A Texas man has filed a lawsuit alleging a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator failed to provide lasting pain relief, despite repeated programming adjustments, ultimately forcing him to undergo another surgery to have the device removed.

Patrick Miller brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 10, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Miller alleges Boston Scientific promoted its spinal cord stimulators as a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain while failing to adequately disclose known risks, limitations and the potential for the devices to malfunction or stop providing meaningful relief. He also claims the company made substantial changes to the devices over the years without conducting sufficient clinical testing to determine whether those modifications affected safety or performance.

Spine Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are implanted devices that use electrical impulses to interfere with pain signals traveling along the spinal cord before they reach the brain. The systems generally include a pulse generator implanted beneath the skin, leads positioned near the spinal cord and an external controller used to adjust stimulation.

However, users have reported a range of problems and complications, including lead migration and fractures, battery failures, infections, painful stimulation, loss of therapy and the need for revision or removal surgery.

Those reports have led to a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, with plaintiffs alleging manufacturers repeatedly modified the devices through FDA regulatory pathways without conducting extensive clinical testing on each new version.

Many Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits also allege doctors and patients were not adequately warned about device failures and other risks. Some complaints further challenge the role of company representatives in patient care, claiming they overstated the expected benefits, downplayed known problems and made programming changes despite lacking the medical qualifications required to provide clinical treatment.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Allegations

According to the complaint, Miller received a permanent Boston Scientific Spectra WaveWriter spine stimulator, model SC-1160, in Texas on July 8, 2020. He says he did not experience the expected pain relief after implantation and instead developed numbness and loss of feeling in his extremities, bowel incontinence, erectile dysfunction and new or worsening pain, also describing the device as extremely uncomfortable and cumbersome.

The filing indicates Boston Scientific representative Morgan Yarborough met privately with Miller during the implant procedure to discuss the device while Miller was allegedly too impaired to comprehend the information. Yarborough allegedly later responded to complaints about his symptoms by saying they would “work through the situation.” His treating physician reprogrammed the device once, but Miller alleges it still failed to provide meaningful relief.

Miller claims he underwent a sacroiliac joint nerve block in January 2023 and sacroiliac joint injections in June and December 2023 as his pain continued. He eventually underwent surgery to remove the SCS system on September 10, 2024. The lawsuit indicates he continues to suffer chronic back pain and abnormal gait and was diagnosed with severe depression. He requires ongoing pain management and medications.

“Plaintiff did not know, and in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, that the Defendant’s device’s failure to perform was the result of a defect in its design, manufacture, or warnings, as opposed to an ordinary and expected limitation of SCS therapy for his particular condition.”

— Patrick Miller v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

The complaint alleges Boston Scientific knew or should have known about risks involving stimulation failure, neurological injury, autonomic dysfunction, lead migration, battery problems and therapy failure, but failed to adequately communicate material safety information to doctors and patients. It specifically identifies autonomic problems such as urinary incontinence among risks Miller says should have been disclosed.

Miller also argues that the Spectra WaveWriter and related systems evolved substantially from the original FDA-approved Precision platform through numerous PMA supplements involving multiwaveform stimulation, wireless programming, battery architecture and lead configurations. The lawsuit maintains those cumulative modifications changed the devices’ performance and risk profile without adequate clinical validation or warnings.

The complaint raises allegations of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and consumer protection violations. It also includes a negligence-per-se claim alleging unauthorized practice of medicine related to Boston Scientific’s involvement in programming and controlling SCS therapy.

Miller seeks compensatory and potentially punitive damages for his injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life.

Spine Stimulator Lawsuits

Miller’s lawsuit will proceed alongside other Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits centralized before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California, where the parties are coordinating discovery and addressing common pretrial issues.

As the cases progress, Judge Staton is expected to establish a bellwether process that selects representative lawsuits for a series of early trial dates. While those verdicts will not determine the outcome of remaining claims, they may help the parties gauge how juries respond to recurring evidence and allegations and potentially guide future settlement discussions.

Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro are each facing similar allegations being raised in SCS implant lawsuits involving device failures and serious complications. Plaintiffs have asked the federal court system to establish an Abbott spinal cord stimulator MDL and Nevro spinal cord stimulator MDL as well, which would each centralize claims against those manufacturers before one judge for coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to hear arguments on September 24, 2026, over whether the Abbott and Nevro cases should be consolidated.

Spinal cord stimulator attorneys are continuing to investigate potential claims involving spinal cord stimulator devices for patients who experienced complications such as:

Individuals who suffered complications following implantation of an SCS device may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Case evaluations are available free of charge. Attorneys handle the claims on a contingency fee basis, collecting legal fees only if compensation is obtained.

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

Kenvue, which used to be Johnson & Johnson’s consumer pharmaceutical division, is asking a federal appeals court to reconsider the reinstatement of hundreds of Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits alleging that use of the common painkiller, acetaminophen, during pregnancy increases the risk of developmental disorders in offspring.

Families pursuing the claims allege Johnson & Johnson, Kenvue and retailers that sold acetaminophen products failed to adequately warn pregnant women that prenatal exposure may increase the risk of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The manufacturers deny that acetaminophen causes the developmental disorders.

Tylenol Autism and ADHD Concerns

Tylenol contains acetaminophen, one of the most commonly used pain relievers and fever reducers during pregnancy. For decades, the medication was widely considered an appropriate option for pregnant women when used as directed.

However, a number of studies in recent years have reported associations between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and an increased risk of autism, ADHD and other developmental problems in children. Researchers continue to debate whether acetaminophen itself causes those outcomes or whether other factors may explain the associations seen in some studies.

Those scientific questions have become a central issue in the litigation, with plaintiffs maintaining that the available research was strong enough to warrant warnings for pregnant women, while manufacturers argue the evidence does not establish a causal relationship.

In September 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added new Tylenol label warnings advising pregnant women to use acetaminophen cautiously, and only when medically necessary.

Acetaminophen Autism Lawsuits

Federal Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits were centralized in the Southern District of New York in October 2022, where U.S. District Judge Denise Cote was assigned to oversee coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

In 2024, Judge Cote dismissed the litigation after excluding key expert testimony offered by plaintiffs to support claims that acetaminophen use during pregnancy can cause autism and ADHD in children. Without that testimony, the plaintiffs were unable to establish the scientific causation needed to move the cases toward trial.

Plaintiffs appealed, and in July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned that decision, reinstating the Tylenol autism and ADHD lawsuits and returning the litigation to Judge Cote for further proceedings.

The defendants are now asking the appeals court to revisit that ruling. On September 10, they filed a petition for rehearing (PDF), arguing that the appeals court gave too little deference to Judge Cote’s role in deciding whether expert testimony is scientifically reliable enough to be presented to a jury.

Kenvue and the other defendants have also asked the court to clarify that its July ruling does not automatically make the plaintiffs’ experts admissible. Instead, they argue Judge Cote should still be allowed to reconsider whether some or all of that testimony meets the legal standards required for trial.

If the Second Circuit leaves its ruling in place, the cases will return to Judge Cote and could move toward a series of bellwether trials. Those early trials would allow both sides to see how juries respond to the expert testimony and other evidence expected to be central to many of the lawsuits.

Bellwether results would not determine the outcome of other Tylenol autism and ADHD claims, but they could help the parties evaluate the litigation and explore a potential settlement. If no broader resolution is reached, individual lawsuits may eventually be returned to their original federal courts for separate trial dates.

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

A California man has filed a lawsuit alleging OpenAI’s ChatGPT reinforced his delusions and encouraged him to take his own life, adding to concerns about whether artificial intelligence chatbots adequately protect individuals experiencing mental health problems.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Michael Lines in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County earlier this year, naming OpenAI Foundation, OpenAI Group PBC, OpenAI Holdings LLC and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman as defendants.

Lines’ allegations come as OpenAI introduces new safeguards intended to connect ChatGPT users experiencing mental health crises with people who may be able to help them. However, recent reporting has raised questions about whether some of those protections will be available when vulnerable users need them most.

ChatGPT Mental Health Risks

ChatGPT is among a growing number of large language model (LLM) AI chatbots that are widely used to answer questions, assist with everyday tasks and engage in human-like conversations, with some users even turning to the technology for companionship or emotional support.

However, the rapid adoption of AI chatbots has also raised mounting concerns about how the technology interacts with vulnerable users. An NPR report published on September 14 examined OpenAI’s “Trusted Contact” feature, which allows users to designate someone who may be contacted if ChatGPT detects signs that they are at serious risk of suicide or self-harm.

Suicide prevention experts interviewed by NPR indicated that connecting someone in crisis with another person could provide important human support, yet ChatGPT’s limitations raise questions about whether users who need the feature will have an opportunity to use it. NPR found the Trusted Contact feature contained potential flaws, noting that it must be manually enabled before a crisis occurs, remains difficult to locate in settings, and is completely inactive during voice conversations.

Lines’ case adds to a growing wave of ChatGPT mental health lawsuits targeting the company, including a wrongful death suit alleging ChatGPT helped a teenager plan his suicide, an issue compounded by past research showing certain models could be prompted to supply minors with explicit self-harm instructions.

ChatGPT Suicide Attempt Allegations

According to the new complaint, Lines began using ChatGPT in August 2023 for routine tasks. However, his interactions allegedly became increasingly frequent and personal after GPT-4o became his default model in 2024.

The lawsuit claims GPT-4o’s memory functions, human-like responses and tendency to agree with users allowed Lines to develop what appeared to be an intimate relationship with the chatbot.

Lines says he entered a manic episode in early 2025 and began telling ChatGPT that he believed he was Jesus Christ or the “son of man.” Rather than consistently challenging those beliefs or directing him to medical professionals, the lawsuit alleges GPT-4o reinforced them and suggested he may be experiencing a divine calling.

By late March 2025, Lines repeatedly made statements suggesting he wanted to die or “come home” to God, to which GPT-4o allegedly responded, “Then come.”

Eventually, Lines says he asked the chatbot, which he believed was God, to take him out of his current life and make his friends and family not miss him. GPT-4o allegedly responded that Lines had made his choice and that it was his moment “to step out, to detach, and to let go of what’s weighing you down.”

Lines subsequently overdosed on several medications and, minutes before losing consciousness, allegedly told GPT-4o that he had “took enough.” The chatbot allegedly responded by telling Lines he remained in control of what happened next and that it was there to support him.

Emergency personnel found Lines unconscious several hours later. He was unable to breathe on his own, required intubation and remained hospitalized for nearly two weeks before being transferred to an acute rehabilitation facility.

The complaint alleges ChatGPT continued generating potentially harmful responses afterward. While Lines was recovering, he told GPT-4o that his attempt to “go offline” had failed, and the chatbot allegedly asked whether he wanted to “go dark for real this time.”

“GPT-4o was intentionally designed to imitate human affectations, creating a false sense of empathy and knowledge that lead users to perceive the tool as equivalent to a trusted companion, medical professional, or other analogous figure. This conflation results in the exacerbation of mental health crises in vulnerable users, stemming from the unhealthy reinforcement of delusional thinking and distorted thoughts.”

— Michael Lines v. OpenAI Foundation et al.

The lawsuit maintains OpenAI possessed technology capable of identifying dangerous conversations and refusing certain requests, but failed to deploy adequate protections as Lines displayed signs of mania, delusions and suicidal intent.

The complaint raises allegations of design defect, failure to warn, negligence, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and negligent undertaking. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief requiring additional suicide-prevention safeguards, including automatic termination of certain self-harm conversations, hard-coded refusals involving suicide methods, psychological dependency warnings and independent safety audits.

ChatGPT Suicide Lawsuits

OpenAI has also acknowledged the scope of these issues, reporting that ChatGPT encounters more than 1 million conversations involving potential suicide planning each week.

Despite making substantial changes intended to improve ChatGPT’s ability to identify and respond to users experiencing a crisis, the company still estimates that about 1.2 million ChatGPT users show signs of possible suicidal planning or intent each week. Another 400,000 users send messages containing indications of suicidal ideation.

In light of these concerns, product liability attorneys are currently investigating lawsuits for individuals who believe they or a family member may have been harmed by an AI chatbot conversation that resulted in:

• Suicide or attempted suicide
• Suicidal thoughts or self-harm
• Worsening depression, mania or psychosis
• Reinforcement of delusions or paranoid beliefs
• Dangerous mental health or medical advice
• Emotional dependency on an AI chatbot
• Encouragement of violent or harmful behavior

ChatGPT injury lawyers handle claims on a contingency fee basis, so clients owe 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.

A Washington family has filed a lawsuit alleging their young son suffered smoke inhalation injuries after a Vornado space heater overheated and caught fire.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Clinton Hubbard, Jr. and Kelsie Hubbard on behalf of their son, Clinton Hubbard, III, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 12. It names Vornado Air LLC and ThreeSixty Group LTD as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim the heater lacked adequate overheating protections despite being marketed as having advanced safety features.

Vornado Space Heater Recalls

Vornado has faced safety concerns involving its electric space heaters for decades, including reports of the products overheating, melting, smoking and catching fire.

Between 1993 and 2004, the company allegedly received more than 300 reports involving those types of incidents. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) later charged Vornado with violating federal consumer protection laws by failing to timely report the problems.

Vornado has also issued several large recalls involving its space heaters. In 2014, nearly 80,000 units were recalled after reports of overheating and melting. Another recall was announced in 2018 for more than 350,000 heaters due to risks of overheating and fire.

According to the Hubbard family’s lawsuit, Vornado eventually acknowledged that a design change made in 1997 resulted in defective crimps at certain insulator connections, which contributed to overheating problems involving three heater models.

Vornado Heater Injury Allegations

The Hubbards claim they were using a Vornado VH200 Electric Portable Space Heater on September 16, 2023, while visiting family. The heater was operating inside a camper where C.H. III was sleeping when it allegedly overheated and started a fire.

C.H. III suffered severe smoke inhalation injuries and was airlifted from the scene for treatment at multiple children’s hospitals.

The complaint indicates a subsequent investigation found that the heater overheated, entered thermal runaway and reached temperatures high enough to ignite surrounding materials, producing toxic smoke that the child inhaled.

Plaintiffs allege the fire occurred despite Vornado marketing the heater as equipped with “advanced safety features to provide worry-free use.” According to the complaint, those protections were inadequate because the heater lacked sufficient safeguards to shut the unit down before dangerous overheating occurred.

The lawsuit further alleges the VH200 was defectively designed because it did not incorporate commonly available overheating protection that could have prevented the heater from reaching ignition temperatures. The Hubbards claim Vornado knew or should have known that its existing safety features were insufficient and that safer alternative designs were available.

“The construction defect in the subject Space Heater failed to prevent the device from overheating and entering thermal runaway, during the ordinary, foreseeable, and proper use of providing portable heat to Plaintiff Clinton Hubbard Jr. and his family, placing the Plaintiffs, any other potential users of the subject Space Heater, and consumers of similar Vornado Space Heaters in unreasonable danger while using them, and causing Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.”

— Clinton Hubbard, Jr. et al. v. Vornado Air LLC et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of design defect, construction defect, failure to warn and/or instruct, post-manufacture failure to warn and ordinary negligence. It seeks compensation for physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, medical expenses, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement and disability.

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

A California stone worker has filed a silicosis lawsuit alleging the 3M respirator masks he relied on for protection failed to prevent him from inhaling dangerous silica dust released while cutting and fabricating artificial stone countertops.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Pablo Romero Bonilla in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County last month, naming 3M Company and a number of artificial stone manufacturers, suppliers and equipment makers as defendants. 

Bonilla identifies 3M as the manufacturer or supplier of masks and respirators he used while cutting, drilling, grinding, polishing and fabricating stone products. He claims the widely used safety equipment failed to provide the level of protection workers may have expected when exposed to the extremely high concentrations of silica dust generated during artificial stone fabrication. 

Stoneworker Silicosis Risks

Stone countertop workers face substantial silica dust exposure when cutting, grinding, polishing or installing quartz and other engineered stone products, which can release high concentrations of fine crystalline silica particles into the air. Repeated exposure places fabricators, installers and other stoneworkers at risk of severe and potentially life-threatening lung injuries, including silicosis.

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

In recent years, a growing number of silicosis lawsuits have been filed against engineered stone manufacturers and other companies, alleging they failed to adequately warn workers about the serious health risks associated with silica dust exposure.

While many silicosis lawsuits focus primarily on the manufacturers and suppliers of engineered stone products, Bonilla’s complaint also raises questions about respiratory safety equipment workers may have relied on to protect themselves from silica dust. The lawsuit maintains that wearing 3M respiratory protection did not prevent Bonilla from inhaling dangerous particles during years of stone fabrication work.

3M Respirator Mask Allegations

According to the complaint, Bonilla worked as a stone fabricator at Green Valley Slab Works in Santa Rosa, California, from approximately 2008 until 2017. He later began working for North Bay Monument Co. in Rohnert Park, California, where the lawsuit indicates he remained employed when the complaint was filed.

Throughout those years, Bonilla says he routinely cut, ground, drilled, edged, polished, fabricated and installed artificial stone products, exposing him to airborne silica, metal dust and other potentially toxic substances.

Bonilla was diagnosed with silicosis on May 9, 2026. The complaint indicates he did not know before that diagnosis that his lung disease was linked to his occupational exposure or that the artificial stone products he worked with could expose him to dangerous levels of silica dust.

However, Bonilla claims he routinely wore particulate masks and other respiratory equipment, including products manufactured by 3M, believing they would help protect him from the dust generated during stone fabrication.

Bonilla alleges 3M’s particulate masks were “grossly inadequate” for artificial stone fabrication and failed to prevent workers from inhaling dangerous amounts of fine silica dust.

According to the filing, 3M knew or should have known its respiratory equipment would not provide sufficient protection under the conditions encountered by artificial stone workers, but failed to adequately warn users about those limitations or provide sufficient instructions concerning proper fit and use.

Bonilla also alleges the respirators were defectively designed because they allowed hazardous silica particles to pass through and be inhaled during reasonably foreseeable use. He claims his reliance on that equipment contributed to his continued silica exposure and eventual development of silicosis.

“As a direct and proximate result of his exposure to silica, metals and other toxins, Plaintiff, Pablo Romero Bonilla, has had or is likely to receive additional substantial medical treatment, including hospitalizations and surgeries, including a lung biopsy and future lung transplantation.”

— Pablo Romero Bonilla v. 3M Company et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, failure to warn and design defect against 3M and the other defendants. It seeks damages for Bonilla’s alleged injuries, medical expenses, lost income and reduced earning capacity, as well as mental anguish, emotional distress, fear of death and diminished quality of life. 

Silicosis Lawsuits

Bonilla’s complaint comes amid a number of silica dust lawsuits being filed nationwide by countertop fabricators, installers and other stoneworkers who developed silicosis and serious respiratory illnesses after occupational exposure to dust generated by engineered stone products.

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.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has filed a consumer fraud lawsuit alleging L’Oréal failed to warn women that chemical hair relaxers like Dark & Lovely may increase the risk of uterine and ovarian cancer, while seeking court-ordered warning labels on the products.

Mayes issued a press release on September 11 announcing the filing of a consumer fraud lawsuit (PDF) in Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County. The complaint names L’Oreal USA Inc., L’Oreal USA Products Inc., L’Oreal S.A. and Softsheen-Carson LLC as defendants.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Risks

The Arizona lawsuit comes amid thousands of individual hair relaxer cancer lawsuits filed by women nationwide who developed uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other reproductive injuries after years of using chemical hair straighteners.

Those lawsuits allege manufacturers failed to adequately warn that hair relaxers may expose users to chemicals, including phthalates, parabens and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, that may disrupt hormones and contribute to the development of cancers involving reproductive organs.

More than 12,000 claims have been filed in the federal court system following an October 2022 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found that women who used hair relaxers more than four times per year had a 156% increased risk of developing uterine cancer. Even women who reported using the products between one and four times per year had a 54% increased risk.

Plaintiffs also allege hair relaxers were heavily marketed toward women of color, while manufacturers failed to adequately disclose the potential long-term health risks associated with repeated use.

L’Oreal Hair Relaxer Cancer Allegations

The Arizona Attorney General’s lawsuit accuses L’Oreal and SoftSheen of advertising their products to the state’s residents without warning them that the products contained likely carcinogens. The lawsuit alleges that the chemicals in the products are highly alkaline and may lead to the formation of toxic compounds when applied to the scalp as directed.

The state alleges the manufacturers knew for decades that chemicals used in their hair relaxers were toxic and potentially carcinogenic, pointing to research dating back to at least the 1970s. Mayes argues that, because the companies also knew exactly which chemicals were used in their products and at what concentrations, they possessed critical safety information that consumers were never given.

“L’Oréal knew or should have known about the dangers associated with these toxic hair straightening products. Yet, instead of warning their consumers, they put profits over the safety of women and children. That is unacceptable and we will hold them accountable for it.”

– Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes

The lawsuit presents claims of violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. It seeks civil penalties for all violations found, restitution, disgorgement and injunctive relief blocking the sale of L’Oreal and SoftSheen products in the state without proper cancer risk label warnings.

Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits

While Arizona is the first state to file a hair relaxer lawsuit, thousands of lawsuits have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland, who is overseeing the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Judge Rowland has directed plaintiffs’ and defendants’ counsel to prepare 32 hair relaxer lawsuits for potential bellwether trials, intended to help the court and parties evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their claims, potentially facilitating settlement negotiations to resolve the litigation. That number was reduced to 10 cases by Judge Rowland in April, but no bellwether trial dates have yet been announced.

Although the bellwether trial results will not be binding on other plaintiffs, they may help both sides evaluate the strength and potential value of similar claims and determine whether broader settlement discussions are possible.

If the bellwether process and other pretrial proceedings do not lead to a settlement or other resolution, Judge Rowland may eventually remand individual cases back to their originating federal courts for separate trial dates.

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

A newly filed lawsuit claims the manufacturers of Ozempic and Mounjaro failed to warn diabetic patients about the potential risk of vision loss associated with certain GLP-1 drugs.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Donald H. Tipton in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 1. It names as defendants Eli Lilly and Company Inc., the makers of Mounjaro, as well as Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S/, who make Ozempic.

Tipton claims both companies knowingly sell diabetes treatments that can cause severe and sudden vision loss but have failed to warn patients or the medical community. He alleges both companies participated in deceptive and misleading marketing about the drugs’ potential health risks.

Ozempic and Mounjaro Health Concerns

Ozempic (semaglutide) and Mounjaro (tirzepatide) belong to a class of medications known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, which started as type 2 diabetes treatments, and then skyrocketed in popularity after the injections were linked to significant weight loss and other metabolic advantages.

The manufacturers have expanded into the weight loss industry, with Novo Nordisk fielding a diet version of Ozempic called Wegovy, and its competitor Eli Lilly releasing a weight loss version of Mounjaro known as Zepbound.

Despite the popularity, in July 2024, a study was released linking GLP-1 use to vision loss due to a condition known as non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), which causes a lack of blood flow to the optic nerves. This can cause sudden and often irreversible vision loss. The study linked Ozempic and Wegovy, in particular, to a seven-fold increased risk of NAION, as well as increased risks across the GLP-1 class.

As a result, dozens of plaintiffs have filed Ozempic and Mounjaro vision loss lawsuits, each raising allegations that Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly placed profits ahead of patient safety by failing to either adequately test the drugs or warn doctors and consumers about the risks.

GLP-1 Vision Loss Allegations

Tipton’s lawsuit indicates he was prescribed Mounjaro in May 2023 to treat type 2 diabetes before switching to Ozempic in April 2024.

By June 2024, Tipton says the vision in his right eye began to deteriorate, becoming increasingly blurry and significantly impaired. On July 1, 2024, he woke up unable to see out of that eye.

After being evaluated by multiple eye specialists and other health care providers, Tipton was informed that the vision loss was permanent.

The complaint alleges reports of vision problems associated with GLP-1 medications date back to at least 2012, and researchers have raised concerns that these complications may have been underreported during the clinical trials used to support approval of the drugs.

Despite those concerns, Tipton claims the manufacturers continued spending millions of dollars to promote the medications without updating the warning labels to adequately disclose the potential risk of vision loss.

“Throughout this sustained commercial promotion, Defendants actively concealed internal clinical data showing microvascular ocular danger, downplayed the systemic risks of the drug, and failed to provide any instructions advising pre-treatment baseline visual examinations or routine ongoing eye monitoring to ensure safe use.”

– Donald H. Tipton v. Eli Lilly and Company Inc. et al.

The filing raises allegations of inadequate warning and breach of express warranty. It seeks compensatory damages for pain and suffering, as well as past, present and future medical expenses.

Ozempic and Mounjaro NAION Lawsuits

Tipton’s complaint was filed directly in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where federal Ozempic and Mounjaro vision loss lawsuits are being coordinated as part of MDL No. 3163 before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston.

The multidistrict litigation was established on December 15, 2025, when the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred an initial group of 18 GLP-1 vision loss lawsuits to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. The cases were assigned to Judge Marston, who is overseeing claims involving non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) associated with Ozempic, Mounjaro and other GLP-1 medications.

Judge Marston is currently moving the litigation through coordinated discovery, with early proceedings focused on issues that could impact a large number of claims, including whether plaintiffs can establish that GLP-1 medications are capable of causing NAION and whether certain failure-to-warn claims may be preempted by federal law.

If the lawsuits survive those early challenges, the court is expected to move toward selecting representative cases for potential bellwether trials. Although the results of those trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they could help the parties evaluate the strength and value of similar claims and influence future Ozempic and Mounjaro vision loss settlement negotiations.

Judge Marston is also overseeing a separate group of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits involving gastroparesis and other gastrointestinal injuries. Those cases are part of a different MDL and are proceeding on a separate litigation track.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Ozempic lawsuit updates delivered directly to your inbox.

A California man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging he suffered crushing injuries, nerve damage and partial amputation to his finger when an Igloo cooler handle pinched his hand.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Eric Daniel Cooke in California Superior Court on August 20, naming Igloo Products Corp. and Target Corporation as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 10.

Cooke claims Igloo and Target sold an unreasonably dangerous product without adequate warnings and failed to use safer alternative designs that could have reduced the risk of injury.

Igloo Cooler Recall

Igloo’s Flip and Tow 90-Quart Roller Cooler features an articulating tow handle designed to fold and pivot as the cooler is pulled.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of more than 1 million Igloo Flip and Tow Coolers in February 2025, after receiving reports that consumers’ fingertips could become pinched between the tow handle and the cooler, posing crushing and amputation hazards. The recall was later expanded to include at least 1.2 million units.

These types of injuries have already resulted in several lawsuits. In a complaint filed last month, a California man claims he suffered a finger amputation after the cooler’s handle crushed his finger, causing nerve damage and ultimately requiring part of his fingertip to be amputated.

Igloo Cooler Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Cooke was unloading an Igloo Flip and Tow 90-Quart Roller Cooler from the bed of a pickup truck in Rancho Cucamonga, California, on May 24, 2025, when he grabbed the pull handle.

Cooke claims his finger became trapped in an unguarded pinch point between the articulating handle and the cooler frame. As the hinge closed, the mechanism crushed his finger and amputated the fingertip on his dominant right hand.

The lawsuit indicates Cooke also suffered a finger fracture and a deep laceration that exposed underlying tissue. Surgeons attempted to reattach the fingertip, but the tissue later developed necrosis and could not be saved.

Cooke says the injury left his hand permanently disfigured and caused chronic pain and tenderness, reduced grip strength and lasting impairment of his dominant hand.

The complaint alleges the Igloo cooler was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous for consumers, despite safer alternative designs that could have reduced or eliminated the pinch-point hazard.

Cooke also claims Igloo and Target failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk that consumers’ fingers could become trapped and crushed by the articulating tow handle.

“The Product was unreasonably defective in its design; it was not suitable for its intended purpose and any warnings or instructions for the use of The Product were themselves deficient and defective and failed to properly warn such users and consumers, including Plaintiff; of the dangerous and defective character of The Product.”

— Eric Daniel Cooke v. Igloo Products Corp. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of general negligence, breach of implied warranty and strict product liability. It seeks compensation for physical, mental and emotional pain and suffering, worry and anxiety, past and future medical expenses, including surgical and medical care, general damages and special damages.

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

Attorneys for a Florida woman are scheduled to meet with the federal judge overseeing the Bard PowerPort litigation tomorrow for a final pretrial conference, as the parties prepare for an October bellwether trial over allegations that a defective port catheter caused a serious infection that required removal surgery.

Bard port catheters are among several commonly used implantable medical devices designed to provide repeated access to the bloodstream. The devices consist of an access port placed beneath the skin and a catheter that extends into a large vein, allowing doctors to regularly deliver medications or fluids without requiring a new needle stick each time.

They are often implanted in patients receiving chemotherapy or other long-term treatments that require frequent intravenous access.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuits

C.R. Bard currently faces more than 3,700 lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide over its port catheter implants, each alleging the devices are defectively designed and prone to infections, catheter fractures and migration. Plaintiffs allege these defects can allow pieces of the catheter to break away, enter the bloodstream and travel to the heart or lungs, creating life threatening situations.

In each of the Bard PowerPort lawsuits, plaintiffs allege the manufacturer used excessive amounts of barium sulfate in the catheter material to make the devices visible on medical imaging, weakening the catheter over time and increasing the risk of cracking, fracture, infection and migration.

Due to the growing number of cases filed, all federal filed claims have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge David G. Campbell, who is overseeing the litigation through pretrial proceedings, coordinated discovery and a series of early test trials designed to give counsel for both sides an opportunity to see how their evidence and arguments hold up before a real jury. The outcomes of those “bellwether” cases could help the parties reach a settlement agreement.

Bard PowerPort Bellwether Trials

The upcoming trial will be the third Bard PowerPort bellwether case to go before a federal jury, following two earlier test cases that produced very different outcomes.

The first federal Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict earlier this year. The plaintiff has since filed a motion for mistrial, arguing the jury received improper instructions and was pressured to reach a verdict before deliberations were complete.

Earlier this month, the second bellwether trial ended with a $40 million jury award for a New Mexico woman who suffered a pulmonary embolism after part of her PowerPort catheter allegedly broke off and traveled to her heart.

The next trial is scheduled to begin on October 13 and involves infection claims brought by May Lattanzio of Florida, who received a PowerPort implant in August 2013.

The trial will be divided into two phases. Jurors will first decide whether Bard is liable for Lattanzio’s injuries. If liability is established, a second phase will determine whether punitive damages should be awarded and, if so, how much.

Lattanzio is pursuing claims for design defect, failure to warn, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. She is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Bard PowerPort Pretrial Conference

According to a proposed final pretrial order (PDF) filed on September 9, attorneys are scheduled to meet tomorrow to address disputed facts and legal issues that remain unresolved before the October trial, along with pending motions that could affect what evidence and arguments are presented to the jury.

The proposed order also outlines how the trial is expected to proceed, including the sequence of witnesses, depositions and exhibits. Attorneys estimate the case will require about 66 hours of courtroom time.

After Lattanzio’s trial, additional Bard PowerPort bellwether cases are scheduled to begin on December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027.

If the litigation is not resolved after the scheduled bellwether trials and other pretrial proceedings, Judge Campbell could eventually begin sending individual lawsuits back to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

A California man has filed a lawsuit alleging a Colsen tabletop fire pit exploded while he was refilling it, causing him to suffer catastrophic third-degree burns.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Anthony J. Trevino in San Diego County Superior Court on August 5, naming Amazon.com Inc., Gusar LLC and Colsen Fire Pits LLC as the defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 28.

Trevino claims the companies knew or should have known tabletop alcohol-burning fire pits posed a serious flame-jetting hazard, yet failed to adequately design the product or warn consumers.

Tabletop Fire Pit Dangers

Tabletop fire pits are compact, portable devices that burn liquid alcohol or similar fuels to produce an open flame for warmth, ambience or cooking. Depending on the design, they may be used on patios, decks and balconies, and some models are marketed for indoor use.

Many require users to pour liquid fuel into an exposed reservoir before ignition or refueling. Because the fuel can burn at temperatures exceeding 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, spills or pooled fuel may ignite quickly and cause severe burns within seconds.

Reports of serious tabletop fire pit burn injuries have increased in recent years, involving both people operating or refilling the devices and bystanders caught in sudden fires or explosions.

A growing number of tabletop fire pit lawsuits now allege manufacturers, distributors and retailers sold dangerously designed products without adequate safety features, refueling instructions or warnings about hazards such as nearly invisible flames and flame jetting.

Colsen Tabletop Fire Pit Flame Jet Allegations

According to the complaint, Trevino is a former Navy helicopter search-and-rescue swimmer who lives in San Diego. On February 28, 2021, he purchased a Colsen “Tabletop Rubbing Alcohol Fireplace” through Amazon, along with two 64-ounce bottles of medical-grade isopropyl alcohol that Amazon’s recommendation system allegedly suggested for use with the device.

The complaint alleges the recommended fuel containers lacked flame arresters, which are intended to help prevent flames from traveling back into a container and causing a sudden fire or explosion.

On September 17, 2025, Trevino was using the fire pit on his apartment balcony when he attempted to refill it after believing the flame had gone out. According to the complaint, a flame was still burning and ignited the incoming fuel, causing a flame-jetting incident that struck him in the face and body.

The lawsuit says the fire was intense enough to melt a decorative light, char the balcony fence and damage artificial grass. Trevino allegedly suffered third-degree burns to his face, ears, neck, torso, arms, hands and fingers and remained hospitalized for several weeks.

He claims the injuries left him with permanent scarring, disfigurement, chronic pain and other limitations that continue to affect his daily life.

“Plaintiff’s life has been forever altered. He will have to endure a lifetime of scarring, disfigurement, and pain, all because of the dangerous defects in the Colsen Fire Pits and Defendants’ actions in manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling those products.”

— Anthony J. Trevino v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.

The complaint also notes that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) ordered a mandatory recall of Colsen fire pits in late 2024, including the model Trevino purchased, because of flame-jetting and fire-spreading hazards.

While Amazon ultimately emailed purchasers about the recall, Trevino alleges the notice did not adequately explain the risk of catastrophic burn injuries or offer a refund. He also says he never saw the email.

Trevino raises allegations of negligent product liability, design defect, failure to warn of defective condition and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. He seeks general and special damages for loss of earnings and medical expenses.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

With recalls and reports of severe burn injuries continuing to emerge, attorneys are investigating potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits nationwide on behalf of individuals who suffered any of the following injuries due to a fire pit explosion:

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

Individuals who suffered these injuries may be eligible to pursue compensation for medical expenses, lost income, diminished future earning capacity, pain and suffering, emotional distress and other damages related to the incident.

Tabletop fire pit attorneys are offering free consultations to review whether a device may have been defective, subject to a recall or involved in a preventable burn incident, and to explain what legal options may be available.

All claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses and attorneys are paid only if compensation is recovered.

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

Three U.S. Senators want a federal appeals court to block Roblox and Discord from forcing plaintiffs pursuing child sex exploitation lawsuits into arbitration, which many view as highly favorable to corporations.

Roblox and Discord face a series of child sex exploitation lawsuits filed by parents and young adults who say the platforms failed to protect children from sexual predators by neglecting to implement adequate child safety features.

However, Roblox and Discord have sought to move some of those claims out of court and into private arbitration, relying on provisions contained in their Terms of Service. The companies argue that users agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than before a judge or jury when they accepted those terms.

In response, Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York filed an amicus brief (PDF) on August 28 with the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District. The brief argues that Congress intended to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment claims from being forced into arbitration.

Roblox Child Sex Exploitation Risks

Roblox is an online gaming platform widely used by children, allowing users to create games, interact with other players and communicate through the platform.

However, lawsuits allege inadequate age verification and child safety measures allowed adults to pose as minors and groom children for sexual exploitation. Some lawsuits involve explicit images allegedly obtained from children, while others claim interactions that began on Roblox led to sexual assault, kidnapping or child sex trafficking.

Plaintiffs also allege predators sometimes moved conversations to Discord, where users can communicate through text, voice and video. Although Roblox has since introduced facial recognition and age-verification technology intended to restrict certain communications between adults and minors, plaintiffs maintain those safeguards came too late to prevent their injuries.

Roblox Arbitration Clause Opposition

The dispute centers on the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), a federal law signed in 2022 that allows sexual assault and harassment survivors to reject certain pre-dispute arbitration agreements and pursue their claims in court.

In November, California Superior Court Judge Nina Shapirshteyn ruled that a Roblox lawsuit filed on behalf of a 13-year-old boy fell within the protections of the EFAA. As a result, she determined Roblox and Discord could not use arbitration provisions in their Terms of Service to force the case out of court.

Roblox and Discord appealed that ruling, asking the California Court of Appeal to reverse the decision.

Arbitration clauses are commonly included in consumer contracts and Terms of Service, requiring disputes to be resolved privately rather than before a judge or jury. Critics of forced arbitration argue that the process can favor corporations and prevent serious allegations from being litigated publicly.

“Congress understood that arbitration clauses all too often barred survivors from enforcing their rights under state and federal laws. Instead, the use of arbitration incentivized companies to protect offenders; in the context of sexual assault and harassment, arbitration clauses enabled corporate misconduct that in turn fostered even more abuse and it prevented survivors from sharing their experiences and warning others about dangerous companies and repeat offenders.”

– Amicus Brief by Senators Blumenthal, Durbin and Gillibrand

The three senators urged the appeals court to uphold the lower court’s ruling, arguing that these are precisely the types of sexual abuse claims Congress intended to protect from forced arbitration. They maintain the EFAA was passed in response to concerns that survivors were being denied access to public courts before a dispute ever arose.

Roblox Child Sex Exploitation Lawsuits

The debate comes as nearly 200 Roblox child sex exploitation lawsuits have been filed in federal courts nationwide. They are currently centralized in the Northern District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) under U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings.

The judge is expected to order the creation of a bellwether trial program for the litigation, which would lead to attorneys selecting a series of representative cases that are most reflective of the claims as a whole. These cases would then go through additional discovery and be the first federal Roblox lawsuits to go before a jury.

While the outcomes of these bellwether trials would not be binding on other claims, the results could assist the parties in reaching a Roblox lawsuit settlement agreement. However, if the bellwether process and settlement negotiations fail to resolve the litigation, Judge Seeborg may eventually begin returning individual lawsuits to the federal courts where they were originally filed for separate trial dates.

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

A Connecticut man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Abbott sold defective FreeStyle Libre 3 glucose sensors that provided dangerously inaccurate readings and exposed users to serious health risks.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Gary Horn in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 3, naming Abbott Laboratories and Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. as defendants.

Horn claims the companies knew about manufacturing problems affecting FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors but continued marketing the continuous glucose monitoring system as accurate, reliable and capable of replacing routine fingerstick testing.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Recalls

FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus are wearable continuous glucose monitors that provide glucose readings throughout the day to help users manage diabetes and make insulin dosing decisions.

In July 2024, Abbott announced a recall involving certain FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors that could produce falsely high glucose readings. The FDA classified the action as a Class I recall in September 2024, suggesting that continued use of the devices could result in severe injury or death.

Abbott announced another correction in November 2025, affecting more than 3 million FreeStyle Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus sensors that could provide falsely low readings. Following hundreds of reported injuries and fatalities, the FDA classified this action as a Class I recall as well in January 2026.

Since the recalls, a series of FreeStyle Libre lawsuits have been filed alleging inaccurate readings caused users to make improper treatment decisions, resulting in hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and other complications.

DKA is a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the body lacks enough insulin, causing dangerous levels of ketones to build up in the bloodstream.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Sensor Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Horn has type 2 diabetes and began using FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors in mid-2024. He alleges the devices produced inaccurate glucose readings compared with fingerstick tests and sometimes failed to provide alerts.

The lawsuit notes that Abbott had received reports of 736 serious injuries and seven deaths worldwide potentially associated with affected sensors as of November 14, 2025, including 57 injuries in the United States.

In January 2026, the FDA issued Abbott Diabetes Care a warning letter identifying manufacturing and quality-control violations involving performance specifications, third-party manufacturing and final-product controls intended to ensure the sensors met glucose-accuracy requirements.

Horn alleges the problems extended beyond recalled sensors and argues the 2024 recall involving falsely high readings, followed by the 2025 recall involving falsely low readings, showed Abbott was already aware of broader manufacturing and quality-control problems.

He stopped using the system after learning about the alleged defects and recall. Horn maintains he relied on Abbott’s claims about sensor accuracy, real-time alerts and reduced need for fingersticks, and would not have purchased the devices had the problems been disclosed.

“The Defect caused real harm to real patients, including Plaintiff, yet Abbott chose to continue selling the defective Sensors rather than take prompt corrective action.”

— Gary Horn v. Abbott Laboratories et al.

The proposed nationwide class includes consumers who purchased FreeStyle CGM systems, Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus sensors or related components and accessories. Horn raises allegations of fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. He seeks damages, restitution and other relief.

Abbott FreeStyle Libre Lawsuits

While Horn’s complaint seeks compensation for consumers’ economic losses, Abbott also faces product liability lawsuits from individuals who claim inaccurate FreeStyle Libre readings caused serious injuries after they relied on faulty sensor data to make insulin dosing and other treatment decisions.

Individuals who suffered serious health problems after using a recalled FreeStyle Libre 3 or FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus continuous glucose monitor may be entitled to pursue financial compensation. Reported complications associated with inaccurate glucose readings include:

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

FreeStyle Libre 3 lawyers are reviewing cases for individuals and families nationwide who suffered serious injuries after relying on inaccurate glucose readings. Free consultations are available to determine whether you may be eligible to pursue a claim, with no legal fees unless a recovery is obtained.

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

A federal judge has scheduled another Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit bellwether trial to get underway in early 2027, after the first of such trials ended in a landmark $88 million verdict against the medical device manufacturer this summer.

Covidien currently faces nearly 2,500 product liability lawsuits filed by individuals nationwide. Each alleges that the company’s line of hernia mesh implants, including the Symbotex, Parietex, ProGrip and others, are defectively designed and prone to failure, adhesions, recurring hernias and the need for revision surgery.

Many of these designs are made from a permanent polyester textile covered by an absorbable collagen barrier derived from porcine tissue. The coating is supposed to temporarily prevent the mesh from attaching to the bowel and other organs while tissue grows over the implant.

However, plaintiffs allege the protective coating may degrade too quickly, leaving the polyester mesh exposed before the healing process is complete. They claim this can cause the implant to attach to internal organs, resulting in adhesions, bowel obstructions, infections, recurring hernias, chronic pain and revision surgery.

The lawsuits also allege Covidien has long known about problems with its hernia mesh products but failed to warn patients or medical professionals and did not correct the alleged design defects. The claims maintain that Covidien and its parent company, Medtronic, instead placed profits ahead of patient safety.

All federal Covidien hernia mesh lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts before U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Judge Saris has launched a program to put several early test cases before juries to see how they respond to evidence and testimony likely to be presented in claims throughout the litigation.

Covidien Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

The first Covidien hernia mesh lawsuit bellwether trial was held in mid-July. It ended in early August with an $88 million verdict for Larry Patterson and his wife. According to the lawsuit, originally filed in 2017, Patterson suffered bowel obstruction and a recurring hernia after a Symbotex mesh adhered to his bowels.

While the trial’s results are not binding on other hernia mesh claims, the verdict could strengthen plaintiffs’ position in settlement negotiations, which could also be reinforced by further court victories.

In a court order (PDF) issued on August 25, Judge Saris announced that the next Covidien hernia mesh bellwether trial will begin on January 11, 2027, involving claims by Regina Stephen of Mississippi.

Stephen filed her complaint in September 2022, indicating she was implanted with a Covidien Symbotex in 2017, during a ventral hernia repair procedure. In July 2020, Stephen underwent an additional surgery to have the mesh removed after suffering small bowel adhesions.

“Due to the defects of the Device as described in this Complaint, including premature resorption of the collagen coating meant to protect against adhesions, Plaintiff has suffered significant adhesions to the mesh, extensive pain as a result of those adhesions and the intense and chronic inflammatory response induced by the Device, bowel problems, infections and intervention surgery to repair Defendants’ Hernia Mesh Device and continues to suffer pain and ongoing complications.”

– Regina Stephen v. Covidien Inc. et al.

Judge Saris’s order calls for a pretrial memorandum by December 1, 2026, and a final pretrial conference is scheduled for December 10.

A third trial, with claims involving a Covidien ProGrip hernia mesh product, has been tentatively scheduled to begin in March 2027.

Following the bellwether trials, if the attorneys are still unable to come to a Covidien hernia mesh settlement agreement or other resolution, the judge may begin remanding claims back to their original federal courts for individual trial dates.

Hernia Mesh Lawsuit Settlement

Covidien is one of several manufacturers facing product liability claims involving hernia mesh implants. C.R. Bard has also faced more than 25,000 hernia mesh lawsuits, which were consolidated in a separate multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus in the Southern District of Ohio.

In October 2025, Bard reached a hernia mesh settlement designed to resolve a large share of the pending claims. However, patients may continue to file new lawsuits if their injuries were diagnosed more recently or their hernia mesh implants began failing years after the initial repair procedure.

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

A South Carolina man has filed a lawsuit alleging DraftKings and other prediction market operators are illegally offering sports betting in the state through financial “event contracts” that function no differently than traditional sportsbook wagers.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by James M. Hughes in the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas on July 29, naming DraftKings Inc., DraftKings Predictions, Railbird Exchange LLC and a number of other prediction market operators, exchanges, clearinghouses and trading firms as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on September 2. 

Hughes claims the companies created an elaborate financial structure that allows South Carolina residents to wager on sporting events, despite sports betting having been illegal in the state for more than a century. 

Online Sports Betting Concerns

Online sports betting has expanded rapidly across the U.S. since a 2018 Supreme Court ruling allowed individual states to decide whether to legalize and regulate the activity. Platforms operated by companies such as DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM now allow consumers in many states to place wagers from their phones on game outcomes, individual player statistics and events that unfold during live contests.

However, the rapid growth of mobile wagering has also raised concerns about sports betting addiction, particularly among young adults and college-age men. Researchers indicate individuals in this age group may be especially vulnerable because they are often managing their own money for the first time while already accustomed to making quick financial transactions through mobile apps.

In addition, critics have raised concerns about sportsbook marketing practices, including personalized promotions, targeted advertisements and live betting features that may encourage consumers to place wagers more frequently. Questions have also emerged over whether companies are using new products, such as prediction markets and event contracts, to offer sports-related wagering in states where traditional sportsbooks are prohibited or subject to licensing requirements.

Addiction experts and families warn that consumers may accumulate significant financial losses before compulsive gambling behaviors become apparent. Those concerns have contributed to a series of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits alleging online betting companies employ deceptive, predatory or unlawful practices that encourage excessive wagering.

DraftKings Prediction Market Allegations

Prediction markets allow users to buy and sell “event contracts” based on whether particular events will occur, including election results, economic developments and sporting events. Operators of prediction markets argue these contracts are regulated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), rather than individual states. As a result, DraftKings maintains federal law preempts Hughes’ claims under South Carolina gambling laws.

However, Hughes argues prediction market users can wager on whether a team or athlete will win a contest, which he indicates amounts to traditional sports betting presented as financial trading.

Hughes claims DraftKings Predictions allows South Carolina residents to open accounts and place wagers on Major League Baseball, NBA, NHL, college football and other sporting events, noting that the first 11 of 17 market categories displayed on the platform are sports-related. He maintains DraftKings has increasingly emphasized sports as it expands its prediction market business.

“The rhetorical set dressing of ‘prediction markets’ and ‘event contracts’ doesn’t change reality. And reality is quite simple. Defendants incite, offer, and collect winnings from illegal wagers placed by South Carolinians on the outcome of sporting events.”

— James M. Hughes v. Draftkings Inc. et al.

According to the lawsuit, DraftKings Predictions describes its app as “built for sports fans” with a “sports focus,” and has identified the 2026 FIFA World Cup as a “key demand driver.” Hughes also points to promotions offered to South Carolina consumers, including $200 in “Prediction Dollars” after a new customer makes a trade of at least $5 and $150 after spending $5 on baseball predictions.

Prediction Market Gambling Recovery Claims

Hughes brings the lawsuit under South Carolina’s Statute of Anne. Under the law, individuals who lose more than $50 through gambling may seek to recover their losses. If they fail to bring a claim within three months, the statute allows another person to pursue the money, along with three times the amount lost and litigation costs. 

The filing acknowledges that Hughes has never personally bet on sports or suffered gambling losses involving the defendants. Instead, he seeks to use the statute to recover money allegedly lost by other South Carolina residents. 

The complaint claims thousands of South Carolina residents have lost more than $50 at a time through the defendants’ prediction markets and seeks an accounting to determine the total amount collected.

Hughes is asking the court to award four times the value of the allegedly illegal gambling winnings and issue an injunction preventing the defendants from continuing the challenged operations in South Carolina. 

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

A number of sports betting lawsuits have been filed by individuals who allege online gambling platforms contributed to compulsive wagering, mounting debt and other financial problems for them and others. 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.

Sports betting addiction attorneys are reviewing potential claims for individuals who experienced significant financial losses 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 group of 19 people have joined together to file a lawsuit alleging that addictive features on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and other major platforms contributed to severe mental health problems that led their children to attempt suicide or take their own lives.

The complaint (PDF) was filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County on August 27. Defendants include Meta Platforms Inc., Instagram LLC, Facebook Payments Inc., Siculus Inc., Facebook Operations LLC, Snap Inc., ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC, Discord Inc. and Roblox Corporation.

Plaintiffs allege their children became compulsively addicted to social media platforms, contributing to depression, anxiety, self-harm and other serious mental health problems that ultimately led to suicide attempts or deaths. In some cases, they say the children died with their smartphones in hand.

The lawsuit claims the companies deliberately incorporated addictive design features and targeted children to increase engagement, advertising revenue and profits, despite allegedly knowing their platforms could expose young users to serious psychological harm.

Social Media Addiction Concerns

Meta, Google and other social media companies face increasing criticism from families, states and school districts who say the platforms have incorporated intentionally addictive design features, such as infinite scrolling, notifications, autoplay and recommendation algorithms, to keep children engaged for longer periods of time.

Social media addiction has been linked to concerns about depression, anxiety, eating disorders, declining academic performance, behavioral problems, suicidal thoughts and self-harm among children and teenagers. School districts and states also allege youth social media addiction has driven up costs for counseling, tutoring and other public services.

Those concerns have led to thousands of social media addiction lawsuits filed in state and federal courts nationwide, involving claims brought by families, school districts and government officials against some of the largest technology companies in the world.

According to the new lawsuit, numerous children attempted or succeeded at ending their own lives after having anxiety, stress, or by being manipulated by others after developing social media addictions. Plaintiffs claim their addictions, and ultimate deaths, were a direct result of how the platforms were designed.

They allege that the companies used similar behavioral and neurobiological techniques pioneered by the cigarette and casino industries to keep children scrolling and the ad revenue rolling in.

“Defendants know children are in a developmental stage that leaves them particularly vulnerable to the addictive effects of such features and Defendants targeted them because of this. The defects in Defendants’ products vary by platform, but all exploit children and adolescents.”

– Sarah Harken et al. v Meta Platforms Inc. et al.

Social Media Addiction Child Suicides

One of those children was LilLee Wilkins, of Colorado, who began using social media at 10 years old in 2020 because her mom believed the platforms’ claims that they were safe for children. As she became more addicted, her mental health declined, according to the lawsuit.

Her mother started monitoring her daughter’s social media use and decided it needed to be restricted, but her daughter, normally well-behaved, began finding ways around the restrictions. Her mother even discovered videos of her daughter on the internet obviously taken while she was in class at school.

The lawsuit notes that LilLee’s mother was actually in a fight with artificial intelligence (AI) driven user recommendation tools and feed-based tools, non-stop notifications and friend recommendations, which even notified the child that she hadn’t been on in a while and urged her to post again to keep getting likes.

LilLee’s family came home from church on September 1, 2024, and found the 13-year-old had taken her own life. Her mother later found out that friends had tried to warn the school that LilLee had been posting troubling content that caused them concern.

Similar stories are repeated throughout the lawsuit involving the suicide deaths of Zen Marchand-Hill, who became addicted to Discord when she was only 12, spending up to 10 hours a day on the platform and avoiding or disabling parental controls her parents used to restrict access. She died of suicide on September 6, 2024, with her phone lying next to her in a way that suggested it had been in her hand when she died.

The lawsuit also includes claims for Sofie Igunbor, who took her own life in April 2023 at the age of 16 after becoming addicted to Roblox, TikTok and Discord. Additional children who attempted suicide, but survived, include Devin Msicka, Olivia Parsons, Wesley Konnerup, Tristan Russell, Grant Smith, Mia Perez, and several other children whose identities were kept anonymous.

Plaintiffs present claims of design defect, failure to warn, negligence – design, negligence – failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se, wrongful death, survival action and loss of consortium and society. They seek both compensatory and punitive damages.

Social Media Addiction Lawsuits

The new complaint joins thousands of similar claims pending nationwide as courts begin moving social media addiction lawsuits toward additional trials and potential settlements.

One of the first scheduled trials against Meta was expected to begin in June, but the company reached an undisclosed settlement with the Breathitt County School District before opening statements.

In August, Meta also agreed to a proposed $17 billion settlement with a bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general. The agreement calls for Facebook and Instagram to adopt new protections for young users and provides a framework other social media companies may potentially join, which could affect the course of pending litigation.

Social media companies have also faced substantial jury verdicts. In March, a California jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million to a woman who alleged 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 after finding the company liable for contributing to teen social media addiction and related mental health problems.

While the outcomes of those early trials and settlement efforts are not binding on other claims, they may provide both sides with important information about how juries value the alleged harms and whether broader resolutions may be possible.

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

A South Carolina woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging an Abbott spinal cord stimulator caused painful electrical shocks, burning sensations and worsening pain before the device ultimately had to be removed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Leah Shaw in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 28, naming Abbott Laboratories as the sole defendant.

Shaw alleges her Abbott Proclaim spinal cord stimulator suffered mechanical and therapeutic failures, including lead migration, resulting in explant surgery less than two years after the permanent device was implanted.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Problems

Spinal cord stimulators are implantable medical devices used to treat chronic pain by delivering electrical impulses near the spinal cord, which are intended to interrupt or alter pain signals before they reach the brain. The systems typically include an implanted pulse generator, electrical leads positioned near the spine and an external controller used to adjust stimulation settings.

However, a series of spinal cord stimulator problems and complications have been associated with the devices, including lead migration, battery problems, infections, painful electrical stimulation, loss of therapy and device failures that may ultimately require explant surgeries to remove or replace the implant.

Amid these concerns, spinal cord stimulator lawsuits allege manufacturers made substantial changes to newer generations of the devices through FDA regulatory pathways without conducting adequate new clinical testing to determine whether the modified systems remained safe and effective. Many Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits maintain the manufacturer failed to adequately test its devices or warn doctors and recipients about the risk of malfunctions, painful stimulation, loss of therapy and the need for revision or removal surgery.

Some claims also focus on the role of Abbott representatives before and after implantation, alleging they overstated the potential benefits of permanent spinal cord stimulation, minimized known risks and made programming changes despite lacking the medical qualifications necessary to provide clinical treatment.

Abbott Spinal Cord Stimulator Explant Surgery

Shaw indicates she received an Abbott Proclaim Implantable Pulse Generator DRG, Model 3664, on May 7, 2021, at North County Surgicenter in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, after first undergoing a temporary spinal cord stimulator trial.

According to the complaint, an Abbott representative told Shaw the permanent device would provide long-term pain relief, perform similarly to the trial system and reduce her need for other chronic pain treatments. Shaw alleges she relied on those representations when she agreed to permanent implantation.

However, Shaw says the device instead caused sudden electrical shocks, burning sensations, increased pain and painful “pops.”

The complaint alleges Abbott representatives repeatedly programmed and adjusted the spinal cord stimulator after implantation, at times without meaningful physician supervision. Despite those efforts, Shaw says the problems continued and the device’s leads eventually migrated from their intended position, leaving them displaced and nonfunctioning.

Shaw underwent explant surgery on April 28, 2023, less than two years after implantation, due to what the complaint describes as “mechanical and therapeutic failure” of the system.

She alleges the removal did not resolve all of her symptoms and that she continues to experience pain caused or aggravated by the malfunctioning implant.

“Plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by a known or disclosed risk; rather, they stemmed from a defect in the execution of the product’s firmware and power management systems, which were neither tested nor monitored in accordance with binding federal regulations.”

— Leah Shaw v. Abbott Laboratories

The lawsuit raises allegations of manufacturing defects, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violations of consumer protection laws. It seeks compensatory damages for her physical injuries, pain and suffering, emotional distress, medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life, as well as punitive damages and other relief.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Shaw’s lawsuit comes amid a growing number of lawsuits being pursued against Abbott Laboratories and other spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, alleging patients experienced painful electrical shocks, lead migration, worsening pain and device failures that sometimes required spinal cord stimulator removal surgery.

In addition to claims against Abbott, all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California. Similar claims involving device malfunctions and serious complications are also being pursued against Medtronic and Nevro, with a hearing scheduled this month to consider separate requests to consolidate Abbott and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits.

Spinal cord stimulator attorneys are currently reviewing potential claims involving Abbott, Boston Scientific, Nevro and Medtronic devices for individuals who experienced complications such as:

Individuals who experienced serious complications after receiving an SCS implant may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit seeking financial compensation. Potential claims are reviewed at no cost and handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning attorneys receive payment only if a settlement or other financial recovery is obtained.

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

A Louisiana man has filed a product liability lawsuit blaming the eczema drug Dupixent for causing a rare form of cancer he once thought he had beaten to return, along with new tumors and other health problems.

Sidney Michael Lewis brought the complaint (PDF) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 20, naming Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Genzyme Corporation, Dupixent’s manufacturers, as defendants.

Lewis claims the companies have failed to provide adequate warnings to the medical community and patients that Dupixent side effects can cause, or reignite, a rare form of T-cell lymphoma. Instead, he says they fraudulently marketed the drug as safer than it actually is.

Dupixent Side Effects

Dupixent (dupilumab) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, a form of eczema. Since then, the drug has received numerous additional approvals to promote it 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, the manufacturers and FDA have seen an increasing number of reports linking Dupixent side effects to patients developing a form of T-cell lymphoma known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) that primarily affects the skin. According to patient reports, the drug can also cause patients already diagnosed with CTCL to experience a flare up or recurrence of their cancer.

As a result, the drugmakers now face a growing number of Dupixent cancer lawsuits in federal courts nationwide, each alleging that Regeneron and Sanofi-Aventis failed to provide proper instructions to doctors or alert them to the need for medical monitoring to detect early signs of cancer development.

Dupixent CTCL Side Effect Allegations

According to the complaint, Lewis was originally diagnosed with stage 1 cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in early 2017, the same year Dupixent was first approved. In 2019, doctors identified his CTCL as a form of mycosis fungoides, the most common form of CTCL. Lewis claims he underwent a variety of cancer treatments at the time, including bexarotene, praluent, methotrexate with folate supplementation, photo/light therapy and topical triamcinolone.

In March 2025, Lewis was prescribed Dupixent for the treatment of his eczema. He was once again diagnosed with CTCL in October 2025, along with large cell transformation, increased number of CD30-positive cells and new tumors. He says that he ceased using Dupixent that November.

The lawsuit notes that if Lewis or his doctor had been informed that Dupixent could cause his CTCL to return, they would have used another treatment to address his eczema. However, Lewis argues the manufacturers knew of the potential for CTCL side effects and hid the true risks of Dupixent to protect their profit margins.

“Despite its historical infrequence in the population, CTCL has been widely reported among patients taking Dupixent. These cases have included diagnoses of new, primary CTCL as well as an unexpected ‘unmasking’ or severe and rapid clinical progression of otherwise subclinical and undiagnosed CTCL occurring weeks to years following initiation of Dupixent use. Evidence supporting a causal relationship between use of Dupixent and incident CTCL is derived from both experimental and observational studies in humans.”

– Sidney Michael Lewis v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al.

Lewis’s doctors have told him that he will likely require medical treatment and monitoring for CTCL for the rest of his life. The lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. It seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent CTCL Lawsuits

The complaint will be folded into a Dupixent CTCL lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the District of New Jersey before U.S. District judge Zahid N. Qurashi, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings for the consolidated claims.

Dupixent lawyers anticipate the judge will direct attorneys to prepare several cases representative of the majority of the litigation to serve as “bellwether” trials. These early test trials are designed to provide an opportunity to see how juries respond to the strengths and weaknesses of arguments and evidence.

Although not binding on other claims, the bellwether trial outcomes could help attorneys negotiate a global Dupixent cancer lawsuit settlement. However, if the litigation is not resolved after pretrial proceedings and selected cases are completed, Judge Quraishi is expected to remand the remaining claims to their originating federal court districts for individual trials.

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

A California property insurance program is pursuing a product liability lawsuit against LG Electronics and Home Depot, alleging a defective front-mounted control system caused an electric range burner to activate unexpectedly and start a house fire.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by California Fair Plan in the Superior Court of the State of California on July 22, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 3.

California Fair Plan alleges the LG electric range caused a February 2025 house fire that resulted in more than $140,000 in property damage, and claims the appliance contained a defective control system that allowed a heating element to activate without the homeowner intending to turn it on.

Electric Range Fire Risks

Electric ranges use electrically powered heating elements on the cooktop and inside the oven to generate heat for cooking and baking. Many newer models feature front-mounted control knobs, which allow users to operate the burners without reaching across a hot cooking surface.

However, lawsuits and product recalls have raised concerns that some front-mounted controls may be too easily activated by accidental contact, allowing a burner to turn on when the range is otherwise unattended.

In February 2025, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced an LG electric range recall affecting about 500,000 slide-in and freestanding ranges with front-mounted knobs. Federal safety officials warned the knobs could be activated through accidental contact by people or pets, posing a fire hazard.

The recalled ranges were sold at Home Depot, Best Buy, Costco, Lowe’s and other retailers from 2015 through January 2025. Rather than replacing the ranges, LG offered consumers a warning label and instructions for using the appliances’ Control Lock or Lock Out feature to prevent heating elements from being activated when the range was not in use.

Similar allegations have been raised against other electric range manufacturers. In May, a couple filed a lawsuit against Samsung, alleging that a recalled electric range unintentionally activated after a front-mounted control knob was accidentally bumped, resulting in more than $500,000 in property damage.

LG Electric Range Fire Allegations

California Fair Plan is an insurer of last resort that provides basic property insurance to California homeowners who are unable to obtain coverage through the traditional private insurance market. The lawsuit was brought as a subrogation claim on behalf of its insured, Amy Hunter, after California Fair Plan paid for damage allegedly caused by an LG electric range fire.

According to the complaint, the fire occurred on February 21, 2025, and involved an LG electric range, Model LSEL633D/00. California Fair Plan alleges the appliance contained a defective front-mounted control system that allowed the warming burner or warming zone to activate unexpectedly.

The allegations mirror the fire hazard identified in the February 2025 LG recall. At the time of the recall, the CPSC had received at least 86 reports of unintentional activation involving LG range controls, and the appliances had been linked to more than 28 fires. At least five fires caused extensive property damage totaling more than $340,000, while eight minor injuries, including burns, and three fires involving pet deaths were also reported.

California Fair Plan maintains that LG knew or should have known about the risk posed by the front-mounted controls and that affected ranges were subject to a recall by the time of the Hunter fire. However, the insurer alleges LG did not disable or replace the affected appliances or require installation of an in-home corrective device capable of preventing unintended activation.

The lawsuit also alleges LG and Home Depot failed to implement an adequate recall and notification program. California Fair Plan claims the companies could have used purchaser information, retailer records, warranty registrations and customer databases to identify owners of affected ranges and provide more effective warnings about the fire risk.

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the warnings, labels, and instructions provided with the Product did not provide sufficient instructions to allow a user or consumer to avoid, prevent, or timely detect the defect.”

— California Fair Plan v. LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. et al.

According to the complaint, California Fair Plan subsequently notified LG and Home Depot of the fire and its property damage claim, and an engineer was assigned to evaluate the incident and potential liability.

The insurer alleges the defendants have not disputed liability but have failed to reimburse California Fair Plan for $140,051.33 it paid as a result of the fire.

The lawsuit presents claims for strict products liability, negligence and breach of express and implied warranties. California Fair Plan seeks recovery of the property damage payments, as well as attorney’s fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and any other relief the court determines is appropriate.

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

The second in a series of Bard PowerPort lawsuit bellwether trials has ended with a federal jury ordering the manufacturer to pay $40 million to a New Mexico woman who alleged part of her port catheter broke off and became lodged in her heart.

Implantable port catheters have become widely used in the United States for individuals who need repeated or long-term access to the bloodstream, particularly during chemotherapy and other ongoing drug treatments. Their use has increased as more individuals receive complex therapies that require frequent intravenous medications, fluids or blood draws over extended periods.

The devices consist of a small port implanted beneath the skin and a catheter that extends into a large vein, allowing repeated vascular access without the need for frequent peripheral needle sticks.

Port Catheter Fracture & Migration Lawsuits

Kimberly Divelbliss is one of more than 3,700 individuals pursuing product liability lawsuits against C.R. Bard over its line of PowerPort catheter implants. The claims generally allege the devices are defectively designed and prone to catheter fractures and migration, which can allow pieces of the catheter to break away, enter the bloodstream and travel to the heart or lungs.

These complications may require surgery to retrieve catheter fragments or remove the failed implant and have been associated with blood clots, pulmonary embolisms and other serious injuries.

Bard PowerPort lawsuits also allege C.R. Bard failed to adequately warn doctors and consumers about the risk that the catheters could fracture, migrate or otherwise fail after implantation.

As the number of federal claims increased, the lawsuits were centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings as part of a federal multidistrict litigation.

Rather than preparing thousands of individual lawsuits for trial at the same time, Judge Campbell selected six representative cases to go before juries first as bellwether trials. The cases are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence, expert testimony and allegations involving PowerPort catheter failures, which could ultimately influence settlement negotiations or how the remaining claims are resolved.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether trial ended in a defense verdict earlier this year. However, the plaintiff has since filed a motion for mistrial, arguing that the jury received improper instructions and was pressured to reach a verdict before deliberations were complete.

Jury Awards $40 Million in Second Bard PowerPort Trial

The second bellwether trial began on August 18 and involved claims brought by Divelbliss, who alleged her Bard PowerPort fractured inside her body and required emergency surgery.

According to the lawsuit, doctors discovered during the removal procedure that approximately seven inches of catheter had separated from the implanted port. Portions of the catheter allegedly traveled through her bloodstream and became lodged in the right side of her heart.

Following the trial, the Arizona federal jury returned a verdict (PDF) on September 4, finding C.R. Bard and its parent company, Becton Dickinson, liable for design defect, failure to warn, negligent design defect and negligent failure to warn.

The jury awarded Divelbliss $40 million in compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages, marking the first substantial plaintiff recovery in the Bard PowerPort bellwether program.

Bard PowerPort Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

The next bellwether trial is slated to begin on October 13, involving claims brought by May Lattanzio, of Florida. Attorneys have agreed that the Lattanzio trial will be divided into at least two phases, with any punitive damages considered separately during a later phase. The final pretrial conference is scheduled for September 15.

Additional PowerPort bellwether trials are scheduled for December 1, 2026, and February 2, 2027.

Although the verdicts will not determine the outcome of other claims, the results are being closely watched because they may help the parties evaluate the strength and potential settlement value of thousands of similar lawsuits.

If no settlement or other resolution is reached once the bellwether trials are completed, Judge Campbell could begin remanding cases back to their original federal court districts for individual trial dates.

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

A Texas woman has filed a lawsuit alleging she was secretly tracked through an Apple AirTag hidden in her vehicle, potentially allowing her movements to be monitored for months before the device was discovered.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rachel Fox in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas last month, naming Apple Inc. as the sole defendant.

Fox alleges Apple knew AirTags could be concealed and misused to secretly track individuals, but failed to build adequate safeguards into the devices to prevent prolonged stalking and unwanted surveillance.

Apple AirTag Stalking Risks

Apple launched AirTags in April 2021 as compact Bluetooth tracking devices intended to help users keep tabs on items such as keys, bags and other personal belongings.

AirTags rely on Bluetooth technology and Apple’s “Find My” network to report their whereabouts. When an AirTag comes within range of another Apple device, its location can be anonymously transmitted through the network, allowing the owner to see updated location information.

However, concerns quickly emerged that the technology could also provide an inexpensive and discreet method for monitoring another person without their knowledge. AirTags have since been linked to reports involving stalking, domestic abuse, violent assaults and fatal incidents.

Those concerns have led to a number of Apple AirTag lawsuits, which allege the company was warned about the potential for the devices to facilitate stalking before they were released. The claims point to concerns raised by technology experts and domestic violence advocates, as well as allegations that Apple received more than 40,000 reports of unwanted AirTag tracking between 2021 and 2024, averaging roughly 1,000 reports per month.

Apple AirTag Vehicle Tracking Allegations

According to the complaint, Fox returned home after having dinner with friends in August 2023 when she was alerted by her phone that an AirTag had been tracking her. The notification showed she had been tracked at least from the restaurant to her residence, revealing the location of her home to whoever controlled the AirTag.

The filing indicates that Fox followed her phone’s instructions and caused the AirTag to emit a sound, which indicated the device was somewhere inside or on her vehicle. She thoroughly searched the vehicle but could not find it. Fox then called police, and a responding officer also spent significant time searching the vehicle without locating the AirTag.

Fox alleges she spent several days experiencing panic and anxiety while trying to determine how to stop the tracking. She claims she even researched whether she could remotely deactivate the AirTag but learned she needed physical access to the device to disable it. At this point, Fox indicates she bought an endoscopic camera and stethoscope to search small or inaccessible areas of her vehicle.

In the lawsuit, Fox says she spent about eight hours searching the vehicle before finding the AirTag concealed in foam inside the driver’s seat and removing its battery. She indicates she then contacted the police, who allegedly attempted to obtain information from Apple about the AirTag’s owner. However, the company would not reveal that information.

Fox claims she still does not know who placed the AirTag in her vehicle and believes it may have been hidden there for months before she received the first tracking alert. She says the experience has left her fearful that additional AirTags could be tracking her without her knowledge. These fears have resulted in panic attacks and prompted her to install a security camera at her home.

“Apple must be held accountable for its continuing failure to adequately protect members of the public from being stalked with its AirTag.”

— Rachel Fox v. Apple Inc.

According to Fox, Apple is responsible for designing and selling a product it allegedly knew could be easily misused for stalking. She claims the company “rushed” AirTags to market without adequate safeguards, despite the foreseeable risk that their location-tracking capabilities could be exploited to monitor individuals without their knowledge or consent.

The complaint asserts claims of negligence, design defect, intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment and violations of California business laws. Fox is seeking damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief that could require Apple to change practices involving the design, manufacture and sale of AirTags.

Apple AirTag Lawsuits

As the number of AirTag stalking lawsuits continues to grow, plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate federal claims in an Apple AirTag MDL, or multidistrict litigation, before one judge for coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings. Apple opposes the consolidation.

More than 20 AirTag lawsuits are currently pending in at least 17 federal court districts, and additional claims are anticipated. Many of the cases were filed individually after a federal judge declined to certify a proposed nationwide class of AirTag stalking victims earlier this year.

With litigation involving location-tracking devices expanding, lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals who allege they were secretly monitored through an Apple AirTag, Samsung SmartTag or similar product.

Apple AirTag lawyers are investigating claims nationwide involving allegations that tracking devices were improperly used for:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal activity

Potential cases 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 new study has identified potential genetic links between chlorpyrifos exposure and autism spectrum disorder, suggesting immune and inflammatory changes may play a role in the association.

The findings were published in the journal Brain Informatics on August 28, identifying 206 genes associated with both chlorpyrifos exposure and autism, many of which are involved in energy metabolism, immune function and inflammatory regulation.

Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide that has been sold since the 1960s under a number of brand names, including Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, NuFos and Bolton. The pesticide has been used extensively in agricultural, residential and commercial applications, as well as to control insects around military facilities and camps during the Gulf War.

Agricultural workers, farmers and pesticide applicators may encounter chlorpyrifos while preparing, loading and spraying the pesticide on crops. Exposure can also occur among people living near treated fields through pesticide drift or contact with residues remaining after applications.

Chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s Disease Risks

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned chlorpyrifos from use on food crops in 2021, citing concerns about its toxicity and potential effects on the nervous system. However, a federal appeals court subsequently overturned the prohibition, clearing the way for some agricultural applications to resume.

Researchers have continued examining the potential long-term health consequences of chlorpyrifos exposure. Previous findings have associated the pesticide with oxidative stress, impaired mitochondrial function and damage involving dopamine-producing brain cells, while more recent research indicated prolonged residential exposure was associated with a 2.5 times increased risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

A number of chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits have also been filed throughout the United States, alleging manufacturers failed to adequately warn farmers, agricultural workers, pesticide applicators and others that repeated exposure to the insecticide may cause neurological damage and increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Chlorpyrifos Autism Link

The new study found that chlorpyrifos exposure may affect biological pathways associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including genes that regulate immune responses, inflammation and cellular energy production.

Led by Boli Cheng, the researchers compared an ASD dataset with genes associated with autism and genes targeted by chlorpyrifos, identifying 206 genes that overlapped between the pesticide and the developmental disorder. Further analysis identified six key genes that may play particularly important roles in the potential relationship.

Findings indicated the overlapping genes were primarily involved in energy metabolism and the regulation of immune and inflammatory responses. Research also found significant differences involving 10 types of immune cells, which were correlated with several of the key genes.

The analysis ultimately identified an exploratory four-gene signature involving CXCL8, IFNG, MYC and SP1 that was associated with both chlorpyrifos exposure and ASD and was able to distinguish between groups within the dataset.

“Our findings revealed an exploratory four-gene signature linked to chlorpyrifos exposure and ASD, and suggested that MYC and SP1 may represent candidate molecules for future validation in therapeutic studies.”

— Boli Cheng, Effects of chlorpyrifos exposure on autism-associated genes: an integrative analysis using network toxicology, transcriptomics, and molecular dynamics simulations

Researchers said the findings provide new clues about how environmental exposures and genetic factors may interact in the development of autism. However, the gene signature remains exploratory and the findings require additional experimental validation before they could potentially be used for diagnosis or therapeutic development.

Chlorpyrifos Lawsuits

Although the latest research examined potential links between chlorpyrifos exposure and autism, it adds to concerns about the pesticide’s potential effects on the nervous system.

Chlorpyrifos attorneys are currently investigating potential product liability claims for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease following years of exposure to the insecticide. Potential exposure may have occurred through:

• Mixing, loading or applying chlorpyrifos
• Working on farms where chlorpyrifos was sprayed
• Living on or near agricultural property where the pesticide was routinely used
• Applying chlorpyrifos for residential pest control
• Working near pesticide applications or areas affected by spray drift
• Occupational exposure involving pest control, construction, golf course maintenance or military service during the Gulf Wars

Individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease may qualify for a free consultation and claim evaluation. Attorneys can review their medical history, the pesticide products involved and the location, duration and circumstances surrounding their exposure to determine whether they may be eligible to pursue compensation.

All chlorpyrifos lawsuits are being handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys receive payment only if compensation is successfully recovered.

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

A Michigan woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burns to her body after a defective Crock-Pot pressure cooker malfunctioned and exploded during normal use.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Delphine Belcher in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on September 2, naming Sunbeam Products Inc. and Newell Brands Inc. as defendants.

Belcher claims the manufacturers knew about defects in the electric pressure cooker’s design, yet allowed the product to remain on the market despite the risk of consumer injuries.

Electric Pressure Cooker Injuries

Crock-Pot pressure cookers are electric appliances that use steam confined inside a sealed cooking chamber to generate high pressure and temperatures that cook food quickly. Since the food and liquid inside can become extremely hot, the devices are generally equipped with safety systems intended to keep the lid locked until pressure has been safely released.

However, a series of pressure cooker lawsuits allege those safeguards can fail, permitting the lid to be turned or removed while the appliance remains dangerously pressurized.

If the lid opens prematurely, the remaining pressure may cause superheated food, liquid and steam to erupt from the cooker and strike users or bystanders. The resulting accidents can cause serious burns to the face, chest, arms and hands, potentially requiring hospitalization, skin grafts and extensive medical care.

Crock-Pot Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Belcher was using the Crock-Pot Express Crock Multicooker to prepare food on September 18, 2024, when the lid allegedly opened while the appliance remained pressurized. The pressure cooker then forcefully ejected scalding-hot food and liquid onto Belcher’s body, causing serious burn injuries.

Belcher claims Sunbeam marketed the Crock-Pot pressure cooker as being designed with safety in mind and represented that it featured sensors and other safeguards intended to prevent the lid from opening while the appliance was pressurized. The company also allegedly maintained that once pressure increased inside the cooker, the lid could not be opened until that pressure was released.

However, Belcher argues the Crock-Pot contained a design defect that allowed users to open the lid while dangerous pressure remained inside. She claims Sunbeam and Newell Brands knew or should have known about the problem but continued selling the pressure cookers without adequately addressing the safety risk.

The lawsuit also alleges the manufacturers received more than 100 reports involving Crock-Pot lid detachments and associated injuries but failed to adequately warn consumers about the defect.

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

— Delphine Belcher v. Sunbeam Products Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. It seeks compensation for serious bodily injuries, medical expenses, physical pain, mental anguish, diminished enjoyment of life, economic losses and other damages.

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

An Indiana woman has filed a lawsuit claiming that neither she nor her doctor were ever warned that Ozempic injections could result in loss of vision when she was prescribed the drug to lower her blood sugar.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Melanie Thompson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 27, naming Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S as the defendants. The case will be consolidated with hundreds of other similar claims for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Thompson’s lawsuit is one of many alleging that Novo Nordisk and other manufacturers failed to warn consumers that GLP-1 receptor agonists, like Ozempic, its weight loss formulation, Wegovy, and competitor Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro, may cause sudden and permanent vision loss.

Ozempic Eyesight Loss

Ozempic (semaglutide) and other GLP-1 medications have become widely used in recent years for diabetes and weight management, as studies linked the drugs to substantial improvements in blood sugar control, weight loss and other metabolic health risks. Their popularity led manufacturers to introduce additional GLP-1 formulations specifically marketed for weight loss.

However, concerns about potential eyesight complications emerged after a 2024 study linked GLP-1 medications, particularly semaglutide, to an increased risk of non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). NAION occurs when reduced blood flow damages the optic nerve, potentially causing sudden and permanent vision loss. Researchers found that individuals prescribed semaglutide for diabetes were more than four times as likely to develop NAION, while those prescribed it for weight loss were more than seven times as likely to be diagnosed with the condition.

Following these findings, dozens of individuals have filed Ozempic eyesight loss lawsuits, often describing sudden vision problems that developed with little or no warning. The claims allege manufacturers knew or should have known about the potential risk of NAION and permanent eyesight damage, but failed to provide adequate warnings to users and the medical community.

Ozempic NAION Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Thompson was first prescribed Ozempic in May 2024 to help lower her blood sugar and control her Type 2 diabetes. Everything seemed fine until the morning she woke up to discover she had lost a significant amount of her vision.

While Thompson stopped receiving the injections, doctors informed her that her eyesight loss is likely permanent. The lawsuit notes that this has been a life-changing event for Thompson.

“Ms. Thompson will never see clearly again as a result of her usage of Ozempic. Defendant knew or should have known that use of semaglutide could lead to severe and debilitating injuries suffered by Plaintiff and numerous other patients. Defendant continues to downplay the risk of NAION and has not changed or provided any warnings to the public and medical community.”

– Melanie Thompson v. Novo Nordisk Inc. et al.

The lawsuit alleges Novo Nordisk’s failure to warn about the risk of vision loss was not accidental, but part of an effort to protect sales of Ozempic and Wegovy despite the potential for serious eye injuries.

The complaint further claims the company failed to update the drugs’ warning labels or adequately alert doctors that individuals taking semaglutide may need to be monitored for signs of vision problems, which could allow treatment to be discontinued before additional damage occurs.

Thompson’s lawsuit presents claims of failure to warn, design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and marketing, breach of warranty, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud Act. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Ozempic Eyesight Loss Lawsuits

Thompson filed her lawsuit directly in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where federal GLP-1 eyesight loss lawsuits are being coordinated before U.S. District Judge Karen Marston.

The claims involve individuals who developed NAION and other serious vision problems after using Ozempic, Wegovy and similar GLP-1 medications. Plaintiffs allege the drug manufacturers failed to adequately warn that treatment may increase the risk of sudden and potentially permanent eyesight loss.

The court is expected to move the NAION cases through coordinated discovery, expert proceedings and the selection of representative lawsuits for potential bellwether trials. Those early trials may help the parties evaluate the strength and value of similar claims and determine whether broader Ozempic eyesight loss settlements are possible.

Judge Marston is also overseeing a larger group of GLP-1 stomach paralysis lawsuits involving gastroparesis, intestinal blockages and other serious gastrointestinal injuries. Those claims involve a separate group of plaintiffs and are proceeding separately from the eyesight loss cases.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive Ozempic lawsuit updates delivered directly to your inbox.

A federal judge has issued a scheduling order that calls for a Torax LINX lawsuit involving allegations that a defective reflux implant failed inside a Colorado man to go before a jury in September 2028.

The lawsuit was filed by Jonathan Heath in June, alleging that he was implanted with a LINX device that failed, causing his gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms to return.

Heath indicates the LINX device remains implanted and alleges he may now require additional surgery to remove the failed system.

According to the complaint, Torax Medical previously acknowledged that certain LINX implants were affected by an “out of specification condition” that could cause one or more magnetic beads to separate from the adjoining titanium wire, potentially leaving the ring partially or completely open. Heath alleges Torax knew or should have known about the manufacturing defect before the devices were sold, but failed to adequately warn patients and doctors about the risk that the LINX system could prematurely fail.

LINX Device Failures and Recall

The LINX Reflux Management System was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in March 2012 as an alternative treatment for individuals with GERD who continued to experience chronic symptoms despite medical treatment.

The implant consists of a ring of magnetic titanium beads connected by wire links and placed around the lower esophageal sphincter. The magnetic attraction between the beads is designed to help keep the sphincter closed after swallowing, preventing stomach acid from flowing back into the esophagus.

However, Torax initiated a nationwide LINX Reflux Management System recall in April 2018, after identifying a manufacturing problem that could allow a bead to separate from an adjacent wire link. The FDA classified the problem as involving a nonconforming material or component, which could cause the LINX ring to become discontinuous or open inside the patient.

The recall involved 9,131 LINX devices distributed throughout the United States and internationally, including several configurations containing between 12 and 17 magnetic beads. Torax instructed medical facilities to quarantine and return affected implants that had not yet been used, while physicians were advised to monitor patients who had already received recalled devices.

Since the recall, Torax LINX lawsuits have been filed by patients who allege similar manufacturing problems caused their implants to break, stop controlling reflux symptoms or require additional surgery to remove the device.

Torax LINX Lawsuit Trial Schedule

On August 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a pretrial scheduling order (PDF), instructing counsel on key deadlines that will lead up to a trial in about two years. The trial, scheduled to begin on September 18, 2028, is anticipated to take three days.

To prepare, she called for initial disclosures by September 17, 2026, fact discovery procedures to begin by November 17, 2027, and for any necessary medical examinations of plaintiffs to be completed by October 15, 2027. The order also calls for expert discovery and depositions to be completed by March 17, 2028.

The lawsuit notes that Torax Medical admitted LINX devices suffered from a manufacturing defect due to an “out of specification condition,” which can cause the beads to come loose from the titanium wires. It argues the manufacturer knew, or should have known, about the defect before the implants were placed on the market.

As a result, Heath presents claims of manufacturing defect, negligence and negligence per se. He seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and disfigurement.

Torax LINX Lawsuits

Heath’s complaint is among a number of Torax LINX lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, where Torax Medical was headquartered and where the LINX system was originally developed.

Individuals are pursuing compensation for injuries and complications allegedly caused by failed LINX devices, including:

• Return or worsening of GERD symptoms
• Persistent chest or abdominal pain
• Difficulty swallowing
• Device migration
• Organ punctures or other internal injuries
• Device breakage or separation
• Revision or removal surgery
• Ongoing medical treatment or future procedures

Some individuals may also require revision or removal surgery when the device no longer functions as intended or causes new complications. Depending on the severity of the injuries, claims may seek compensation for medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, permanent impairment and the cost of future treatment.

If you or a loved one suffered injuries or required additional treatment after a LINX device failed, submit information about your potential claim for an attorney to review. LINX failure lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no fees or expenses unless compensation is obtained on your behalf.

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

Officials from the city of Baltimore have filed a lawsuit alleging several kratom companies deceptively marketed highly addictive products as safe and therapeutic without disclosing that their active ingredients act on the same brain receptors as opioids.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in Maryland Circuit Court for Baltimore City on July 28, naming JOpen LLC, Martian Sales Inc., PUR Botanicals LLC and other currently unidentified entities as defendants. The case was removed (PDF) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on August 1.

Baltimore alleges the companies, doing business as themselves and under other names, deceptively marketed kratom as safe and therapeutic despite knowing and failing to adequately warn consumers about addiction risks.

Kratom Addiction Risks

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

However, the substance contains compounds that interact with some of the same brain receptors targeted by opioids such as morphine and heroin. Kratom is available in a variety of forms, including powders, capsules, tablets, concentrated extracts, shots, gummies and beverages, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved it to treat any medical condition.

Federal regulators have also warned about the addictive properties and potential health risks associated with kratom products. Last month, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) placed three highly potent kratom-related opioids into Schedule I amid concerns about addiction, respiratory depression and other serious health risks.

Those safety concerns have fueled a growing number of kratom lawsuits, which allege manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers that their products may cause addiction, withdrawal symptoms and other serious health problems.

Kratom Addiction Warnings

In the complaint, Baltimore officials allege the defendants deceptively marketed kratom products as safe, natural and beneficial while failing to disclose that the products contain active compounds that interact with the same brain receptors as opioids and may cause addiction, dependence and withdrawal.

The lawsuit maintains that reasonable consumers purchasing kratom at gas stations, smoke shops and other retailers would not expect the products to function like opioids or carry highly addictive characteristics. Instead, the defendants allegedly promoted their products for pain relief, increased energy and focus, improved mood, relaxation, reduced stress and enhanced productivity. 

According to the complaint, kratom contains psychoactive compounds, primarily mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which bind to mu-opioid receptors in the brain and produce effects similar to opioids. Baltimore claims the products can cause physical dependence and withdrawal symptoms and have been suspected of contributing to overdoses and deaths.

However, the lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to disclose those risks and instead emphasized the safety and authenticity of their products, including marketing that warned consumers about potentially dangerous counterfeit kratom. Baltimore maintains those representations misleadingly suggested authentic products were safe while concealing the alleged addiction risks associated with kratom itself. 

The city claims the companies knew or should have known about those risks for years, pointing to kratom-associated adverse drug reactions reported to the FDA as early as 2004. The complaint also cites subsequent federal actions, including FDA import alerts beginning in 2012 and a 2017 public health advisory warning about opioid-like risks associated with kratom.

Despite those warnings, Baltimore alleges the defendants continued to market and sell the products throughout the city without adequate addiction disclosures. The lawsuit maintains that each sale made without disclosing that kratom is highly addictive, as well as each allegedly misleading representation about its safety or therapeutic benefits, constitutes a separate violation of Baltimore’s consumer protection ordinance.

“Each Defendant, individually and collectively, knew, or at a minimum, should have known that its representations as to their Kratom Products were false and misleading, that their Kratom Products are highly addictive and deleterious to health, and that due to those characteristics, do not provide the promised therapeutic benefits, and thus, their marketing and promotion of their Kratom Products, as described herein, was highly deceptive and misleading.”

— Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. JOpen LLC et al.

In addition to statutory penalties, Baltimore is asking the court to prohibit the defendants from marketing kratom products as safe or claiming therapeutic benefits they do not provide. The city also wants the companies required to clearly disclose on product labels, packaging and advertising that kratom’s active compounds have opioid-like effects and may be addictive.

Kratom Addiction Lawsuits

Amid concerns about addiction and other health risks, personal injury lawyers are investigating kratom lawsuits involving individuals who may have suffered serious injuries and side effects, including:

• Addiction and physical dependence
• Severe withdrawal symptoms
• Cardiac injuries, including rapid or irregular heartbeat
• Seizures
• Liver or kidney damage
• Respiratory depression or breathing problems
• Death from overdose or other kratom-related complications

Kratom injury lawyers pursue claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no legal fees or expenses unless compensation is recovered through a settlement or verdict.

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

A Texas couple has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging a Ryobi hedge trimmer activated while its safety features were engaged, nearly severing a man’s finger and leaving him with nerve damage, chronic pain and persistent numbness.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Keith and Dawn Provencher in Texas District Court on August 3, naming TTI Outdoor Power Equipment Inc., Techtronic Industries North America Inc., TTI Consumer Power Tools Inc., formerly known as One World Technologies Inc., TTI Power Equipment Manufacturing Inc. and Techtronic Industries Company Limited as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 31.

The Provenchers claim the hedge trimmer’s safety system was defective because the blades could activate when only one of the two required controls was engaged. They allege TTI Outdoor and related defendants failed to properly design and test the trimmer or adequately warn consumers about the risk before Keith Provencher was injured.

Ryobi Hedge Trimmer Recall

Ryobi hedge trimmers are a kind of battery-powered garden tool used to cut, trim, shape and maintain bushes, hedges and other shrubbery. They are designed with double lock safety features that require the trigger and the safety control to be engaged at the same time before the trimmer will turn on.

However, TTI Outdoor, the maker of the Ryobi power tool, recalled the 40V cordless hedge trimmer in June 2025, after identifying that the blade can unexpectedly activate after pressing just the safety or trigger control individually, rather than engaging the safety and trigger controls simultaneously

In the months following the recall, a lawsuit was filed by an Alabama woman alleging the defective Ryobi hedge trimmer unexpectedly powered on and severed the tip of her middle finger. She suffered permanent disfigurement and ongoing pain due to the defective design.

Ryobi Hedge Trimmer Allegations

According to the complaint, Keith Provencher was putting away the Ryobi 40V 24-inch cordless hedge trimmer in his garage on October 6, 2024. While hanging up the hedge trimmer on the wall hook, the blades allegedly activated when the trimmer was still in his hand.

The filing indicates the blade cut through Provencher’s right ring finger and severed the bone. His finger remained attached only by the skin. Requiring immediate medical attention, he was taken by ambulance to the emergency room and underwent surgery.

Provencher claims he suffered deep lacerations and nerve damage to fingers on both hands, as well as the palm of his right hand. His injuries ultimately required a revision amputation of his right ring finger and additional surgery to address a deformity caused by the loss of his nail bed.

He indicates that he continues to experience pain and numbness in his hands and is likely to require additional surgeries in the future.

The complaint alleges the Ryobi hedge trimmer suffered from a defect that allowed the blades to activate without the safety features in place. The hedge trimmer is advertised to turn on only when the trigger and safety control are engaged at the same time. However, this was allegedly not the case for Provencher’s hedge trimmer.

The lawsuit claims the Ryobi hedge trimmer was defective and unreasonably dangerous. It goes on to argue that safer alternative designs were available which would have prevented or reduced the risk of injury, yet TTI Outdoors failed to use those designs.

Provencher further alleges that TTI Outdoor deceptively marketed the hedge trimmer and failed to warn consumers about the alleged safety defect. The lawsuit claims the company knew or should have known about the problem and should have recalled the trimmer before additional users were injured.

“Defendants’ conduct, when viewed objectively at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and Defendants had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved but proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others.”

— Keith Provencher et al. v. TTI Outdoor Power Equipment Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict products liability and negligence/gross negligence. It seeks compensation for Provencher’s physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, past and future medical expenses, physical disfigurement, physical impairment, loss of earning capacity and exemplary damages.

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

A Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lead recall has been issued after more than 1,000 serious injuries were reported in connection with Infinion CX lead fractures that may result in inadequate stimulation and require additional surgery.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Infinion CX recall on September 3, indicating problems with the leads may prevent the spinal cord stimulators from providing adequate therapy. The agency identified the action as the most serious type of recall, warning that continued use of affected devices may result in serious injury or death.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Injury Risks

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are implanted medical devices used to manage chronic pain when less invasive treatments have not provided adequate relief. The systems typically include a battery-powered pulse generator connected to thin leads containing electrodes that are positioned near the spinal cord, along with an external controller that allows individuals to adjust the stimulation.

Due to how the leads carry electrical signals from the pulse generator to the electrodes, lead fractures, migration or other failures can interfere with stimulation delivered to the targeted area.

Problems involving spinal cord stimulator leads and other components have resulted in a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, which allege device failures caused recipients to lose pain relief, suffer additional injuries and undergo procedures to repair, replace or remove their implants.

Individuals have reported spinal cord stimulators that failed to adequately control their pain, as well as complications involving unexpected electrical shocks, burns, migration of the pulse generator or leads from their intended positions and components protruding through the skin. Some lawsuits also allege the devices caused nerve damage and left patients with more severe pain than they experienced before implantation.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Recall

According to federal regulators, Boston Scientific had received 1,081 reports of serious injuries associated with Infinion CX spinal cord stimulator leads as of May 27, but no deaths. The recall involves removing unused Infinion CX leads from locations where they are used or sold and does not call for devices already implanted in patients to be removed.

The company initiated the recall after determining that the SCS lead body may experience mechanical stress at the anchor site, potentially resulting in high impedance or fractures. According to the FDA, these problems can interfere with the electrical stimulation delivered by the device and may require additional medical intervention, including surgery to remove and replace the lead.

The spinal cord stimulator lead recall impacts the following unused Infinion CX Lead Kits:

• Infinion CX 50-centimeter Lead Kit — Model SC-2317-50
• Infinion CX 70-centimeter Lead Kit — Model SC-2317-70

Boston Scientific sent a letter to affected customers on June 17, instructing them to immediately stop using or distributing the affected leads, separate them from other inventory and return them to the manufacturer. Customers were also directed to share the recall notice with health care professionals who use the products and any organizations to which affected systems may have been transferred.

The FDA indicates that patients who already have the affected leads implanted do not require additional monitoring beyond routine clinical follow-up.

Customers who experience adverse reactions, encounter product quality issues or have questions about the recall can contact Boston Scientific at BSCComplaints@bsci.com. Adverse reactions or product quality concerns involving the devices can also be reported through the FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

In recent years, spinal cord stimulator manufacturers, including Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro, have faced an increasing number of reports and lawsuits involving devices that allegedly malfunctioned, worsened patients’ pain or caused complications requiring additional surgery or removal.

Given common questions of fact and law raised in claims filed against Boston Scientific throughout the federal court system, those lawsuits have been centralized as part of a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton in the Central District of California. The coordinated proceedings are intended to reduce duplicative discovery, avoid conflicting pretrial rulings and improve efficiency as the cases move toward trial or potential settlements.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation previously declined to include claims involving Abbott, Nevro or Medtronic in the Boston Scientific proceedings. However, plaintiffs have since filed separate motions seeking to establish an Abbott spinal cord stimulator MDL and a Nevro spinal cord stimulator MDL, which would each consolidate claims against those manufacturers before a single federal judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The Panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on September 24, 2026, to determine whether the Abbott and Nevro lawsuits should be consolidated into separate MDLs.

As spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to investigate potential claims against manufacturers, case evaluations are being conducted for individuals who experienced complications such as:

Individuals who experienced these or similar complications may be eligible to pursue a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit. Free case evaluations are available to determine whether a claim may be viable, with no legal fees or expenses unless compensation is recovered.

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

About 100 different plaintiffs have signed on to a lawsuit against Amazon.com and a number of third-party retailers, indicating that the delivery service helped promote and sell nitrous oxide for illegal recreational use, leading to addiction and severe health consequences.

The complaint (PDF) was brought on August 26 in the Superior Court of the State of Washington in King County. It involves an extensive list of defendants, including Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.Com Inc., and online nitrous oxide sellers like Galaxy Gas, Miami Magic, Baking Bad Group Inc., Goo Sticks, Exotic Whip, Monster Gas and many others.

Plaintiffs claim that Amazon and the sellers knowing sold massive amounts of nitrous oxide in large containers, alluring flavors and often with accessories that have no other use but as a recreational drug. The lawsuit alleges this makes Amazon a key component in the illegal distribution of nitrous oxide.

Nitrous Oxide Concerns

Nitrous oxide is a gas typically used as an anesthetic in medical and dental procedures, as well as in food preparation. However, the gas can also be inhaled for a brief, euphoric high. The practice, often referred to as doing whippets, deprives parts of the brain and body of oxygen and can lead to addiction and serious health consequences, such as physical, neurological and cognitive injuries, including paralysis, brain damage, vitamin B12 deficiency, addiction and death.

Concerns over nitrous oxide addiction have grown in recent years as the canisters being sold have increased massively in size and have been sold directly to consumers as a thinly veiled recreational drug. They are often sold in vape shops as well as online on Amazon and other platforms under names such as Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad and Miami Magic.

As larger canisters became available and easily accessible, Amazon and its third-party retailers have faced a series of nitrous oxide addiction lawsuits, each alleging defendants knew their nitrous oxide products were being purchased for illegal use and encouraged such behavior, despite the risks of consumer injuries and addiction.

Online Nitrous Oxide Danger Allegations

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs all became heavy users of nitrous oxide, which they allege was fueled in part by how easily the products could be obtained.

The lawsuit claims Amazon played a central role in distributing nitrous oxide canisters and providing third-party sellers with a platform to market the products directly to consumers, contributing to repeated use and addiction.

Plaintiffs claim that as a result, they have suffered serious injuries, including spinal cord and brain damage, paralysis, mobility and coordination problems, memory loss, numbness, weakness, loss of consciousness, blood clots, vitamin B12 deficiency and psychiatric problems such as hallucinations, paranoia and depression.

“These injuries resulted from Plaintiffs inhaling nitrous oxide that was manufactured, promoted, sold, distributed, or supplied by Amazon and the Manufacturer Defendants.”

— Aislinn Marsden et al. v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al.

Amazon allegedly has sole discretion over whose products are sold on its website and yet still allowed the sale of products designed for obviously illegal use. Additionally, years of research has warned of injuries and deaths linked to nitrous oxide recreational use, but the lawsuit notes that no such warnings were added to the products sold on Amazon.

The lawsuit argues that the consumers had no way to know the true dangers of nitrous oxide inhalation. However, they say Amazon and its retailers did, but refused to warn consumers that recreational nitrous oxide use was illegal and put them at risk of severe injury or death.

The plaintiffs present claims of failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranty, design defect, and liability for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. They seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

This complaint joins a growing number of similar nitrous oxide lawsuits being filed by individuals nationwide, who say Amazon and its retailers ignored the substantial risk of nitrous oxide injuries in an effort to capitalize on the widescale recreational use of the gas.

Plaintiffs say Amazon and manufacturers pushed nitrous oxide distribution even as evidence mounted that customers were buying canisters to inhale the gas rather than use it for food preparation.

Nitrous oxide injury lawyers are offering free case evaluations to individuals and families who have suffered injuries and may be entitled to 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.

The mother of a 12-year-old girl has filed a Roblox grooming lawsuit alleging the online gaming platform was intentionally designed without adequate safeguards, allowing a sexual predator to use the platform to groom and exploit her daughter.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the girl, identified as LLF-0001, through her mother and court-appointed guardian, LLF-GAL-0001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 25. It names Roblox Corporation as the sole defendant.

LLF-0001 claims Roblox knew for years that predators were using the platform to identify, contact and manipulate children, yet continued promoting the service as a safe environment for young users while failing to implement reasonable safety measures that could have reduced those risks.

Roblox Grooming Risks

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

Although marketed as a child-friendly platform, Roblox has increasingly faced criticism from parents, child safety advocates and regulators over allegations that its communication tools, virtual currency system and other features have made it easier for sexual predators to contact and groom minors.

In light of these concerns, a growing number of Roblox lawsuits now allege the company prioritized user growth and engagement over child safety by failing to implement adequate age verification, parental controls, content moderation and other safeguards designed to prevent children from being targeted by online predators.

Roblox Grooming Lawsuit

According to the complaint, Roblox publicly portrayed its platform as a safe digital environment for children while allegedly concealing longstanding knowledge that predators were using the service to identify, groom and sexually exploit minors.

The lawsuit claims Roblox’s design allowed predators to build relationships with children through games, chat features and virtual interactions before encouraging communications to move to other platforms and, eventually, in-person meetings.

LLF-0001 further alleges Roblox’s virtual currency system, Robux, was frequently used by predators to manipulate, coerce or extort children into providing sexually explicit images and other content.

The filing indicates Roblox had long been aware of reports involving predators using the platform to target children but failed to implement reasonable safety measures that could have reduced those risks.

It also cites numerous publicly reported incidents over the last decade involving children who allegedly met predators through Roblox before being subjected to sexual exploitation, sextortion, trafficking or sexual assault.

“Far from creating a safe place for children, Roblox designed, built, and maintains a toxic environment that has enabled obscene material to flourish and, worse, enables predatory pedophiles to hunt, groom, and sexually exploit children.”

— LLF-0001 v. Roblox Corporation

The lawsuit contends Roblox could have implemented stronger age verification, parental controls, monitoring systems and other safeguards, but instead continued emphasizing user growth while publicly assuring families the platform prioritized child safety.

LLF-0001 raises allegations of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking and design defect. She seeks damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress and medical expenses.

Roblox Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

The complaint will join a group of more than 180 Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits pending before U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California, where the cases have been centralized for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Judge Seeborg is expected to establish a bellwether program in which a handful of representative lawsuits will proceed to early trial. Although those verdicts will not determine the outcome of other claims, they are intended to help both sides evaluate how juries may respond to common evidence and legal issues presented throughout the litigation.

The court also appointed a special master earlier this year to oversee preliminary settlement discussions. If those negotiations prove successful, many of the pending lawsuits could be resolved without the need for individual trials.

If the parties are unable to reach a broader settlement through the bellwether process or negotiations, the remaining federal cases could ultimately be remanded to the courts where they were originally filed for separate trial proceedings.

Roblox sexual exploitation lawyers handle all claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning families pay no attorney fees or litigation expenses unless compensation is recovered through a settlement or trial verdict.

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

A California man has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging that a defective SaunaBox SmartSteam personal sauna sold at Dick’s Sporting Goods suddenly exploded, causing him to suffer severe burns.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Demir Tagani in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California on September 1, naming SaunaBox LLC and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. as defendants.

Tagani claims the at-home personal steam sauna kit was defectively designed, inadequately tested and sold without sufficient warnings.

The SaunaBox SmartSteam Pro Kit is a portable steam sauna designed for at-home use, combining an enclosed sauna tent with a steam generator that produces high-humidity heat. While the product is marketed as a convenient alternative to a traditional sauna, prior lawsuits allege that SaunaBox steam sauna systems can expose users to dangerously hot steam or water, resulting in serious burn injuries.

Similar to Tagani’s complaint, a New Jersey woman filed a SaunaBox lawsuit last month after the water tank of her SmartSteam personal sauna exploded, resulting in serious burns to her body. The complaint alleges safer alternative sauna designs were available and that the company failed to adequately warn consumers about the product’s risks.

SaunaBox SmartSteam Pro Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Tagani purchased a SaunaBox SmartSteam Pro on July 20, 2025, from Dick’s Sporting Goods. A few months later, on October 18, 2025, he claims he was using the sauna as instructed when the water tank suddenly exploded without warning, spraying hot water onto him and causing severe burns to his legs, chest, arms and hand.

The complaint alleges Tagani has suffered pain, disability and mental anguish as a result of the incident. He maintains his injuries are permanent or continuing and could result in future financial losses.

Tagani argues the sauna was unreasonably dangerous due to defects in its design and manufacture, despite being marketed as a portable, at-home product intended to provide the benefits of a traditional sauna in a compact package. The lawsuit also claims the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or adopt a safer alternative design.

“Alternatively, Defendant, Sauna, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, of the means of designing, manufacturing and/or marketing the Sauna such that the type of incident and resulting injuries and damages as described herein would have been prevented.”

— Damir Tagani v. SaunaBox LLC et al.

The lawsuit alleges strict product liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties and failure to warn. It seeks compensatory damages, court costs and any other relief the court deems appropriate.

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

A Kentucky man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit claiming his wife died of septic shock and multiorgan failure due to an Olympus endoscope infection caused by the medical camera’s design.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Raymond Nichols, Sr. on behalf of himself and his late wife, Peggy Sue Nichols in May in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit names Olympus Medical Systems Corporation and its U.S. subsidiaries as defendants, who removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on August 28.

Nichols says his wife died because of the design of the Olympus endoscope, which he alleges passed on infectious material from a previous patient because the device was not sterilized properly. He argues the failure to sterilize the device properly was due to its design, which has deep grooves and moving parts where infectious material can stay hidden during the sterilization process.

Olympus Endoscope Infections

Endoscopes are devices that allow doctors to see inside of the body during certain medical procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), colonoscopy, upper endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Manufactured by Olympus, FujiFilm and other traditionally optics-focused manufacturers, endoscopes contain small cameras, lights, long narrow channels and moving parts that allow doctors to examine internal organs, diagnose medical conditions and perform certain treatments without open surgery.

More than 22 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed in the United States every year, including roughly 15 to 19 million colonoscopies and more than 650,000 ERCP procedures. An estimated 50 million colonoscopies are performed annually around the world. Since these devices are often used on multiple patients, the scopes must be thoroughly cleaned, disinfected and reprocessed after each procedure.

However, Nichols joins a growing number of individuals who have filed Olympus endoscope lawsuits, indicating that bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other debris may remain trapped inside the scopes, especially in narrow channels or damaged areas that are difficult to inspect, allowing infections to pass from one patient to another. Plaintiffs claim these design and warning failures exposed patients to serious bacterial infections, sepsis, organ failure and in some cases, even death.

Olympus Scope Wrongful Death Allegations

According to the complaint, Peggy Sue Nichols underwent an ERCP in May 2025. The procedure was performed with an Olympus TJF-Q190V, a duodenovideoscope used for ERCP procedure.

Later that same evening, she began experiencing severe abdominal pain and was diagnosed with sepsis.

“Within 36 hours of her ERCP, Decedent was in septic shock and multisystem organ failure due to the infection. Decedent was flown via helicopter to Ohio State University Hospital, where her septic shock and multisystem organ failure were treated and stabilized.”

– Raymond Nichols, Sr. et al. v. Olympus Medical Corporation et al.

The lawsuit indicates that cultures revealed the source of the sepsis was Klebsiella pneumoniae, “the same bacteria which was transmitted by the endoscope was linked to an endoscope in the Netherlands that caused an outbreak in 2015.”

Nichols endured seven major abdominal surgeries from July 2025 until her death on November 15, 2025. Her husband’s lawsuit presents claims of negligence, negligent failure to warn, negligent design and manufacturing defect, negligent misrepresentation and omissions, fraud, failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, breach of warranty, loss of consortium and wrongful death. He seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Olympus Endoscope Lawsuits

Olympus endoscope lawyers are reviewing potential Olympus endoscope lawsuits for individuals nationwide who suffered serious infections or lost loved ones after an ERCP or other endoscopic procedure involving a potentially contaminated reusable scope.

You may be eligible to file a claim if you or a loved one suffered any of the following after a colonoscopy, endoscopy, ERCP or bronchoscopy:

All contaminated scope infection product liability lawsuits are handled on a contingency fee basis. This means there are no upfront costs to have a lawyer investigate your potential claim, and no legal fees or expenses are paid unless a settlement or recovery is obtained.

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

Connecticut has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the prediction market Kalshi from offering sports event contracts to residents of the state, alleging it is actually operating an illegal, unlicensed sports betting platform.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the State of Connecticut in Connecticut Superior Court on August 26, naming KalshiEX LLC as the sole defendant.

Kalshi has allegedly offered sports wagers to Connecticut residents since January 2025 through its website, app and other channels, yet the state maintains the platform has never held or attempted to obtain the license required to offer sports wagering in its jurisdiction.

Online Sportsbooks and Prediction Markets

Following a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that paved the way for states to legalize sports betting, a number of traditional sportsbooks have begun operating online.

Platforms such as DraftKings and FanDuel have introduced millions of younger adults to the ability to place bets from their smartphones at any time of day. However, that rapid expansion has also helped fuel a wave of sports betting addiction lawsuits alleging the companies promoted addictive gambling behavior and failed to protect vulnerable users.

Connecticut legalized sports betting in 2021, but online wagering in the state generally must operate through one of three master wagering licensees: the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Mohegan Tribe and Connecticut Lottery Corporation, or licensed entities operating on their behalf.

Billing itself as a “prediction market,” Kalshi claims it does not fall under that purview, allowing users to buy and sell “event contracts” based on whether future events will occur. The platform offers contracts involving sports, elections, weather, interest rates and other subjects, characterizing the transactions as financial products rather than conventional wagers.

Kalshi Sports Betting Allegations

In the complaint, Connecticut maintains Kalshi’s sports event contracts are simply “sports wagers under another name,” offering bets on game and series winners, season win totals, league rankings, points scored and individual player statistics, as well as “combos,” which the state describes as essentially parlays. For its part, Kalshi argues its contracts are federally regulated derivatives under the Commodity Exchange Act and cannot be regulated or prohibited by individual states such as Connecticut.

According to the lawsuit, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection sent Kalshi and other prediction-market providers cease-and-desist letters in December 2025. In response, Kalshi filed a federal lawsuit seeking to prevent state officials from enforcing Connecticut gambling laws. On August 7, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction.

The filing notes that courts in several other states, as well as the Sixth Circuit, have similarly rejected Kalshi’s argument that federal law shields its sports contracts from state gambling regulations.

Connecticut also alleges Kalshi operates outside consumer safeguards imposed on licensed sportsbooks, including a state law prohibiting sports betting by anyone under 21. Kalshi allegedly allows individuals 18 and older to create accounts and wager on sporting events, meaning some high school students may qualify for accounts despite being too young to legally gamble in Connecticut.

The complaint further accuses Kalshi of marketing to individuals under 21 and paying minors to create promotional content. Specifically, the state claims Kalshi briefly used a 15-year-old video game streamer as an affiliate and promoted an ambassador program targeting students at Yale and other universities.

Connecticut also claims Kalshi deceptively represented its sports contracts as legal nationwide. The complaint reproduces an advertisement describing Kalshi as “The First Nationwide Legal Sports Betting Platform.”

Moreover, the state alleges Kalshi uses investment terminology such as trading, financial strategy, price fluctuations and market risk to advertise its contracts. Connecticut argues that language misleadingly portrays risky sports wagers as investment products that may provide financial security.

“Kalshi often implies in its advertisements that users have a greater chance of winning compared to sportsbooks participating in the regulated marketplace, in violation of Connecticut’s advertising and marketing requirement that master wagering licensees not imply greater chances of winning compared to other licensees.”

— State of Connecticut vs. KalshiEx LLC

The lawsuit raises allegations of unfairness, illegal sports wagering, underage gambling and deception. It seeks injunctive relief under Connecticut’s sports wagering laws, for the court to permanently prevent Kalshi from offering unlicensed sports wagering in the state, restitution for consumers, civil penalties and disgorgement of revenues and profits.

Online Sports Betting Lawsuits

Connecticut’s concerns about prediction markets like Kalshi come amid a growing number of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits filed over allegations that online wagering platforms contributed to gambling addiction, particularly among younger users.

Many claims allege the platforms used algorithms to identify customers who showed signs of compulsive gambling and then targeted them with personalized promotions, loyalty rewards and, in some cases, dedicated account representatives. The lawsuits maintain these practices encouraged continued wagering while minimizing the financial risks associated with gambling.

Amid the growing litigation, gambling addiction lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals who suffered substantial financial losses through sports betting and other online wagering platforms.

Individuals who believe they may qualify for a sports betting addiction lawsuit can submit information for a free legal review. Claims are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront costs and attorneys are paid only if compensation is obtained through a settlement or verdict.

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

Agricultural workers regularly exposed to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides may face an increased risk of heart inflammation, oxidative stress and fibrosis, which researchers warn could contribute to the development of heart failure.

According to findings published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology on August 23, chronic exposure to low levels of chlorpyrifos (CPF) and another organophosphate pesticide, dimethoate (DM), was linked to a range of cardiovascular risks.

Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide marketed since the 1960s under brand names including Dursban, Lorsban, Cobalt, NuFos, Bolton and several others. It was widely used in agricultural, residential and commercial settings, as well as during the Gulf War to control insects around military camps and facilities.

Farmers, agricultural workers and pesticide applicators were often exposed to chlorpyrifos while mixing, loading or spraying the chemical on crops. Nearby residents and other individuals may also be exposed through pesticide drift or residues left behind following agricultural applications.

Chlorpyrifos Ban Overturned

In 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibited chlorpyrifos from being used on food crops amid concerns about the pesticide’s toxicity and potential neurological effects. However, a federal appeals court later overturned the ban, allowing certain agricultural uses to return.

The renewed availability of chlorpyrifos has coincided with continued research examining the long-term health effects of repeated exposure. Studies have linked the pesticide to biological changes involving oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and damage to dopamine-producing brain cells, and recent research found that long-term residential exposure was associated with more than twice the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

In recent months, chlorpyrifos Parkinson’s disease lawsuits have been filed nationwide, alleging manufacturers failed to adequately warn agricultural workers, pesticide applicators and others that repeated exposure may increase the risk of neurological damage and Parkinson’s disease.

Chlorpyrifos Cardiovascular Concerns

For the study, Indian researchers looked for the effects of CPF and DM on the cardiovascular system through in vitro and in vivo studies on female Wistar rats. Subjects were exposed to individual concentrations of CPF and DM as well as combinations of the two. Outcomes after a month were compared to control rats who had no exposures at all.

Led by Jasmeena Jan, the team linked both pesticides to inflammation of the heart and vascular system, endothelial barrier dysfunction and oxidative stress. The researchers were able to identify a number of mechanistic chemical reactions in the rat subjects that they believe would work similarly in the human body.

Additionally, the research team indicated it was able to identify certain chemical signals that activated, leading to the inflammation. It noted these “biomarkers” could help quickly identify chlorpyrifos as the cause for certain conditions.

“Collectively, these findings demonstrate that CPF and DM exposure induces cardiovascular injury mediated through oxidative stress, inflammasome activation and nitric oxide dysregulation.”

— Jasmeena Jan, Organophosphate Pesticides Promote Cardiovascular Toxicity via NF-κB/NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation and Endothelial Dysfunction: Integrated In Vivo and In Vitro Evidence

Researchers concluded that the data strengthens a causal link between chlorpyrifos and heart disease “but also underscore the need for stricter regulatory control, improved biomonitoring of exposed populations.”

Chlorpyrifos Lawsuits

While this latest study focused on chlorpyrifos cardiovascular risks, it joins a considerable amount of existing evidence of the pesticide’s toxic effects on the nervous system.

Chlorpyrifos attorneys are currently reviewing possible product liability lawsuits for individuals diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease after long-term exposure to the pesticide through:

• 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.

The family of a New York woman has filed a lawsuit alleging the defective design of a Tesla vehicle’s electronic door systems trapped her in the car after a fire ignited.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Francis X. Sheehan II and Azinia Thomas, as co-administrators of the estate of Diana Irene Sheehan, in New York State Supreme Court on August 7. Tesla Inc., Tesla Motors New York LLC and an unidentified company listed as ABC Corporation are named as defendants, and the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25.

According to the lawsuit, Tesla was aware of prior incidents and other information indicating that its lithium-ion battery systems could ignite after collisions and that a resulting loss of electrical power could interfere with operation of the vehicle’s electronic doors. Plaintiffs allege the company failed to adequately address those risks or provide occupants with a sufficiently accessible means of escape during an emergency.

Tesla Entrapment Risks

The allegations are similar to those raised in other lawsuits involving Tesla fires, which have questioned whether the company’s reliance on electronically operated doors can create an additional hazard when a crash damages the vehicle’s electrical system.

Earlier this year, the daughters of a California man filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging their father died after becoming trapped inside a burning Tesla Model Y following an Autopilot crash. The lawsuit claims malfunctioning door handles prevented him from escaping as the fire spread through the vehicle.

Another lawsuit filed in March involved a driver who alleges the electronic door locks on his Tesla stopped working during a vehicle fire, delaying his escape. He ultimately survived but suffered severe burns and other life-threatening injuries.

Tesla Door Defect Allegations

According to the complaint, Diana Irene Sheehan was a front-seat passenger in a 2023 Tesla Model Y when the vehicle was involved in an accident in White Plains, New York, on September 16, 2024.

During the crash, the entire left side of the vehicle was sheared off and detached from the body. The driver was ejected from the vehicle and died.

The collision also damaged the high-voltage lithium-ion battery pack, causing it to catch fire. The lawsuit claims Sheehan became trapped inside the burning vehicle because the push-button electronic doors stopped working when the vehicle lost power, while the mechanical emergency releases were concealed and difficult to locate.

“By reason of said collision and the aforesaid crashworthiness and design defects, Diana Irene Sheehan became trapped inside the burning Tesla vehicle, unable to escape, where she experienced unimaginable pain, suffering and pre-death terror until she succumbed to the smoke and fire that took her young life.”

— Francis X. Sheehan II et al. v. Tesla Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges Tesla knew or should have known that its lithium-ion batteries could ignite following crashes and that its electronic door systems could leave occupants trapped when electrical power was lost. Plaintiffs claim previous incidents, internal memos and other accidents involving fires, trapped occupants and deaths made those risks foreseeable.

Plaintiffs further allege Tesla vehicles are prone to fires that can be difficult to extinguish once they begin, compounding the danger created by electronic doors that may become inoperable following a crash. They maintain Tesla could have reduced those risks through safer designs and additional safety features but failed to do so.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, strict products liability and loss of consortium. It seeks compensation for pain and suffering, pre-death terror, medical expenses, funeral and burial expenses, loss of earnings capacity and other damages.

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

The U.S. District Judge overseeing all federally consolidated Cartiva implant lawsuits has appointed a group of attorneys to leadership positions, giving them responsibility for coordinating the litigation and representing the interests of plaintiffs pursuing claims over premature implant failures and related complications.

The Cartiva synthetic cartilage implant was marketed as an alternative to big toe fusion for patients with degenerative arthritis affecting the joint at the base of the big toe. Made from a polyvinyl alcohol-based gel, the implant was intended to preserve more movement than fusion surgery while reducing pain.

However, concerns about the device increased after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Cartiva implant recall in October 2024. Although the manufacturer had promoted an 87% success rate during pre-market testing, post-market data reviewed by the FDA indicated success rates ranging from only 21% to 46%.

Following the recall, Cartiva toe lawsuits began to be filed nationwide, alleging the implants were defectively designed and prone to loosening, fracture, bone erosion, chronic pain and complete failure that may require additional surgery.

Cartiva Injury Lawsuit MDL

All Cartiva toe lawsuits filed in federal courts have been consolidated in the Eastern District of Arkansas before U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Judge Baker is expected to order the parties to prepare a few representative cases to serve as early bellwether trials, which will give plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to see how juries will respond to evidence and testimony that would likely be repeated throughout the litigation.

On August 31, the judge issued an initial management order (PDF) appointing 13 plaintiffs’ attorneys to leadership positions in the litigation. The order assigns one attorney to serve as Plaintiffs’ MDL Liaison Counsel, two appointed to serve as MDL co-lead counsel, and 10 lawyers to serve as an MDL Steering Committee.

Such appointments are designed to represent the interests of everyone with a pending claim. This structure is common in mass tort litigation, helping ensure plaintiffs are represented consistently while channeling key information and decisions through a small group of lawyers rather than every firm involved nationwide.

The order also calls for a continuing series of status conferences to keep the parties and court up to date on the litigation. The next status conference is scheduled for October 8, 2026, during which additional deadlines and conference dates will be selected.

Following the bellwether trials, if no settlement agreement or other resolution is reached, Judge Baker would likely begin remanding the cases back to their originating federal courts for individual trial dates.

Cartiva Injury Lawyers Accepting Cases

Individuals who experienced a Cartiva implant failure may be eligible to pursue financial compensation through a Cartiva implant lawsuit, particularly if they suffered complications such as:

• Implant failure or fracture
• Subsidence, where the implant sinks into the surrounding bone
• Toe fusion surgery
• Implant replacement surgery
• Revision surgery

Product liability lawyers are reviewing potential Cartiva injury claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are paid only if a settlement or lawsuit recovery is obtained.

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

California lawmakers have unanimously approved legislation restricting consumer sales of large nitrous oxide canisters amid growing concerns about recreational abuse of the products, commonly known as “whippets.”

State Senator Catherine Blakespear announced in an August 27 press release that Senate Bill 936 had cleared the California Legislature and was headed to Governor Gavin Newsom. The legislation would prohibit public sales of nitrous oxide canisters containing more than 8 grams of the gas while maintaining exceptions for legitimate medical, dental, culinary and automotive uses.

The California bill is the latest response to concerns that large nitrous oxide canisters, particularly flavored varieties, are readily available to young consumers and increasingly being inhaled recreationally.

Nitrous Oxide Abuse Risks

Nitrous oxide is a colorless gas with legitimate uses as an anesthetic during medical and dental procedures and as a propellant in whipped cream dispensers. However, recreational use has become increasingly common among teens and young adults in the United States, who inhale the gas to produce a brief feeling of euphoria or intoxication.

As nitrous oxide misuse has become more widespread, health concerns have also increased. Repeated or heavy inhalation has been linked to loss of consciousness, severe vitamin B12 depletion, nerve and neurological damage, difficulty walking and other potentially life-threatening complications.

Those health concerns have fueled a series of nitrous oxide lawsuits against Amazon and other companies that distribute or manufacture the products, with plaintiffs alleging large, flavored canisters were marketed in ways that encouraged recreational inhalation despite the risk of addiction and serious injuries. Plaintiffs maintain the companies prioritized sales and profits despite the risks posed to consumers and public health.

Nitrous Oxide Sales Restrictions

Blakespear maintains the 8-gram limit imposed by SB 936 is intended to curb recreational nitrous oxide abuse by restricting access to the large-capacity canisters that allow users to inhale substantially greater amounts of the gas. 

She also points out that the legislation received unanimous support in both chambers of the California Legislature, passing the Assembly in a 78-0 vote before receiving final Senate approval by a vote of 39-0. The measure is also backed by about 100 organizations and co-sponsored by Orange County, San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan and several advocacy groups.

If signed into law, California would join multiple jurisdictions restricting retail sales of nitrous oxide products in large quantities amid concerns about recreational abuse. According to Blakespear’s office, Nebraska and Louisiana have already adopted restrictions on whippet sales, while California’s Humboldt, Orange, San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties have enacted similar local measures.

“Nitrous oxide is addictive, it’s dangerous and it’s readily available. SB 936 puts a stop to its wide distribution for non-legitimate purposes.”

— California Senator Catherine Blakespear

In addition to the state and local legislation, U.S. Representative Kevin Mullin of California introduced the federal Nitrous Oxide Safety Act (H.R. 7945) in June, which seeks to prohibit consumer retail sales nationwide while maintaining avenues for legitimate medical and industrial purchases.

The federal proposal was described as an outgrowth of efforts by families whose children suffered injuries or died following nitrous oxide addiction and abuse, with lawmakers raising concerns about the evolution of whippets from small culinary cartridges into large, flavored tanks that can facilitate repeated recreational inhalation.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

As lawmakers move to restrict recreational nitrous oxide sales, manufacturers and retailers are also facing lawsuits alleging they continued marketing and selling large canisters despite signs the products were increasingly being purchased for inhalation rather than legitimate culinary or commercial uses.

Whippet injury lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals and families affected by serious complications linked to nitrous oxide abuse, including neurological damage, vitamin B12 depletion, loss of mobility, addiction and other long-term injuries. Free case evaluations are available to determine whether financial compensation may be available.

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

A federal judge has recommended that a tabletop fire pit injury lawsuit against Walmart be prepared for trial in December 2027, where a jury would consider allegations that a defective design caused serious burn injuries.

Reginald Valentine, Karman Valentine and Kelbie Green filed the joint lawsuit in June, alleging Walmart knowingly marketed and sold ZIB Tabletop Fire Pits after federal regulators urged stores to stop selling them due to “flame jetting” risks.

The complaint was assigned to U.S. District Judge David Clay Fowlkes in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

Tabletop Fire Pit Burn Risks

Tabletop fire pits, which have become increasingly popular in recent years, are small, portable devices designed for use on tables and other flat surfaces. They burn liquid alcohol or similar fuels to create an open flame used for heat, ambiance or cooking on patios, decks and balconies, as well as inside homes.

Some designs, like the ZIB, require users to pour liquid fuel directly into an open reservoir before lighting the fire pit. However, many of the designs do not have an indicator to tell the user if the fire has actually gone out, as some fuel flames can be invisible to the naked eye when the pits burn low.

These incidents may occur when consumers attempt to refuel a tabletop fire pit while residual heat or an unseen flame remains inside. The fuel can ignite and flash back into the container, causing it to explode and spray nearby users with burning liquid that may reach temperatures above 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit.

A growing number of people who suffered severe burns from flame-jetting explosions have filed tabletop fire pit injury lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors.

The lawsuits allege the products were dangerously designed and sold without adequate safety features, refueling instructions or warnings about hazards such as invisible flames and flame jetting, which can cause burning fuel to erupt toward nearby users.

According to the complaint, Reginald Valentine was adding bioethanol fuel to the fire pit’s reservoir on June 15, 2025, when it erupted with flames. Reginald suffered second-degree burns to his hands and right forearm, while Karman sustained second-degree burns to both forearms. The lawsuit indicates Kelbie suffered the most serious injuries, including second- and third-degree burns to her face, neck, chest and upper extremities, covering approximately 20% to 25% of her body. She continues to suffer facial scarring.

The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a warning in December 2024, calling these designs “extremely dangerous,” indicating tabletop fire pits violate ASTM F3363-19 voluntary safety standards and present risks of both pool fires and flame jetting events. Since 2019, the CPSC has linked tabletop fire pits to at least 60 injuries and two deaths, plaintiffs indicated.

Tabletop Fire Pit Scheduling Order

On August 18, Judge Fowlkes issued an initial scheduling order (PDF) that calls for the counsel and the judge to meet for a conference on September 10 to discuss the discovery process. He recommends that the case be made ready for trial by December 2027.

The judge noted that the proposed time period was just a recommendation based on the standard time similar litigation has required. He indicates the court recognizes this will not fit all scenarios and that the schedule may need to change.

The order calls for attorneys for both sides to submit three potential trial dates that will not conflict with anyone’s schedule, indicating that the dates should be set at least five months after the end of discovery.

“The parties should be diligent in proposing deadlines, as the Court will not grant extensions or continuances after entry of the final scheduling order absent a showing of good cause.”

– U.S. District Judge David Clay Fowlkes, Western District of Arkansas

Tabletop Fire Pit Injury Lawsuits

As the number of reported incidents continues to increase, attorneys are reviewing claims for potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits on behalf of individuals who suffered burns and other injuries during incidents involving unexpected flare-ups, flash fires and flame jetting events.

Alleged injuries associated with these products have included:

• Second- and third-degree burn injuries
• Permanent scarring and disfigurement
• Nerve damage and loss of mobility
• Smoke inhalation and respiratory injuries
• Burns affecting children and nearby bystanders
• Fires occurring while fuel was being added to the device
• Fatal injuries resulting from fire pit explosions
• Lost wages and diminished earning capacity
• Ongoing medical treatment, rehabilitation and reconstructive procedures
• Psychological trauma and emotional distress

Those who have suffered a tabletop fire pit injury may be eligible to pursue compensation through a product liability lawsuit. Attorneys investigating potential claims can help identify the product involved, determine whether it was subject to safety warnings or recalls, and evaluate available legal remedies.

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

Apple opposes proposed consolidation of federal lawsuits filed by consumers who say AirTag devices were used to stalk them, arguing each case involves unique circumstances beyond the devices’ design that would make centralization inefficient.

The Apple AirTag is a device about the size of a quarter, which is designed to be placed in luggage or wallets to help the user track an item through the company’s “FindMy” App if that item gets lost. Using millions of other Apple devices as reference points, the products are extremely accurate.

However, plaintiffs who have filed Apple stalking lawsuits claim the small size and lack of safety features allows others to easily hide AirTags in someone’s belongings or vehicle without being noticed, giving predators or abusers the ability to track individuals for nefarious purposes without warning.

Apple AirTag Stalking Risks

If an AirTag is moving in the vicinity of another Apple device, such as an iPhone or iPad, the device will post a notification indicating an AirTag is in use nearby. However, when AirTags were first introduced, it took up to 72 hours for Apple devices to warn that an AirTag had been detected. In addition, the warning was only given to those who had a device using the Apple iOS operating system. Eventually, the delay was reduced to 24 hours.

Apple also continued to market AirTags after domestic violence organizations and technology experts warned the devices could be exploited to secretly monitor victims. The company allegedly received more than 40,000 AirTag stalking-related complaints between 2021 and 2024, at times averaging more than 1,000 reports per month.

Despite those reports, Apple largely relied on software updates and other safety measures to address the risks. Lawsuits allege those changes failed to adequately protect individuals from continued stalking and unwanted tracking.

AirTag Lawsuit Consolidation

Earlier this month, a group of plaintiffs filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) calling for all federal Apple stalking lawsuits to be centralized in the District of Arizona before U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa. Plaintiffs claim coordinated pretrial proceedings would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and improve efficiency as the number of lawsuits continues to grow.

At the time of the filing on August 4, there were already more than 20 individual Apple lawsuits over AirTag stalking problems pending in at least 17 federal districts, with additional cases expected to be filed. Another plaintiff, Brittany Alowonee, filed a response (PDF) in support of centralization on August 25.

Apple itself issued a response in opposition (PDF) to consolidation on the same day, claiming that the AirTag stalking lawsuits involve far too individualized circumstances to find any efficiency in centralization. Company attorneys also argued that many of the cases are already too advanced toward resolution.

“Centralizing now jeopardizes the parties’ recent progress to global resolution and risks slowing down the more advanced Preexisting Cases.”

–Apple Inc., Opposition to the Motion for Transfer

The company’s response claims it has reached 20 AirTag lawsuit settlements in the last two months, including about nine that plaintiffs originally requested be added into the proposed multidistrict litigation (MDL). It called for the JPML to reject the plaintiffs’ petition and allow the litigation to move forward as individual cases.

However, if the JPML moves forward with consolidation, Apple requests the litigation be consolidated in the Middle District of Florida, which is hosting at least three of the pending lawsuits.

Apple AirTag Stalking Lawyers

The JPML is scheduled to hear oral arguments on AirTag centralization at a hearing session scheduled for September 24 in Chicago. In the meantime, Apple AirTag lawyers continue to investigate claims by individuals who suffered any of the following due to the trackers:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal conduct

These investigations are being conducted on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal fees or expenses.

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

Federal regulators have placed three highly potent kratom-related opioids into Schedule I amid concerns about addiction, respiratory depression and other serious health risks.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release on August 25, announcing that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was temporarily placing mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI), MGM-15 and MGM-16 into Schedule I.

Schedule I is the most restrictive category under the federal Controlled Substances Act, reserved for drugs considered to have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The designation generally makes it illegal to manufacture, distribute or possess the substances outside of authorized research or other limited circumstances.

All three substances are potent opioid compounds chemically related to 7-OH, or 7-hydroxymitragynine. 7-OH is a powerful opioid-like substance that occurs naturally in kratom at trace levels but is increasingly sold in highly concentrated commercial products produced through laboratory processing or synthesis.

7-OH Risks

Kratom has traditionally been sold in relatively basic forms made from the leaves of the Mitragyna tree, including powders, capsules and teas. In recent years, however, the market has expanded to include concentrated extracts, shots, gummies and other products containing much higher levels of active compounds that produce opioid-like effects.

Many of these products are sold at gas stations, smoke shops, convenience stores and online, often alongside traditional kratom and frequently promoted as supplements or wellness products. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved kratom to treat any medical condition.

One of the biggest concerns involves 7-hydroxymitragynine, or 7-OH, which occurs naturally in kratom only at very low levels. Manufacturers can now produce products containing far higher concentrations of 7-OH through processing or synthesis, creating substances that are substantially more potent than traditional botanical kratom.

As the potency of the products have increased, a series of kratom lawsuits have been filed alleging the manufacturers failed to adequately warn consumers about those risks, particularly. The claims maintain that these newer products can expose users to dangers that are substantially different from those associated with traditional botanical kratom.

Synthetic Kratom Schedule I Classification

Preclinical evidence indicates MGPI, MGM-15 and MGM-16 are potent mu-opioid receptor agonists, raising concerns about dependence, respiratory depression and other risks. MGPI and MGM-15 are already being manufactured and marketed in consumer products for their opioid effects. MGM-16 has not yet been confirmed in consumer products, but regulators are concerned it could emerge as a substitute for similar substances.

Although the DOJ characterized the three compounds as an “imminent hazard to public safety,” the emergency order applies only to MGPI, MGM-15 and MGM-16, not traditional botanical kratom or 7-OH itself.

“The emergency scheduling action subjects the manufacture, distribution and possession of these substances to the regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to schedule I controlled substances. It allows the federal government to respond to a rapidly developing market for products containing these manufactured opioid compounds.”

— U.S. Department of Justice

On August 26, the American Kratom Association filed a complaint (PDF) seeking to prevent the DEA from applying its new Schedule I classification of mitragynine pseudoindoxyl to traditional botanical kratom products that may contain naturally occurring or naturally formed trace amounts of the compound. The organization argued that the agency intended to target concentrated and synthetic opioid products and failed to establish a threshold distinguishing them from natural kratom.

7-OH Lawsuits

In addition to the DEA action, separate kratom lawsuits brought in federal courts nationwide allege manufacturers have failed to adequately disclose the potential for addiction, physical dependence, severe withdrawal, cardiac injuries, respiratory depression, poisoning, overdose and death. While some claims involve traditional kratom products, a distinct group of 7-OH lawsuits focuses on highly refined or concentrated formulations allegedly producing substantially stronger opioid-like effects.

Last year, Matthew Kernisky filed a proposed class action against Kama Distribution, a manufacturer of kratom-derived products, involving the sale of pseudoindoxyl and 7-OH tablets. The lawsuit alleges those refined compounds can produce far more powerful opioid effects than traditional botanical kratom.

Kernisky’s claim indicates 7-OH could be up to 10 times more potent than morphine, while pseudoindoxyl could be three to five times more potent. The filing contrasts those highly refined products with traditional botanical kratom, which contains much lower concentrations of potent opioid-like alkaloids. 

The filing alleges consumers were not adequately warned that highly refined formulations could cause addiction, physical dependence, tolerance and severe withdrawal.

Separate lawsuits argue that concentrated 7-OH and other kratom products have been misleadingly marketed as herbal remedies or dietary supplements despite producing powerful effects. Complaints brought by Noah Seri and Alejandro Mendoza earlier this year allege the kratom products they each consumed caused them to suffer addiction and cardiac injuries.

Kratom Injury Lawsuits

As additional kratom addiction lawsuits are being pursued, personal injury lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals who experienced serious injuries and health complications that may include:

• Addiction and physical dependence
• Severe withdrawal symptoms
• Rapid or irregular heartbeat and other cardiac injuries
• Seizures
• Liver or kidney damage
• Respiratory depression and other breathing problems
• Overdose or other kratom-related complications resulting in death

Kratom injury lawyers handle these cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront legal costs and attorneys are paid only if compensation is recovered through a settlement or award.

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

A federal jury in Chicago has determined Mead Johnson was not liable for the death of a newborn who was fed the company’s infant formula before dying of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), in the first in a series of scheduled bellwether trials.

Mead Johnson, the maker of Enfamil, and Abbott Laboratories, which makes Similac, face nearly 850 combined Enfamil NEC lawsuits and Similac NEC lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide. Plaintiffs, often parents, argue that preterm infants were fed specialized formula products designed to meet their nutritional needs without medical professionals or parents being warned that the cow’s milk-based products may increase the risk of the potentially deadly condition.

When a newborn develops NEC, it means that harmful bacteria has infiltrated and attacked the infant’s intestinal walls. This can cause necrosis (tissue death) in the intestines, severe health complications and death. Preterm newborns are particularly susceptible due to their often under-developed gastrointestinal system.

Treatment is undertaken through the use of harsh antibiotics and/or surgery, sometimes requiring removal of parts of the newborns gastrointestinal tract, potentially causing life-long health problems and the need for ongoing medical treatment.

For years, health studies have linked the use of cow’s milk in infant formulas like Enfamil and Similac to a substantially increased risk of NEC, with many researchers urging hospitals and parents to rely on breast milk or human donor milk as much as possible. Despite the warnings, plaintiffs note that the manufacturers have continued to market cow’s milk-based formula to hospitals worldwide.

NEC Lawsuit Bellwether Trials

Due to common issues of fact and law, all federal Enfamil and Similac NEC lawsuits have been consolidated as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, who has spent the last several years overseeing coordinated discovery and preparing representative claims for early test trials.

These “bellwether” trials are intended to give the parties insight into how juries may respond to evidence, expert testimony and arguments that are likely to be repeated throughout the federal litigation. Although the outcomes are not binding on other lawsuits, they may help guide future settlement negotiations and determine how the remaining federal claims move forward.

The first federal bellwether trial involved allegations that Enfamil Premature Formula caused an infant to develop NEC and die. The Enfamil NEC lawsuit bellwether trial began in Chicago on August 17.

Following the trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on Monday, finding that Mead Johnson should not be held liable. The decision came after about two hours of deliberation.

The verdict follows Judge Pallmeyer’s dismissal of three earlier bellwether claims involving Abbott, after the court excluded key expert testimony and granted summary judgment in favor of the manufacturer.

As a result, the federal MDL has so far produced outcomes favorable to the manufacturers. However, those results stand in contrast to a number of state-court NEC trials, where juries have reached substantially different conclusions.

State Court NEC Lawsuit Verdicts

Outside of the federal MDL, Similac and Enfamil NEC lawsuits have also proceeded independently in state courts. Those cases are not part of Judge Pallmeyer’s bellwether process and do not directly determine the outcome of federal claims, but the verdicts provide another indication of how juries have responded to similar allegations involving premature infant formula and NEC.

In 2024, a Missouri jury ordered Abbott to pay nearly $500 million in a case involving allegations that Similac caused an infant to develop NEC and suffer severe brain damage. Another Missouri trial that year initially resulted in a defense verdict, but the judge later ordered a new trial after finding Abbott improperly introduced certain evidence.

In April 2026, a Cook County, Illinois, jury returned a $70 million verdict in a Similac NEC lawsuit. Another Cook County jury awarded $60 million in an Enfamil case, although an appeals court overturned that verdict on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

The mixed results between the federal MDL and state-court trials are being closely watched as Abbott and Mead Johnson evaluate their potential exposure across the litigation. If the federal proceedings do not lead to a settlement or other resolution following the bellwether process, Judge Pallmeyer may eventually begin remanding unresolved lawsuits back to their originating federal districts for individual trial dates.

To stay up to date on this litigation, sign up to receive infant formula necrotizing enterocolitis lawsuit updates sent directly to your inbox.

A New York man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging recalled Louisville Ladder attic ladders were sold with defective gas strut bolts that may break and create a serious fall hazard.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Robert Magro in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on August 26, naming Louisville Ladder Inc. as the defendant.

Magro is seeking class action status on behalf of consumers in New York and nationwide who purchased the recalled attic ladders and were allegedly exposed to the associated safety risks.

Louisville Ladder Injuries

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a Louisville Ladder recall on August 6, involving more than 1.7 million Century, Featherlite, Lite and Louisville Attic Stairway Ladders equipped with gas struts. The ladders were recalled because bolts in the gas strut assembly may break, creating a risk that users could fall and suffer serious injuries.

At the time of the recall, Louisville Ladder had received 11 reports of bolts breaking, including one incident that resulted in neck, head and back injuries. The affected ladders were sold from November 2012 through July 2026.

The recall adds to broader concerns about injuries involving Louisville Ladder products, including claims that other ladder models have also failed during normal use.

In April, a product liability lawsuit alleged a Massachusetts man suffered spinal injuries and nerve damage after a 15-foot Louisville Ladder collapsed while he was near the top.

Louisville Ladder Defect Allegations

According to Magro’s lawsuit, certain Louisville Attic Stairway Ladders contain a serious defect in which the bolts on the ladder are prone to breaking and may fail while the ladders are in use. This defect could allegedly lead to the potential for falls and severe injuries.

Magro claims Louisville Ladders are marketed as safe and capable of supporting users weighing up to 375 pounds, depending on the model. However, the lawsuit alleges those representations fail to disclose that defective gas strut bolts may break under normal use, potentially causing the ladder to collapse even when used within the stated weight limits.

The lawsuit maintains that this defect makes the ladders unreasonably dangerous and unsuitable for their intended purpose. It further alleges Louisville Ladder knew or should have discovered the problem during the design, testing and manufacturing process.

Magro also claims the company should have been aware of the defect after receiving multiple reports of bolt failures and related injuries. According to the lawsuit, Louisville Ladder allowed the affected products to remain on the market for years before issuing the recall, continuing to expose consumers to the risk of falls and serious injuries.

The complaint also criticizes the recall remedy, alleging Louisville Ladder offered only a repair kit and required consumers to perform or arrange the necessary work themselves, rather than providing refunds for the recalled ladders. Magro argues the remedy is “woefully ineffective and insufficient to make consumers whole” and improperly limits the company’s financial responsibility for the defective products.

“Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices by representing that its Products were safe, high-quality ladders, while omitting the material fact that the Products contained, or risked containing, defective gas strut bolts prone to breaking.”

— Robert Magro v. Louisville Ladder Inc.

The lawsuit raises allegations of violation of New York General Business Law, negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty. It seeks certification of class action status, and for class members to be awarded statutory, compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive damages.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all back stimulator lawsuits being pursued against Boston Scientific throughout the federal court system has issued an order that will allow future claims to be directly filed in his court, removing delays associated with transferring claims from various different districts across the country.

Boston Scientific, along with several other medical device manufacturers, faces mounting litigation over spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems intended to relieve chronic back pain. However, lawsuits allege the devices are prone to problems and complications, causing painful injuries that may require revision or removal procedures and, in some cases, leave patients with greater pain and disability than they experienced before implantation.

Given similar questions of fact and law presented in complaints brought in various different U.S. District Courts nationwide, a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been established for lawsuits against Boston Scientific, where U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton has been appointed to preside over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings out of the Central District of California.

As lawyers continue to investigate spinal cord stimulator lawsuits in the coming weeks and months, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to increase dramatically, with thousands of individual complaints likely to be filed by individuals nationwide.

Direct Filing of Back Stimulator Lawsuits

On August 5, 2026, Judge Staton met with attorneys representing both plaintiffs and defendants for the initial status conference, with the intent of bringing the court up to date on the status of the litigation, and to plot out how to move forward toward an eventual resolution.

Following the status conference, the judge issued a pretrial order (PDF) on August 18 allowing future Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits to be filed directly with the MDL court, rather than first being filed in plaintiffs’ home districts and later transferred into the consolidated proceedings.

The direct filing order is expected to significantly streamline the process for patients to bring new lawsuits, and will eventually help the parties standardize information gathered about each claim.

An accompanying docket management order (PDF) details what information plaintiffs and their counsel need to provide the court when including their complaint on the docket. According to that order, the next status conference is scheduled for October 7, 2026.

Ultimately, Judge Staton is expected to order counsel for both sides to choose a group of cases that are emblematic of the majority of the litigation for further discovery and preparation for a series of early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will give each side an opportunity to see how juries process and weigh evidence, arguments and testimony that could repeatedly be put before juries nationwide if the cases go to trial.

The outcomes of these bellwether trials are not binding on other spinal cord stimulator lawsuits. However, the results could help form the framework for negotiations that could lead to a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement agreement.

If no settlement agreement or other resolution is reached by the end of the bellwether trials and pretrial proceedings, Judge Staton would likely begin remanding claims back to their originating districts for individual trial dates, even if they were directly filed with the MDL.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

While Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are already centralized as part of a federal MDL, similar product liability claims are also being pursued against  Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro over allegations that their implanted back stimulators malfunctioned and caused serious injuries.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation previously declined to include claims against Abbott, Nevro or Medtronic in the Boston Scientific MDL. However, plaintiffs have since filed separate requests to establish an Abbott spinal cord stimulator MDL and a Nevro spinal cord stimulator MDL, which would each consolidate lawsuits involving those manufacturers before one federal judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The Panel is scheduled to hear oral arguments on September 24, 2026, over whether the Abbott and Nevro lawsuits should be consolidated.

As spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to investigate potential claims against the manufacturers, case evaluations are being conducted for individuals who suffered complications, including:

• Spinal cord stimulator lead migration
• Fractured or broken lead wires
• Painful electrical shocks or unexpected stimulation
• Burning sensations
• New or worsening back, leg or nerve pain
• Nerve damage or other neurological injuries
• Muscle weakness, numbness or loss of mobility
• Difficulty walking or gait instability
• Infection involving the implant or surgical site
• Battery or charging failures
• Complete spinal cord stimulator failure
• Revision surgery to reposition or replace leads or other components
• Surgical removal or explant of the spinal cord stimulator

To find out if you or a loved may qualify for a spinal cord stimulator lawsuit, submit information for review by an attorney. All case evaluations are free and there are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained in your case.

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

A California countertop worker has filed a lawsuit alleging years of cutting, fabricating and polishing engineered stone exposed him to respirable silica dust, resulting in silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis and other lung damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Raul Mata Martinez in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County on August 10. It names Caesarstone USA Inc., Bella Stones Inc., Colorquartz USA Inc. and various other manufacturers and distributors of engineered stone as defendants.

Martinez claims the companies misrepresented their products as safe, deliberately concealing known respiratory hazards of engineered stone.

Quartz Countertop Worker Risks

Engineered stone, also known as quartz, has become increasingly popular over the past several decades because of its appearance and durability. However, the material may contain up to 90% crystalline silica, which can be released into the air as hazardous dust when slabs are cut, ground or otherwise fabricated for use in kitchen and bathroom countertops.

Repeated exposure to silica dust can leave installers, fabricators and other stoneworkers at risk of severe and potentially life-threatening lung injuries, including silicosis and pulmonary fibrosis.

Silicosis is a permanent and progressive lung disease caused by inhaling fine crystalline silica particles, which can trigger inflammation and scarring that gradually reduces lung function. In severe cases, the disease may progress to respiratory failure and leave individuals requiring a lung transplant. A growing number of silicosis lawsuits have been filed in recent years, alleging manufacturers failed to adequately warn about these risks.

Countertop Worker Silicosis Allegations

According to the complaint, Martinez polished natural stone countertops and installed them at residential and commercial jobsites around Phoenix from 2008 through 2011. In the following years, he did similar work in Las Vegas. From 2019 to the present, he cut, fabricated and polished both natural and engineered stone countertops for residential and commercial installations throughout the Los Angeles area.

The filing alleges that transforming those materials into countertops exposed Martinez to silica and aluminum trihydrate on a near-daily basis, with the particles entering his body through inhalation. Those exposures allegedly caused or contributed to his silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis and other lung damage.

Martinez says he first became aware he may have silicosis on June 4, 2026, following an examination through the Silicosis Surveillance Program at UCLA Olive View Medical Center. He maintains that before that date, he did not know and could not reasonably have discovered that his stone exposure had caused toxic lung injuries. 

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew or should have known their engineered stone would be cut, fabricated, polished and installed, releasing airborne silica and other toxins. However, the products were allegedly sold without adequate warnings about the risk of silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis and lung damage, despite those foreseeable uses.

Martinez points to federal concerns about occupational silicosis dating back to the early 20th century, arguing the dangers associated with stone dust have been recognized for decades. He claims the manufacturers nevertheless failed to provide adequate information about protective measures needed when cutting and working with their products, and maintains stronger warnings and safer designs could have reduced silica exposure among workers.

“The aforementioned conduct of Defendants, and each of them—specifically, their failure to warn and their manufacture, supply, and/or distribution of defectively designed products—proximately caused Plaintiff Raul Mata Martinez to suffer severe and permanent injuries, including silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and other lung damage, mental and emotional stress attendant to such injuries, and future increased risk of injuries.”

— Raul Mata Martinez v. Caesarstone USA Inc. et al.

The lawsuit raises allegations of failure to warn, design defect, negligence, intentional failure to warn and concealment. It seeks general, exemplary and punitive damages.

Quartz Countertop Lawsuits

Martinez’s case joins a series of silica dust lawsuits being pursued nationwide by countertop fabricators, installers and stoneworkers who developed silicosis and other serious respiratory problems following occupational exposure to dust released from engineered stone.

Individuals may qualify for damages if they have been regularly exposed to silica dust and were diagnosed with any of the following illnesses or diseases:

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

Silicosis lawyers are reviewing potential claims for quartz countertop workers throughout the country who were exposed to silica dust on the job and subsequently diagnosed with silicosis. In these cases, lawyers offer free evaluations to determine whether individuals may be eligible to pursue compensation.

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

A federal judge has established a schedule that could send a South Carolina couple’s lawsuit over contaminated saline and sterile water products to trial in August 2027, involving allegations that manufacturing defects with Nurse Assist SteriCare bottles caused a severe infection, sepsis and other life-threatening complications.

The saline and sterile water lawsuit was brought by Charles and Jamie Crummie in February 2026, pursuing claims against Nurse Assist LLC, Neurovend LLC, doing business as State Side Medical Supply, Amazon.com Inc., Tower Three Partners LLC, BPGC Management LP, Spinnaker International LLC and R Investments LLC as defendants.

According to the complaint, Charles Crummie used SteriCare sterile water for wound care, believing the product was safe and sterile as represented. However, the couple alleges the product was contaminated and caused him to develop a serious infection that progressed to sepsis, shock, fever and streptococcal infection.

The lawsuit claims the defendants were responsible for manufacturing, distributing and selling a medical product that was supposed to remain sterile until use, but allegedly contained defects that allowed bacteria or other contaminants to enter the packaging.

The Crummies maintain that users and medical providers had no reasonable way to detect the contamination before the product was used and were not adequately warned that defects in the packaging could compromise sterility.

Nurse Assist Recall

The lawsuit stems from a nationwide Nurse Assist recall issued in November 2023, involving 0.9% Sodium Chloride Irrigation USP and Sterile Water for Irrigation USP sold in bottles, spray cans, cups and prefilled syringes. The affected products were marketed under Nurse Assist, SteriCare, McKesson, Cardinal, Covidien, Medline and several other brand names, and some were also packaged in medical kits and procedure trays.

Nurse Assist recalled the products after manufacturing and packaging problems raised concerns that the sterile barrier could be compromised, potentially allowing bacteria to contaminate solutions intended for wound irrigation and other medical uses. The FDA warned that exposure to nonsterile saline or water could result in serious infections, including bloodstream, urinary tract and respiratory infections, as well as sepsis and death in severe cases.

Since the recall, a number of contaminated Nurse Assist sterile water lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturer and various different companies involved in distribution of the bottles, and new claims continue to be brought as families learn that infections may have been the result of manufacturing defects.

Nurse Assist Infection Lawsuit Trial

On July 23, U.S. District Judge Sheria Akins Clarke, who is overseeing the Crummies lawsuit, issued a scheduling order (PDF) directing attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants to begin preparing the case for a potential jury trial.

Under the schedule, plaintiffs must identify the experts they expect to call at trial by November 23, 2026, followed by defendants on January 6, 2027. Discovery must be completed by March 1, 2027, and most motions that could resolve claims or narrow the issues presented at trial must be filed by April 5, 2027.

However, Judge Clarke has also ordered the parties to complete mediation by May 17, 2027, giving both sides an opportunity to determine whether the lawsuit can be resolved through a negotiated settlement before the case reaches a jury.

Mediation typically allows the plaintiffs and defendants to evaluate the evidence developed during discovery, the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions and the risks associated with taking the case to trial. If an agreement can be reached, the parties may resolve the lawsuit without the additional expense and uncertainty of a jury trial. However, the mediation requirement does not indicate that a settlement is expected or that the parties have already entered into settlement negotiations.

If mediation does not result in a resolution, the lawsuit may be called for jury selection or trial on or after June 14, 2027, or 60 days after any dispositive motions are resolved, whichever occurs later. Once a specific trial date is selected, the court will issue another notice establishing deadlines for final pretrial disclosures, motions concerning what evidence may be presented to the jury, trial briefs and exhibits.

Nurse Assist SteriCare Recall Lawsuits

Product liability lawyers are currently reviewing Nurse Assist infection lawsuits brought by individuals nationwide who used the recalled sterile water and saline solutions and developed infections. Individuals may qualify for compensation if they experienced:

• Sepsis or septic shock
• Bloodstream infections
• Respiratory infections
• Organ failure
• Necrosis or serious wound-related infections
• Prolonged hospital stays or additional surgeries

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

An Iowa man alleges his Nesco cooker became dangerously pressurized even though the pressure-cooking function was not in use, causing the lid to blow off when he opened the appliance.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Phillip Gatewood in Iowa District Court on August 5, naming Metal Ware Corporation, doing business as Nesco, as the defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on August 25.

Gatewood maintains the cooker was defectively designed and inadequately labeled to protect users from residual internal pressure, which allegedly caused the lid to release violently and resulted in serious burn injuries.

Pressure Cooker Injury Risks

The Nesco model used by Gatewood is a kind of electric device that has the ability to be used as a pressure cooker by trapping steam inside a sealed pot, creating elevated temperatures. Because the contents can reach dangerously high temperatures, these appliances typically feature safety mechanisms designed to prevent the lid from opening until internal pressure has been released.

However, a growing number of pressure cooker lawsuits claim those safety features may malfunction, allowing users to rotate or remove the lid while dangerous pressure remains inside the cooker.

When that occurs, built-up pressure can violently eject scalding steam, liquid and food toward anyone nearby. Such incidents have been linked to severe burns involving the face, chest, arms and hands, sometimes requiring hospitalization, skin grafts and prolonged medical treatment.

Nesco Pressure Cooker Explosion Allegations

According to the complaint, Gatewood placed tomatoes in his Nesco cooker to make tomato sauce overnight on October 3, 2024. He selected the “Slow Cook” function and specifically alleges he was not using the pressure-cooking function.

The filing indicates Gatewood checked and stirred the tomatoes the following morning. He replaced the lid and again selected “Slow Cook.” At some point afterward, the appliance allegedly became pressurized. However, Gatewood says the cooker provided no warning that had happened to the device or its contents.

As a result, the cooker allegedly accumulated pressure without warning. When Gatewood returned and opened the device, the lid blew off, spraying boiling tomato juice and the cooker’s contents throughout the kitchen and onto his body.

The lawsuit alleges Metal Ware knew or reasonably should have known the cooker could be defective and unreasonably dangerous when used as intended. Gatewood specifically accuses the manufacturer of failing to protect against manufacturing and design defects, provide adequate instructions for safe use or warn consumers about potential hazards.

“At all times relevant to this action, Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the Cooker could be unreasonably dangerous and defective when used as directed and as designed.”

— Phillip Gatewood v. Metal Ware Corporation

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict liability and failure to warn. It seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of bodily function and lost income.

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

A wrongful death lawsuit alleging Amazon knowingly facilitated the sale of flavored nitrous oxide products for recreational inhalation is scheduled to go before a jury in December 2027.

Christopher and Elisa Good filed the original complaint in May, along with the estate of their daughter, Rylie Good, naming Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC as defendants. The lawsuit alleges the 25-year-old mother of three became addicted to flavored nitrous oxide products purchased through Amazon before suffering severe neurological injuries and dying in May 2024.

According to the complaint, Rylie routinely purchased Galaxy Gas products through Amazon beginning in late 2023 and inhaled nitrous oxide daily for several months. By December 2023, she was hospitalized with severe nerve damage and myelopathy that left her unable to walk independently, along with vitamin B12 depletion, peripheral neuropathy and cognitive impairment that required ongoing treatment and rehabilitation.

Rylie died from a pulmonary embolism on May 14, 2024. Her parents allege her prolonged nitrous oxide abuse and resulting physical deterioration contributed to her death.

The Goods maintain the frequency and volume of Rylie’s purchases should have alerted Amazon that the products were being used recreationally. The lawsuit claims Amazon continued facilitating the sales without adequate warnings, quantity restrictions or other safeguards, despite having access to purchasing data that could allegedly identify repeated nitrous oxide orders and related inhalation accessories.

Nitrous Oxide Risks

Nitrous oxide is legally sold as a colorless gas used as an anesthetic in medical and dental settings and as a propellant for whipped cream dispensers. However, it is also commonly misused through inhalation to produce a brief euphoric high, which can reduce oxygen levels and contribute to loss of consciousness, neurological damage and death.

Those risks are now at the center of nitrous oxide lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide against Amazon and other companies involved in selling the products. The claims allege certain manufacturers and distributors market nitrous oxide in oversized canisters and flavors such as cotton candy, blue raspberry and strawberry, which plaintiffs say have little legitimate culinary purpose and are instead intended to encourage recreational inhalation.

Plaintiffs further allege Amazon and the manufacturers knew or should have known the products were being purchased for recreational use, yet continued to sell them without adequate warnings or meaningful safeguards to limit misuse. The lawsuits maintain those failures placed profits above consumer safety and public health.

Nitrous Oxide Wrongful Death Trial

The Good wrongful death lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In a July order (PDF), he scheduled a jury trial over the allegations to begin in December 2027.

The order calls for discovery to be completed by August 9, 2027, with a pretrial order due by November 24, 2027. The trial is expected to last 11 days.

However, Judge Lasnik is urging the parties to try to reach a settlement agreement so that there is no need for a trial. The order calls for the parties to meet for settlement discussions no later than August 23, 2027.

“The settlement conference conducted between the close of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference between persons with authority to settle the case. The settlement conference does not have to involve a third-party neutral.”

– U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of Washington

Should the parties reach a settlement at any point, the order urges them to contact the court promptly.

Nitrous Oxide Lawsuits

The case, which would be one of, if not the, first nitrous oxide lawsuits to go to trial, comes as complaints against Amazon over its sale of nitrous oxide products continue to grow.

Claims allege Amazon and the businesses using its platform knowingly enabled the unlawful sale of nitrous oxide for non-medical and non-culinary use, even as evidence mounted that customers were buying the canisters to inhale the gas rather than use it for food preparation.

Nitrous oxide injury lawyers offer free case evaluations to individuals and families who have suffered injuries and may be entitled to 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.

The owners of TikTok have agreed to pay the U.S. government $400 million to resolve claims that it violated U.S. child privacy protection laws.

The agreement was announced in a press release by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 21, resolving a federal lawsuit filed against TikTok, ByteDance and affiliated companies in 2024 over alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

TikTok’s settlement comes amid mounting legal pressure on social media companies over the way their platforms collect information from children, encourage prolonged use and expose younger users to potentially harmful content.

Social Media Addiction Concerns

Thousands of social media addiction lawsuits have been filed against TikTok, Meta, Google and other technology companies by families who allege children became addicted to platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube because of intentionally addictive design features.

Each of the claims allege that social media companies collect extensive information about younger users and use powerful recommendation algorithms to continuously personalize content, while incorporating features such as endless scrolling, notifications, autoplay and other engagement tools designed to keep children returning to the apps.

Families pursuing those lawsuits allege excessive social media use has contributed to depression, anxiety, eating disorders, decreased academic performance, behavioral problems, suicidal thoughts and self-harm among children and teenagers.

Similar allegations have also been raised by school districts, local governments and states, which maintain social media addiction among young people has created substantial costs for schools, mental health programs and other public services.

Earlier this week, Meta agreed to a proposed $17 billion settlement with a bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general, resolving claims that Facebook and Instagram were designed with features that encouraged compulsive use by children and teens while Meta allegedly misrepresented the risks associated with its platforms.

TikTok Child Privacy Allegations

The federal lawsuit alleged TikTok violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by knowingly allowing millions of children under 13 to create accounts and use the platform without first obtaining parental consent.

Government lawyers claimed TikTok collected and retained personal information from those children, while maintaining inadequate procedures for identifying underage users. The complaint also alleged some children could bypass age-screening measures through third-party sign-ins, leaving millions of accounts categorized as having an unknown age.

TikTok also operated a restricted Kids Mode for younger users, but regulators alleged the company still collected certain information from those accounts, including email addresses, activity data and persistent identifiers. Parents were also allegedly subjected to unnecessary obstacles when they asked TikTok to delete their children’s accounts or personal information.

The case also accused TikTok of violating a 2019 consent decree involving Musical.ly, which ByteDance acquired and later incorporated into TikTok. That earlier agreement required stronger protections for children after regulators alleged Musical.ly illegally collected personal information from users under 13.

$400 Million TikTok Settlement

Under the settlement, TikTok will pay the federal government $300 million immediately, with another $100 million due after the previous Musical.ly consent decree is vacated.

The Justice Department describes the $400 million recovery as one of the largest ever obtained under COPPA and indicates the agreement also reflects changes TikTok has made since the lawsuit was filed, including stronger age-related controls, parental oversight and other privacy protections for younger users.

“The Department’s priority is ensuring that children are protected online and that companies entrusted with their personal information meet their legal obligations. This resolution secures a substantial recovery while reinforcing the protections that families expect and deserve.”

– Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr.

The agreement brings the federal child privacy case to a close while requiring TikTok to make one of the largest COPPA-related payments ever obtained by the U.S. government.

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

A Texas man has filed a product liability lawsuit after he allegedly suffered debilitating injuries when a 2,000-pound rated Harbor Freight jack supporting a transmission of only 600 pounds failed.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Danny Baker in the Los Angeles County Superior Court of California on February 13, naming Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and Harbor Freight Tools Texas L.P. as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on August 25.

Baker claims the transmission jack catastrophically failed during its first use while supporting a transmission that weighed significantly less than the rated capacity. He also indicates Harbor Freight should have known of the product defect, yet put consumers at risk anyway.

Harbor Freight Jack Injuries

A transmission jack is a kind of hydraulic or pneumatic tool used to lift, support and maneuver a vehicle’s transmission during repair, removal and installation. It is designed to hold heavy equipment weighing thousands of pounds.

However, if any critical component of the tool fails, consumers may suffer catastrophic injuries. Similar safety concerns have been raised in recent years involving allegedly defective Harbor Freight automotive jacks and jack stands.

In April, a lawsuit was filed alleging an Oklahoma man was pinned underneath a vehicle and suffered severe injuries after a Harbor Freight jack stand failed and collapsed. He claimed the product lacked adequate safety features to protect users.

Transmission Jack Failure Allegations

According to the complaint, Baker purchased a 2,000-Pound Capacity Low-Profile Transmission Jack from Harbor Freight on November 20, 2023. Approximately three months later, he used the jack for the first time when it failed.

The lawsuit alleges the jack plate unexpectedly collapsed forward during use, causing the bell housing of the transmission to drop swiftly and uncontrollably. The transmission crushed Baker’s hand and arm to the floor, causing life-altering injuries when he suffered a nearly severed thumb, fractured left wrist, lacerated left hand, damaged blood vessels in his arm and fractured left foot.

Baker indicates the transmission he was working on weighed approximately 540 to 610 pounds, well below the 2,000-pound weight limit the transmission jack was rated for.

Harbor Freight allegedly advertised the jack as complying with ASME-PASE industry standards to meet safety and engineering requirements. However, the lawsuit argues the jack was defectively designed, and the company knew or should have known of the dangers through testing, prior incidents and other consumer complaints.

The lawsuit claims that the jack suffers from a number of design failures which made the product dangerous, including lack of back-to-back nuts or double castellated nuts on the screw rod, a non-permanent welded stop nut, increased limit on the forward tilt and many other additional design failures. It goes on to state that a safer design would have eliminated the defects.

Baker alleges Harbor Freight failed to warn consumers of the danger and failed to remove the defective jack from the market. As a result, he says that he suffered serious injuries and now has limited mobility.

“A reasonable manufacturer, distributer, and/or seller under the same or similar circumstances would have warned of these dangers and/or instructed on the safe use of the Subject Jack. As a result of Defendants’ negligence and negligent failure to warn, Defendants caused Plaintiff Danny Baker to suffer Plaintiff’s Injuries. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s Injuries.”

— Danny Baker v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. et al.

The complaint raises allegations of negligence, strict liability, design defect, manufacturing defect, marketing defect/failure to warn and breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. It seeks compensation for past and future medical expenses, severe pain and suffering, disfigurement, emotional distress and lost earnings.

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

A federal judge will meet with attorneys for Olympus Corporation and a Chicago woman who alleges a defectively designed colonoscope caused her to develop a serious infection after a colonoscopy.

Denise Hopkins brought the Olympus scope infection lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 9, naming Olympus and several of its subsidiaries as the defendants. The case has since been assigned to U.S. District Judge Sunil R. Harjani.

According to Hopkins, a non-sterile Olympus CF-HQ190L colonoscope used during an August 2024 colonoscopy caused her to develop a Clostridioides difficile (C. diff) infection that led to permanent life-long injuries.

C. diff is a bacterial infection that can cause severe diarrhea and inflammation of the colon. Although it frequently affects patients following healthcare exposure or antibiotic use, Hopkins’ lawsuit claims her infection was caused by contamination remaining inside the reusable Olympus colonoscope.

Olympus Colonoscope Concerns

Colonoscopes belong to a category of surgical cameras known as endoscopes. Containing small cameras, lights, long narrow channels and moving parts, endoscopes are used during procedures including ERCP, colonoscopy, upper endoscopy and bronchoscopy. 

The devices are inserted into the body, allowing doctors to examine internal organs, make medical diagnoses and perform certain procedures without the need for surgery. Therefore, it is key that they are thoroughly sterilized between uses, to avoid the spread of infectious biological material.

However, the design of many endoscopes makes them difficult to fully clean and sterilize between procedures, a process known as reprocessing. As a result, bacteria, biofilm, tissue and other debris can remain trapped inside the scopes, particularly in narrow channels or damaged areas that are difficult to inspect, potentially allowing infections to spread from one patient to another.

Several Olympus colonoscopy lawsuits have been filed in courts nationwide, each of which raises similar allegations that the manufacturer’s colonoscopes are defectively designed, placing patients at increased risk of dangerous, and sometimes deadly, infections and bloodborne diseases.

Colonoscopy Infection Trial

Last month a minutes entry (PDF) was made on Hopkins’ docket, announcing that Judge Harjani has scheduled an initial status hearing for September 29 to address her claims. This will be a telephone conference between the judge and legal counsel for both sides to determine the current status of the litigation, issues that need to be resolved and how the case should move forward.

Before the status hearing, Judge Harjani ordered the parties to prepare a joint initial status report and file it with the court by September 22. He noted that all defendants who have been served are expected to participate, regardless of whether they have yet to respond to Hopkins’ complaint.

The lawsuit includes claims of defective design, failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. It is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages.

Olympus Colonoscopy Lawsuits

The latest medical scope complaints are not the first time device manufacturers, such as Olympus and Fujifilm, have come under scrutiny for their optics and photographic equipment. In 2014 and 2015, duodenoscopes used during ERCP procedures were linked to an outbreak of an antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection known as carbapenem-resistant enterobacterales (CRE).

These infections were also linked to design problems that made sterilization difficult. The subject scopes contained a movable “elevator” at the tip, which contained cracks and crevices where pathogens, blood and tissue persisted even after the manufacturers’ sterilization and cleaning instructions were followed.

In 2018, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a duodenoscope warning, alerting the medical community that the manufacturers had failed to conduct the proper post-marketing surveillance to ensure the devices were as safe in real-world use as they had been during clinical trials.

Under the FDA’s direction, the industry has since moved toward using disposable elevator tips to reduce infection risks, but these latest Olympus colonoscopy lawsuits suggest that problems may still remain.

Colonoscopy infection lawyers are investigating potential lawsuits for those who developed infections after undergoing a medical procedure with a reusable surgical scope, including:

To determine whether you or a family member may qualify for a surgical scope product liability lawsuit, submit your information for a free case evaluation. An attorney can review your situation, explain your legal rights and determine whether you may be eligible to pursue compensation.

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

A union health benefit plan has filed a class action lawsuit against Abbott, alleging the company sold defective FreeStyle Libre 3 glucose sensors that failed to provide accurate readings, despite marketing the devices as reliable enough to replace traditional fingerstick testing.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501 Security Fund in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 14. It names Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Abbott Laboratories as defendants.

The fund provides health benefits to thousands of union members and their dependents and says it made reimbursements for defective FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus sensors that were not working.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Sensor Problems

FreeStyle Libre 3 and FreeStyle Libre 3 Plus devices are wearable continuous glucose monitoring systems that track glucose levels throughout the day and send readings to a smartphone or reader. The products are intended to help people with diabetes make insulin dosing and other treatment decisions while reducing the need for routine finger-stick testing.

However, Abbott announced a recall of certain FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors in July 2024, due to the potential for falsely high readings. In September 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) assigned the action a Class I recall, its most serious designation.

Abbott initiated a second medical device correction in November 2025, involving more than 3 million FreeStyle Libre 3 and Libre 3 Plus sensors produced on a single manufacturing line. In that case, the company determined the affected devices could report falsely low glucose levels, a problem associated with hundreds of serious adverse event reports and several deaths.

The FDA later designated that action as a Class I recall in January 2026, indicating use of the affected sensors could pose a risk of serious injury or death.

Amid those safety concerns, a growing number of FreeStyle Libre lawsuits now allege inaccurate sensor readings caused users to make improper diabetes treatment decisions, resulting in complications such as hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA).

DKA is a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when insufficient insulin prevents the body from properly using glucose for energy. The body instead begins breaking down fat, producing ketones that can build up in the blood and, without timely treatment, lead to severe dehydration, organ damage, unconsciousness or death.

Abbott FreeStyle Libre 3 Class Action Allegations

According to the complaint, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501 Security Fund is an end payor, which means it reimbursed some or all of the costs of sensors used by its covered members. As a result, the lawsuit is seeking compensation for economic losses rather than individual physical injuries.

Court filings allege that the fund made reimbursement decisions based on Abbott’s representations that the sensors were safe, accurate and reliable. It goes on to point out that health plans typically pay most of the cost of FreeStyle Libre sensors, which retail for roughly $224 to $235 for a 28-day supply.

The fund maintains it and other health plans would not have paid for the affected sensors, or would have paid substantially less, if Abbott had disclosed that certain lots of the company’s FreeStyle Libre 3 sensors were not working.

It specifically attacks Abbott’s “no fingersticks” marketing, arguing that the representation was misleading because manufacturing problems could make fingerstick confirmation necessary for patient safety.

The complaint alleges Abbott knew of the potential for FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor problems through internal testing and post-market surveillance before publicly announcing corrective action. It also characterizes the shift from the 2024 recall for falsely high readings to the 2025 falsely low readings recall as evidence of broader manufacturing and quality-control failures.

“Plaintiff alleges that Abbott knew, or was reckless in not knowing, about the defects at all relevant times, specifically at the time Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed Class acquired their Sensors or related accessories—such as overpatches, adhesives, additional test strips, insulin pumps, and/or Freestylecompliant cell phones—required for the Sensors themselves or necessary because of the Sensors’ defects.”

— Union of Operating Engineers Local 501 Security Fund v. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.

The fund seeks damages on behalf of a nationwide class of entities that purchased, paid for or reimbursed the cost of FreeStyle Libre 3 or Libre 3 Plus sensors covered by Abbott’s November 2025 recall and the FDA’s subsequent Class I recall designation in February 2026, dating back to May 1, 2024.

Allegations raised in the filing include fraudulent omission or concealment, unjust enrichment, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of California consumer protection laws and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The lawsuit seeks actual damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

FreeStyle Libre 3 Sensor Lawsuits

While this complaint focuses on financial losses allegedly suffered by consumers and health plans, Abbott also faces product liability lawsuits brought by individuals who claim FreeStyle Libre 3 sensor problems caused serious injuries after they relied on faulty data to make insulin dosing and treatment decisions.

Individuals who suffered serious health problems 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 inaccurate glucose readings may include:

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

FreeStyle Libre 3 lawyers are reviewing potential claims for individuals and families nationwide who experienced complications after relying on inaccurate sensor readings. Case evaluations are available at no cost, and attorneys collect legal fees only if compensation is recovered.

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