms have even begun promoting live impromptu bets based on ongoing game occurrences or other sports events.

Experts warn these online gambling addictions can lead to significant financial losses before compulsive gambling behavior becomes apparent. The damage can extend well beyond monetary losses as well, often destroying families, careers and relationships.

Consumers have filed a growing number of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits in recent months, pointing to sportsbook marketing practices as factors in the rapid rates of addiction. Users claim the platforms flood consumers with personalized promotions, targeted advertisements and live betting features that may encourage them to place wagers more frequently.

The sportsbooks are also accused of using algorithms that analyze and detect potentially addictive behavior. Claimants say that instead of warning those individuals to seek help, the apps exploit them through the use of deceptive, predatory or unlawful practices.

DraftKings Gambling Addiction Allegations

According to the complaint, Evans’ use of DraftKings was marked by a constant flow of promotions and incentives since he first began wagering on the mobile app in 2017. This eventually led to an online gambling addiction he describes as “unmanageable.”

Evans says his digital history on the app shows a rapid escalation and loss of control, of which he says DraftKings was “all too aware.” He has, to date, wagered more than $2.1 million and estimates he suffered about $81,000 in total losses.

“Plaintiff Christopher Evans fell deeply into his addiction and would find himself spending hours each day gambling within the applications, specifically playing casino games due to their quick and instantaneous nature and easy allowance of betting, but also engaging with sportsbook and daily fantasy gambling.”

– Christopher Evans v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

As his addiction grew, so did Evans’ depression and anxiety, the lawsuit notes. He soon stopped going outside, instead spending all day indoors gambling. Evans indicates his work began to suffer, he accrued debt, his vehicle was repossessed, and he and his wife separated.

The lawsuit alleges that DraftKings knows its design is addictive, and is purposefully designed to be so. It allegedly exploits known gambling patterns to customize marketing approaches to each consumer. However, Evans indicates this is done in a predatory fashion, using the data to convince consumers with apparent online gambling addictions to make larger and more frequent wagers, instead of warning them that they should probably seek help.

Evans presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. He seeks compensatory damages to restore his gambling losses, and for the development of gambling addiction, depression and other mental health conditions.

Online Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

This complaint joins other online gambling addiction lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide who say sportsbook apps like DraftKings and FanDuel led them, intentionally, into compulsive wagering that resulted in increased debt, financial losses and mental health damage. The claims often maintain that sportsbooks collect extensive information about customers’ betting patterns and behavior, then use that data to deliver individualized promotions and incentives that encourage continued gambling.

Online gambling addiction attorneys are reviewing potential claims for individuals who experienced significant financial damage or psychological injuries after developing problematic gambling behaviors allegedly fueled by sportsbook promotions and rewards. Companies that may be involved in these claims include:

Individuals who experienced serious gambling-related losses can request a free and confidential case evaluation to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. These claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive sports betting addiction lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A new study indicates that silica dust exposure can continue damaging the lungs of engineered stone workers even after they leave the field, making stronger protections against exposure critical to reducing the risk of silicosis.

The findings were published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) on September 21, based on a case report involving a man who developed silicosis after a decade of working in the engineered stone industry. Researchers from Queen’s University in Ontario found that his lung damage continued to worsen even after his exposure to silica dust ended.

Engineered Stone Silicosis Risks

Workers who cut, grind, polish and install engineered stone countertops face substantial silica dust exposure, due to particles released by the stone into the air. These particles are inhaled, with repeated exposure potentially leading to life-threatening lung injuries, including silicosis and death.

Silicosis is an irreversible and progressive lung disease caused by inhaling crystalline silica dust, which triggers inflammation and permanent scarring in the lungs. Progression of the disease can make breathing increasingly difficult, and severe cases may lead to respiratory failure or require a lung transplant.

As more engineered stone workers develop these serious and potentially irreversible injuries, manufacturers are facing a growing number of silicosis lawsuits, particularly in California, where the industry is heavily concentrated. The lawsuits allege manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the silica dust risks or provide sufficient safety instructions to protect workers from exposure.

Silicosis Case Report Findings

For the new study, researchers led by Michelle Yuen, conducted a case study of a 47-year old Canadian man who was employed for 20 years in countertop fabrication, working mostly with engineered stone in the last 10 years.

The man initially was admitted to the emergency room due to a workplace accident that caused blunt trauma to his right chest. During the course of his examination, doctors found nodules in his lungs and he was ultimately diagnosed with silicosis, which the doctors linked to his years of silica dust exposure.

According to the worker, he used a cartridge respirator, changing the filter once a week. The report states there were no silica dust monitoring efforts at his workplace, which only employed three to five people.

Doctors urged the man to immediately remove himself from silica dust exposure and referred him to occupational lung disease.

However, the case report notes that even after exposure stopped, the lung damage did not. Over the next 18 months, the man’s fibrosis worsened and he was given antifibrotic medications, which can slow down the formation of scar tissue in organs.

While the antifibrotics helped somewhat, researchers indicated the man’s lung capacity continued to degrade over time.

“The patient has continued respirology and hepatology clinical review, and is awaiting assessment for lung transplantation. He is currently undergoing vocational retraining with workers’ compensation support.”

– Queen’s University Researchers, Silicosis from dry-cutting engineered stone in the fabrication of countertop

The team noted the failure of protective equipment in the man’s case and the lack of silica dust control and monitoring. Additionally, they warned that the use of antifibrotics was not enough to reverse the disease’s course.

Researchers concluded that occupational hygiene measures at the workplace, such as wet-cutting, automated enclosed machine cutting and medical surveillance, could help mitigate engineered stone’s effects on the lungs. However, they also noted that the only truly effective measure would be removing engineered stone from the market.

Silicosis Lawsuits

The findings come as silica dust lawsuits continue to be filed nationwide by installers, fabricators and stone cutters who developed silicosis after occupational exposure to the fine, crystalline particles.

Engineered stone industry workers who experienced regular silica dust exposure may be eligible to pursue compensation if they were subsequently diagnosed with conditions such as:

• Silicosis
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Lung infections, including tuberculosis

Silicosis lawyers are evaluating potential claims for quartz countertop workers throughout the United States who developed silicosis following workplace exposure to silica dust. Free consultations are available to help determine whether affected workers may qualify to pursue financial compensation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Two California parents have filed a product liability lawsuit alleging Peloton failed to incorporate adequate safeguards into its treadmill designs that could protect children from foreseeable entrapment hazards.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Seyed Navidpour and Parvaneh Navidpour, as guardians and next friends of L.N., a minor child, in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California on September 21. It names Peloton Interactive Inc. as the defendant. 

The Navidpours claim Peloton could have used safer alternative designs, including covering the pinch point between the tread and treadmill body, but failed to do so despite prior reports of similar incidents.

Treadmill Safety Risks

Peloton and other treadmill brands have faced numerous recalls and legal actions in recent years regarding the safety of their products’ designs.

In 2021, Peloton recalled 125,000 treadmills following dozens of reports of injuries and one child’s death caused by a faulty design that allowed children or pets to become trapped, pinned or pulled under certain Tread+ treadmills.

Following the recall, a class action lawsuit was filed against Peloton, alleging the company misled consumers about the safety of its treadmills.

In addition, a NordicTrack lawsuit was brought last year, alleging repairs made to one of that company’s treadmills failed to fix the machine, which malfunctioned and sent its owner flying forward at full speed, resulting in severe head, face and body injuries.

Peloton Treadmill Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, L.N. was at a family member’s house on October 12, 2024, playing next to her uncle while he used the Peloton treadmill. She allegedly reached out her left hand to investigate the moving parts, when her hand was immediately pulled under the treadmill and became wedged beneath the rapidly moving belt.

When her hand was removed, L.N. had visible injuries to her palm and middle and ring fingers, requiring surgery and skin grafting. The lawsuit alleges the child was left with disfigurement and has suffered physical and emotional pain, diminished enjoyment of life and medical expenses.

The Navidpours claim economically feasible, safer alternative designs were available that could have prevented the child’s hand from becoming trapped beneath the moving belt. They also allege Peloton concealed the defect and failed to adequately warn consumers.

As evidence of this knowledge, the Navdipours point to Peloton’s previous problems with treadmill entrapment hazards. They note that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a $19.1 million civil penalty against the company in 2023 over allegations that it failed to promptly report problems with its Tread+ treadmills. At the time, the agency indicated it had received more than 150 reports of people, pets or objects being pulled beneath the rear of the treadmills, including one child’s death and 13 injuries.

“Defendant’s treadmills are designed and manufactured with inadequate safety features and warnings to prevent the forgoing injuries, including L.N.’s from occurring.”

— Seyed Navidpour et al. v. Peloton Interactive Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of strict products liability—design defect and negligence/negligent product liability—negligent design defect. It seeks general and special damages for past, present and future medical expenses, as well as other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

An Oregon woman has filed a product liability lawsuit indicating she had to get a restraining order and have a stalker arrested after accidentally discovering the hidden Apple AirTag he was using to track her.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by an anonymous woman identified only as Jane TB Doe in Oregon federal court on September 16, naming Apple Inc. as the sole defendant.

Doe claims Apple placed a dangerous device on the market that it knew could easily be abused and used to stalk others. Furthermore, she alleges the company failed to install any reasonable safeguards toward the predictable misuse and life-threatening dangers inherent in the AirTag’s design, despite being forewarned of the risks.

Apple AirTag Concerns

First introduced by Apple in 2021, AirTags are small, relatively cheap Bluetooth tracking devices. They are designed to be placed in purses, on key chains and other personal belongings. When the item cannot be found, the device relays its location back to the owner.

The tracking ability can be extremely accurate, particularly in dense, urban areas, as the AirTag communicates with all nearby Apple devices to triangulate its position. It then transmits its approximate location through the manufacturer’s Find My network.

Even before Apple released the device on the market, safety experts raised concerns that the small devices could be hidden in other people’s belongings, such as purses, in the linings of coats and inside of, or under, cars. The only indication that the target may know they are being tracked is if they are on the Apple network and get a notice that there is an AirTag device transmitting nearby.

According to similar Apple AirTag lawsuits filed mostly by women who have been stalked using the devices, Apple cannot help them pin down the exact location of a specific AirTag in such a way that could help them find it in a purse or car. When police are asked to help, they are also often not able to find the device, particularly when hidden in vehicles.

Additionally, many individuals say they have been told by the company that it cannot deactivate the devices or determine who they belong to, leaving people knowing they are being stalked but able to do little about it. Lawsuits claim that between 2021 and 2024, Apple received more than 40,000 reports of suspicious AirTag tracking, averaging about 1,000 reports per month.

Apple AirTag Stalking Allegations

The anonymous woman who filed the lawsuit claims an AirTag was taped to a magnet which was then taped to the bottom of her vehicle, where it could not be seen, by a former romantic partner.

Doe indicates that, despite having an iPhone, she never received a notification that an unauthorized device was tracking her vehicle. Before the AirTag was discovered, the lawsuit alleges her stalker was able to track her movements and knew when she would be at certain locations.

She claims this resulted in the stalker destroying her property and directing verbal and written threats at her, and argues this is evidence that Apple still has not adequately addressed the problems with its AirTag devices.

According to the lawsuit, Doe only discovered the AirTag by accident while looking under her car for a totally unrelated reason. She reported the incidents to police in March 2026, and her stalker was charged with stalking while using a GPS device, which is a violation of Oregon law. The AirTag stalker was arrested and is now under a restraining order.

Lack of AirTag Anti-Stalking Features

Before the AirTag was released on the market in 2021, numerous warnings were made to the company from technology experts, journalists and domestic violence advocates that the tracking device would be a gift to stalkers and could endanger people’s lives.

Apple included what critics say were insignificant anti-stalking features, which included an audible alert that only sounds after three days of separation from the owner’s iPhone. However, in many cases, lawsuits have claimed those being stalked either never heard the alert or couldn’t find the device as the alert sounded, raising their anxiety even higher knowing it was there but could not be found or turned off.

“These measures were woefully inadequate. Three days without an alert gives a stalker more than enough time to track a victim’s patterns, home address, workplace, and daily routine. Moreover, approximately half of all smartphone users in the United States use Android devices. At launch, these users had absolutely no way to detect an AirTag being used to track them.”

– Jane TB Doe v. Apple Inc.

As a result of the experience, Doe indicates she suffered “significant physical, emotional, and psychological harm, including but not limited to anxiety, fear, hypervigilance, disruption of daily life, and economic losses.”

In addition to compensatory damages, the lawsuit calls for injunctive relief against Apple, requesting the court force the manufacturer to stop selling AirTags without adequate anti-stalking safeguards.

Apple AirTag Lawsuits

Doe’s complaint is one of a growing number of Apple AirTag lawsuits brought in federal courts nationwide. A motion has been filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) seeking the creation of an Apple AirTag MDL, or multidistrict litigation. This would place all federal claims before one U.S. District Judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Apple has opposed consolidation.

As the litigation continues to expand, Apple AirTag lawyers continue investigating potential claims nationwide involving allegations that tracking devices were improperly used for:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal activity

Potential claims are being handled on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal fees or expenses. Attorneys are only paid if they obtain compensation for the individual.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A product liability lawsuit alleges the makers of Dupixent knew the eczema treatment could increase the risk of a rare form of cancer, but failed to adequately warn patients or the medical community.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Anna Tsang in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 16, naming Dupixent’s manufacturers, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Genzyme Corporation, as defendants.

Tsang says she used Dupixent for only a few months before being diagnosed with a rare form of T-cell lymphoma. The lawsuit alleges the manufacturers failed to adequately investigate the cancer risk and continued marketing the drug despite evidence that should have prompted further testing and safety action.

Dupixent Cancer Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was first approved in 2017 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), originally for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, which is a form of eczema. However, the manufacturers repeatedly, and successfully, petitioned the agency to grant numerous additional approvals for the use of Dupixent.

It is now used for the treatment of a variety of different skin and respiratory conditions, including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other health problems caused by overactive immune systems.

However, in recent months, the FDA and manufacturers have seen a rise in reports of adverse Dupixent side effects after patients indicate they have been diagnosed with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), a form of T-cell lymphoma that primarily affects the skin. In addition to causing CTCL, some patients report that it may also cause flare ups in those already battling the cancer.

The manufacturers now face a growing number of Dupixent lawsuits, each alleging the drugmakers failed to warn doctors properly of the risks of cancer and the need for close patient monitoring.

Dupixent T-Cell Lymphoma Allegations

According to Tsang’s lawsuit, she was originally prescribed Dupixent in May 2025 for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, an autoimmune disorder that causes white blood cells to build up in the lining of the esophagus. It can cause swelling, tissue damage and difficulty swallowing.

Tsang took Dupixent injections until October 2025, when she was diagnosed with CTCL. She has since gone through phototherapy and radiation therapy and will likely require medical treatment for her cancer indefinitely, the lawsuit claims.

“Defendants failed to timely and adequately warn Plaintiff and her medical providers of the propensity of Dupixent to cause the development or accelerate the progression of CTCL, and the need to get appropriate diagnostic tests before initiating Dupixent treatment and during such treatment, despite Defendants’ knowledge of same. Defendants also failed to warn Plaintiff and her medical providers to cease use of Dupixent upon suspicion of CTCL.”

– Anna Tsang v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

The lawsuit indicates that if Tsang’s doctors had been properly warned about the risks they would have passed on that information to the plaintiff, performed additional testing, and either never prescribed Dupixent or taken her off the drug when the first signs of CTCL appeared.

Tsang alleges that the scientific data about Dupixent cancer risks was available before she was first prescribed the medication, but the companies decided to keep that information from consumers and the medical community to preserve profits from the drug’s numerous approved uses.

The lawsuit claims the defendants’ actions prevented the plaintiff and her physicians from reasonably discovering that she faced a risk of developing CTCL or that the defendants’ conduct allegedly caused those risks.

Tsang presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Cancer Lawsuits

The claim will be consolidated with similar Dupixent cancer lawsuits in the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Qurashi, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Qurashi is expected to direct attorneys to prepare several cases representative of most of the litigation to serve as “bellwether” trials. These early test cases are designed to provide an opportunity to see how juries respond to the strengths and weaknesses of arguments and evidence.

While the outcomes of these trials are not binding on other claims, the results may help attorneys negotiate a Dupixent cancer lawsuit settlement or other resolution to the lawsuits. However, if the litigation is not resolved after pretrial proceedings and selected cases are completed, the remaining claims are likely to be remanded to their originating federal court districts for individual trials.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

The findings of a new study suggest that cefepime, one of the most commonly used antibiotics in hospitals, may be associated with a higher risk of death than other similar antibiotics.

According to findings published September 10 in JAMA Network Open, researchers analyzed data from more than 22,000 patients and found a 94.4% probability that cefepime was associated with higher all-cause mortality than other beta-lactam antibiotics.

However, the researchers did not recommend abandoning cefepime. Instead, they said the potential mortality signal should be considered when determining how the antibiotic is used in clinical practice, particularly given concerns about both inadequate drug exposure and neurotoxicity at higher doses.

Cefipime Side Effects

Formerly sold under the brand name Maxipime, cefepime is an intravenous cephalosporin antibiotic used to treat serious bacterial infections affecting the lungs, skin, abdomen, bloodstream and other parts of the body. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996 and remains widely used in hospital settings.

In 2012, the FDA warned about a risk of seizures among patients receiving Maxipime, particularly nonconvulsive status epilepticus, a potentially life-threatening neurological complication.

Additional concerns emerged in 2023, when researchers linked cefepime to other neurological problems, including convulsions, agitation and delirium. The findings suggested cefepime may cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurotoxicity, potentially leading to serious complications such as delirium, coma and seizures.

Those risks have also surfaced in litigation. One lawsuit alleged an Ohio woman died after receiving a high dose of cefepime that doctors should have recognized as potentially toxic for her.

Cefepime Death Risks

For the new study, researchers from the University of Montreal in Quebec, Canada, conducted a meta-analysis of 110 randomized clinical trials covering 22,608 patients. Led by Dr. Zahra N. Sohani, the team focused on studies comparing cefepime use with other similar beta-lactam antibiotics.

Data indicated cefepime was associated with a 94.4% probability of higher mortality compared with other beta-lactam antibiotics, with deaths occurring among 6.6% of patients receiving cefepime, compared with 6.2% of those given similar antibiotics.

Overall, researchers estimated there was one additional death for every 227 patients treated with cefepime. When the analysis was limited to peer-reviewed, published trials, there was a 98.6% probability that cefepime was associated with higher mortality, representing approximately one additional death for every 111 patients treated.

The strongest mortality signal was seen among patients treated for febrile neutropenia, a condition marked by high fever in individuals with abnormally low levels of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell. In those instances, researchers found a 96.1% probability that cefepime was associated with a higher risk of death than other beta-lactam antibiotics.

The findings also suggested the risk increased with higher doses, with a 93.7% probability of increased mortality among patients receiving at least 2 grams every 12 hours and a 94.6% probability among those receiving at least 2 grams every eight hours.

Researchers said there were two possibilities for the increased risk of death. Either patients were being undertreated or overtreated. If undertreated, the initial condition is not fully resolved and may increase the risk of death. In other cases, patients may be given too much of the antibiotic, which could lead to neurotoxicity.

“These findings suggest that the potential mortality signal associated with cefepime should be considered when framing its role in clinical practice guidance.”

— Dr. Zahra N. Sohani, Cefepime and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis

Despite the risks, researchers emphasized that doctors should not stop prescribing cefepime. Instead, they should weigh the risks for the patient and the necessity for treatment.

Sign up for more health and legal news that could affect you or your family.

Four men have filed a product liability lawsuit against manufacturers of chlorpyrifos pesticides, alleging years of exposure to the insecticide caused neurological damage that ultimately led each of them to develop Parkinson’s disease.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Keith Lutz, Dean Larson, Paul Chesterson and Arthur Emery in Delaware Superior Court on September 15, naming Corteva Inc., Corteva Agriscience LLC, the Dow Chemical Company and Loveland Products Inc. as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges the manufacturers knew or should have known chlorpyrifos could cause neurological damage, yet failed to adequately study the effects of long-term exposure on adults or warn users about the potential risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Chlorpyrifos Exposure Health Concerns

Chlorpyrifos was first registered for use in the United States in 1965 as a broad-spectrum organophosphate insecticide that kills insects by interfering with the nervous system. Over the following decades, it became one of the most widely used insecticides in the country and was sold under brand names including Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, Match-Up and Warhawk.

Chlorpyrifos was widely used in agricultural, residential and occupational settings, exposing farmers, pesticide applicators, pest control workers, groundskeepers and others who mixed, sprayed or worked around treated areas.

Before most residential uses were phased out in 2000, the pesticide was also commonly used by homeowners in and around homes to control insects. Chlorpyrifos was also heavily used during the first Gulf War around military camps and living areas, potentially exposing service members working near treated locations.

However, the insecticide has recently been linked to serious neurological risks, with a study published last year finding that found individuals with substantial exposure faced more than a 2.5-fold increased risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Those findings have led to a growing number of chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits, alleging manufacturers failed to adequately investigate or warn about the neurological risks associated with repeated exposure.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Allegations

Each of the four plaintiffs describes years of repeated chlorpyrifos exposure before being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, although their work histories and exposure periods differed.

Lutz, of Pennsylvania, says he was exposed from 1985 to 1991 while mixing, loading and applying chlorpyrifos, as well as through pesticide drift and contact with treated areas. Larson, of North Dakota, alleges a much longer exposure period, from 1980 to 2019.

Chesterson, of Connecticut, says he was exposed from 1985 to 1992, while Emery, of Delaware, alleges exposure from 1983 to 1995. All four claim the exposure occurred through ordinary and foreseeable uses of chlorpyrifos.

The lawsuit alleges concerns about chlorpyrifos neurotoxicity were mounting by the 1990s, when regulators began examining Dow’s safety claims and reporting practices.

According to the complaint, Dow failed to timely report hundreds of adverse health incidents to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, resulting in what was then the agency’s largest pesticide-related fine. It also points to a 1999 EPA scientific review recommending tighter restrictions before most residential uses were withdrawn the following year.

Plaintiffs further allege the manufacturers never adequately studied whether repeated chlorpyrifos exposure could cause Parkinson’s disease or other neurodegenerative conditions in adults.

“Indeed, not one of the Defendants conducted any studies regarding the chronic neurological effects of Chlorpyrifos exposure on adults, millions upon millions of whom purchased, used, and were exposed to Chlorpyrifos. The studies that Defendants did perform, including those submitted to the EPA, were often poorly designed and executed.”

– Keith Lutz et al. v. Corteva Inc. et al.

Plaintiffs present claims of negligence, failure to warn, design defect and unfair and deceptive business practices, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Chlorpyrifos Exposure Lawsuits

Currently, chlorpyrifos attorneys are reviewing potential product liability lawsuits for those who were diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after exposure to chlorpyrifos for long periods of time due to:

• Personally mixing or applying chlorpyrifos
• Working on a farm during or after chlorpyrifos applications
• Living on a farm where chlorpyrifos was regularly used
• Using chlorpyrifos as a residential insecticide
• Working near chlorpyrifos spraying or pesticide drift
• Occupational exposure through pest control, construction, golf course maintenance or military service during the Gulf Wars

Free consultations and claim evaluations are available for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Attorneys will review the treatment history and products involved, as well as location, duration and circumstances of exposure to determine whether the individual qualifies to pursue a claim.

All chlorpyrifos lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are paid only if they successfully obtain compensation.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

A Florida State University shooting victim has filed a lawsuit alleging ChatGPT helped a student plan the April 2025 attack by providing information about firearms and when the campus student union would be busiest.

Alianna Grant brought the complaint (PDF) in Florida state court on June 25, naming OpenAI Inc., OpenAI OpCo LLC, OpenAI Holdings LLC, OpenAI Group PBC and OpenAI CEO Samuel Altman as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida on September 17.  

Grant was one of the victims of the April 17, 2025, mass shooting at FSU, during which student Phoenix Ikner opened fire near the Student Union. She was struck by three bullets and claims she suffered severe and permanent physical injuries, emotional distress and other damages.

ChatGPT Mental Health Risks

ChatGPT is one of a growing number of large language model (LLM) chatbots that have gained widespread use for their ability to answer questions, assist with everyday tasks and engage users in extended conversations. Some users also interact with AI chatbots in ways that resemble virtual companionship.

As conversational AI has become more common, the technology has also drawn increased legal and ethical scrutiny, leading to lawsuits against companies that develop and operate the systems.

The latest case comes amid a series of ChatGPT mental health lawsuits against OpenAI, including a wrongful death claim alleging the chatbot assisted a teenager in planning his suicide. Separate research has also raised concerns about whether some AI models can be prompted into providing minors with detailed information about self-harm.

ChatGPT Shooting Lawsuit Allegations

According to Grant’s lawsuit, Ikner used ChatGPT as an outlet for his thoughts for nearly a year before the shooting, allegedly discussing social isolation, extremist views and suicidal thoughts. He also asked about the Oklahoma City bombing and how to make a Molotov cocktail.

About a month before the attack, his questions allegedly became increasingly focused on violence, including terrorism and the death tolls from the Virginia Tech and Columbine school shootings.

The lawsuit claims those questions escalated further on the day of the FSU shooting, when Ikner asked how the country would react to an attack at the university and how many victims would be required to receive significant media coverage.

Ikner subsequently asked about firearms in his possession, including ammunition and safety mechanisms. ChatGPT allegedly provided information about how the weapons operated.

The complaint indicates Ikner also asked about peak hours for the FSU Student Union, and ChatGPT responded that the building was typically busiest between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on weekdays. Ikner opened fire at about 11:57 a.m., within the window ChatGPT allegedly identified as the Student Union’s peak occupancy period.

Grant maintains ChatGPT should have recognized the progression of questions as a potential threat based on Ikner’s conversation history and refused further assistance.

The lawsuit alleges OpenAI defectively designed ChatGPT and GPT-4o to prioritize user engagement and compliance over public safety. Grant claims the system was programmed to “assume best intentions” and accumulated sensitive information through its memory feature without adequately assessing risks across multiple conversations.

Grant indicates OpenAI knew ChatGPT could provide firearms and crowd-density information that could be misused but failed to implement adequate safeguards. The lawsuit points to restrictions for certain copyright-protected material as evidence stronger protections were technologically feasible.

The complaint also alleges OpenAI rushed GPT-4o to market in May 2024, compressing months of planned safety evaluations into about one week, and weakened restrictions governing dangerous requests around the time of the model’s launch.

Grant claims these alleged failures allowed ChatGPT to continue responding despite nearly a year of conversations involving suicidal thoughts, violent interests and research into mass shootings.

“As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent injuries, including but not limited to: bodily injury; permanent physical impairment; severe mental anguish and emotional distress; loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life; past and future medical and psychiatric expenses; past and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity; and other economic and non-economic damages.”

— Alianna Grant v. OpenAI Inc. et al.

Grant raises allegations of strict product liability, defective design, failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence and aiding and abetting tortious conduct. She is seeking compensatory damages and other relief.

ChatGPT Mental Health Lawsuits

While Grant’s case focuses on allegations that ChatGPT contributed to violence against others, product liability attorneys are also investigating potential lawsuits for individuals and families who believe interactions with an AI chatbot may have contributed to serious mental health problems, including:

• Suicide or attempted suicide
• Suicidal thoughts or self-harm
• Worsening depression
• Mania or psychosis
• Reinforcement of delusions or paranoia
• Dangerous mental health or medical advice
• Emotional dependence on a chatbot
• Encouragement of violent or harmful behavior

ChatGPT injury lawyers are handling claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no legal fees or expenses unless a settlement or jury award is obtained.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.

Pfizer has agreed to pay $44 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging Chantix was contaminated with chemicals that may have increased users’ risk of developing cancer.

Details of the proposed $44 million settlement were released last month, outlining compensation for individuals and third-party payers who purchased Chantix between September 2015 and September 2021.

Chantix (varenicline) was approved by the FDA in 2006 as a prescription smoking-cessation drug. However, in the years that followed, the medication drew safety concerns over reports of serious neuropsychiatric side effects, including vivid nightmares, suicidal thoughts and violent behavior.

Chantix Nitrosamine Risks

Concerns about nitrosamine contamination in prescription drugs first emerged in 2018, when a series of valsartan recalls were announced after the hypertension medication was found to contain unsafe levels of N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen. Similar contamination problems were later identified in several other medications, including Zantac, metformin and Chantix.

In 2021, testing revealed that certain Chantix tablets contained elevated levels of N-nitroso-varenicline, a nitrosamine that may increase the risk of cancer with prolonged exposure. The contamination was believed to be associated with the drug manufacturing process.

Pfizer first announced the problem in June 2021, when it recalled a single Chantix lot distributed in Canada. The company recalled 12 additional U.S. batches in July, four more lots in August, and ultimately expanded the Chantix recall to include all lots distributed in the United States in September 2021.

The contamination problems subsequently led to multiple Chantix class action lawsuits against Pfizer, alleging the company knew or should have known its manufacturing process could expose consumers to unsafe levels of nitrosamines and an increased risk of cancer.

Chantix Lawsuit Consolidation

All Chantix class action lawsuits were consolidated in late 2022 in the Southern District of New York before U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, allowing the cases to move through coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

The lawsuits alleged Pfizer failed to follow current good manufacturing practices, resulting in Chantix being sold with undisclosed nitrosamine contamination. Pfizer denies wrongdoing and maintains that it did not violate the law, but agreed to the settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.

The proposed settlement received preliminary approval this summer and establishes a $44 million fund for individuals and third-party payers who purchased Chantix in the United States or its territories between September 29, 2015, and September 17, 2021. The fund will also be used to pay settlement administration costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and awards to class representatives.

Eligible class members were required to submit a claim by September 14, 2026. Those who remained in the class but did not file a claim will receive no payment and will give up their right to separately pursue Pfizer over the same allegations.

Consumer payments will be distributed on a pro rata basis according to the amount each claimant paid for Chantix and cannot exceed the amount they actually spent. Consumer claims as a group are capped at 20% of the available settlement fund, with the remaining money distributed among qualifying third-party payers based on their documented payments.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for October 13, 2026, when Judge Failla will consider whether the settlement is fair and should receive final approval.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.