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

Personal injury attorneys 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.

A wrongful death lawsuit filed by a Florida widow claims the side effects of Keytruda attacked her husband’s heart, muscles, nerves and kidney.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Penny Dombeck, on behalf of herself and her late husband, Jeffrey Dombeck, who died in September 2024, after receiving Keytruda as part of his melanoma cancer treatment. It names Keytruda’s manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., as the defendant.

Dombeck claims Merck failed to adequately warn about the risks of Keytruda auto-immune side effects, particularly on individuals who already suffered from health problems that could be exacerbated by a reaction. She indicates her husband’s slow and deteriorating death could have been avoided had the company placed patients before profits.

Keytruda Side Effects

Keytruda (pembrolizumab) was originally approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2014 for the treatment of advanced melanoma. The drug’s label has significantly expanded since then as a treatment for numerous types of cancer.

It belongs to a class of cancer drugs known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which also includes medications like Opdivo and Libtayo. These drugs are used to block key proteins that regulate the immune system, preventing it from over-responding to cancer cells and damaging healthy ones.

For years there have been growing concerns as to whether Keytruda health risks are greater than the cancer drug’s benefits. The same month Dombeck died, a panel of FDA scientific advisors urged the agency to restrict drugs like Keytruda, particularly for patients with certain types of cancer. The panel determined that Keytruda only moderately lowered the risk of death from cancer compared to chemotherapy.

Another study, published a month later in October 2024, warned that Keytruda and other ICIs could increase the risk of life-threatening heart problems, like pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and heart attack after only a year of use.

In addition, the FDA issued a Keytruda safety alert in August 2017, after analyzing three studies that found an increased risk of death when the drug is used in combination with some other medications to treat multiple myeloma.

Keytruda Wrongful Death Allegations

In June 2024, Jeffrey Dombeck, 77, was diagnosed with non-terminal melanoma, a form of skin cancer. His doctor prescribed surgery and a year of taking Keytruda. He was known to have coronary artery disease, including two heart stents, as well as an autoimmune/rheumatological disorder known as Meniere’s disease.

Dombeck’s first dose of Keytruda was given on August 6, 2024. By August 24, 2024, he was in the hospital and was diagnosed with myocarditis, myositis and myasthenia gravis, all of which doctors believed were caused by the drug. 

The condition, known as MMM or triple-M overlap syndrome, causes inflammation of the heart, the skeletal muscles and nerve muscles. In addition, doctors found a complete heart block, stage 3 acute kidney injury (AKI), acute rhabdomyolysis, respiratory failure and dysphagia.

“Mr. Dombeck died on September 20, 2024, after his family watched him deteriorate and suffer for weeks before they made the painful decision at the recommendation of treating physicians to transition him to comfort care. The cause of death on Mr. Dombeck’s death certificate listed Keytruda-immune therapy induced MMM.”

— Penny Dombeck v. Merck & Co. Inc.

According to Dombeck’s wife, Merck either knew, or should have known, about the risks of MMM. The lawsuit notes that Merck had reports of MMM and kidney injury dating back to long before Dombeck was prescribed the drug.

The complaint indicates that by 2023, Merck had received a total of 52,032 Keytruda adverse event reports, 11,000 of which involved patient deaths, with many linked to the same conditions as Dombeck suffered. It was not until May 2026 that Merck added an MMM warning to the Keytruda label.

Penny Dombeck presents claims of failure to warn and negligence. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

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

Two 2025 Ram 1500 owners have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging their trucks suffered repeated stalling, warning messages, battery and safety system issues, as well as sudden power loss due to a defective control module.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Charlene Norberg and Tim Craig, individually and on behalf of other vehicle owners, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on August 25, naming FCA U.S. LLC as the sole defendant.

Plaintiffs claim FCA knew the engine or powertrain control module was defective, but failed to disclose the problem or provide an adequate repair despite being aware of the resulting safety risks.

Ram 1500 Hurricane Engine

Both Norberg and Craig’s Ram 1500 trucks were equipped with the Hurricane, a 3.0-liter, twin-turbocharged inline-six engine designed to provide the horsepower and torque traditionally associated with larger V8 engines while improving fuel efficiency.

The Hurricane was introduced as part of FCA’s shift toward smaller, more efficient powertrains, replacing older V8 options in some vehicles, including certain Ram 1500 trucks.

However, some models equipped with the 3.0-liter Hurricane engine have been associated with reports of cooling system, software calibration and high-stress component problems. Reported mechanical issues include allegations of thermostat failures, catalytic converter overheating and problems involving the fuel system, bearings and oil. Owners have also made claims of false misfire codes, parasitic battery drain and fuel octane sensitivity.

Hurricane Engine Safety Risk Allegations

According to the complaint, Norberg, of Wisconsin, bought a new 2025 Ram 1500 truck in August 2024. Within six months, she claims the vehicle stalled multiple times without notice or warning. After taking it to a dealership, technicians allegedly could not find anything wrong, and no repairs were made.

Norberg continued to experience the issue, along with battery drainage that eventually led to the replacement of the drivetrain control module. However, the vehicle displayed an engine overheating warning and became extremely hot shortly after the replacement, resulting in it being towed back to the dealership.

Craig, of Florida, purchased a 2025 Ram 1500 in May 2025. A few months later, the dashboard displayed a message that all of the vehicle’s safety features were no longer active. After taking the vehicle to a dealership, it was held for more than a month for testing and eventually received a brake booster replacement after technicians were unable to identify the problem.

In the filing, plaintiffs identified more than 100 reports of similar complaints made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), YouTube videos, consumer forums and other websites.

Norberg and Craig allege their vehicles’ Hurricane engines suffer from a defect in the control and calibration system, including the engine control module, powertrain control module, associated sensors and related software programming and calibration strategies. 

Plaintiffs indicate the alleged defect could present a serious safety risk. Vehicles that unexpectedly lose power, stall or enter limp mode while in traffic expose drivers and passengers to an increased risk of collision, particularly at highway speeds or during acceleration.

“As a consequence of Defendant’s actions and inaction, Class Vehicle owners have been deprived of the benefit of their bargain, lost full use of their Class Vehicles, incurred lost time and out-of-pocket costs.“

— Charlene Norberg et al. v. FCA U.S. LLC

The lawsuit claims the defendant knew or should have known of the defect through pre-production testing, warranty claims and field reports, dealership service records, diagnostic trouble code frequency analysis, customer complaints and internal quality tracking systems.

Despite this knowledge, FCA allegedly failed to disclose the defect to consumers at the time of sale and continues to market the vehicles as safe, reliable and suitable for their intended use.

The complaint raises allegations of violations of Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. It seeks class action certification, an order barring FCA from unlawful business practices, disgorgement of profits, statutory and punitive damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, costs, interest and other relief deemed just and proper by the court.

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

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) scheduled oral arguments for late next month, to decide whether all Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuits and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuits will be consolidated into two separate multidistrict litigations (MDLs) in the federal court system.

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are medical implants designed to treat chronic back pain after other treatments have failed. They consist of a battery-powered pulse generator and electrodes, which are implanted under the skin, and an external remote control.

Although SCS are designed to be permanent implants, interrupting pain signals before they reach the brain, reports that many patients require additional surgery to remove the devices have resulted in a growing number of spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued against various different manufacturers in recent months.

Reports and legal claims from patients indicate the devices not only failed to provide effective pain relief, but were also plagued by malfunctions and medical complications. These problems allegedly included random and painful electric shocks, pulse generators and electrodes migrating out of position and sometimes piercing the skin, as well as permanent nerve damage that worsened patients’ pain.

As the litigation began to explode, plaintiffs originally filed a petition with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in February 2026, requesting that all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits be consolidated as one, unified MDL. However, the panel disagreed and instead ordered the creation of a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator multidistrict litigation (MDL) in June in the Central District of California before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, indicating that there were not enough claims involving other manufacturers to warrant centralized management. 

This left a number of lawsuits over Abbott and Nevro SCS devices moving forward in different U.S. District Courts nationwide, and dozens of additional claims have been brought against those two manufacturers in recent months.

As a result, plaintiffs filed separate motions for Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation and Abbott SCS lawsuit consolidation last month, asking that the cases be centralized in the same California district, but as separate MDL proceedings.

Plaintiffs argue that consolidation would avoid duplicate discovery and contradictory rulings by different judges, as well as serve the convenience of plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses and the court.

Spinal Cord Stimulator MDL Hearing

On August 14, the JPML issued a Notice of Hearing Session (PDF) indicating it will hear oral arguments on both Abbott and Nevro SCS lawsuit consolidation on September 24, 2026, at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in Chicago, Illinois.

According to the order, there are currently 15 Abbott SCS lawsuits, spread across seven different U.S. District Courts. Another 17 Nevro SCS lawsuits are filed in six different districts.

The manufacturers have opposed the motions, claiming that the lawsuits lack indications of a specific defect, a common injury and the numbers to make consolidation efficient.

If the JPML sides with the plaintiffs and agrees to form Abbott and Nevro spinal cord stimulator lawsuit MDLs, all cases would remain individual claims even as they go through pretrial proceedings together. This means plaintiffs will still have to individually prove their injuries were caused by the spinal implant.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

Since the panel has already consolidated all federal Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, the likelihood that it may agree to further consolidation is significantly increased.

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

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

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

The parent company of Facebook and Instagram will pay 29 states up to $17 billion to resolve claims that the apps intentionally attempted to foster harmful social media addictions among U.S. children.

The original lawsuit was filed by states’ attorneys general in October 2023, alleging Meta used intrusive algorithms to “entice, engage, and ultimately ensnare youth and teens.” It also claimed Meta misled the public about the safety of its platforms, while ignoring evidence that social media use was contributing to mental health problems among young people.

School districts have filed similar lawsuits against Meta and other social media companies, seeking to recover costs associated with addressing student mental health, behavioral and academic problems allegedly linked to excessive social media use.

Separately, Meta is one of several major social media companies facing thousands of social media addiction lawsuits filed by young users and their families. Those individual injury claims seek compensation for mental health problems and other harms allegedly caused by prolonged and addictive use of the platforms.

The lawsuits generally allege Meta, Google, TikTok, Snapchat and other companies intentionally incorporated algorithms, notifications, endless scrolling and other features designed to keep young users engaged for prolonged periods. Plaintiffs claim those features can contribute to anxiety, depression, eating disorders, declining academic performance, behavioral problems, self-harm and suicide.

Due to common questions of fact and law, all federal social media addiction lawsuits are consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

The judge has launched a plan to hold early “bellwether” trials designed to give plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to see how juries respond to evidence and testimony likely to be repeated.

States Social Media Addiction Settlement

The litigation involved claims brought by 29 attorneys general nationwide. Meta says several states, including California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Mexico, had sought as much as $1.4 trillion in damages over alleged harms Facebook and Instagram caused to young users.

However, after months of intense pretrial maneuvering ahead of the first bellwether trials, the parties announced today that they had reached a resolution. A joint motion to enter consent judgment (PDF) outlines a $17 billion social media addiction lawsuit settlement that would resolve the states’ claims against Meta.

The deal will initially include Meta paying the states $12.19 billion, which it will increase to $17.1 billion if the states can get the owners of other social media platforms, like TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, to also agree to the settlement.

In addition, Meta has agreed to restrict minors to two-hour time limits, nighttime restrictions and more robust content filters and parental controls. The two-hour limit will be reduced to one hour per day if other social media companies sign onto the deal, and no minor under the age of 18 would be able to use Facebook or Instagram between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m.

The deal also would include a ban on showing how many “likes” a minor’s post receives, restrictions on the use of cosmetic filters by minors, which can help disguise their age, options for non-personalized feeds and numerous other safety measures, according to a press release by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months. We are talking about time limits, stopping notifications during school, a block on the app during critical overnight hours, bans on plastic surgery filters, and so much more. Alongside a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues, I am proud to deliver this settlement that addresses the concerns at the core of our lawsuit and institutes real change, real transparency, and real enforceable protections for children on Facebook and Instagram — right now, no more waiting.”

– California Attorney General Rob Bonta

Social Media Addiction Lawsuit Trials

Other bellwether trial preparations continue to move forward for lawsuits filed by individuals and school districts. The first of those trials was expected to start in June but was canceled after Meta reached a settlement with the Breathitt County School District. The terms of that agreement have not been disclosed.

The next federal bellwether trial involving a traditional jury is scheduled to begin February 8, while other cases move toward trial at the state court level.

In March, a California jury ordered Meta and Google to pay $6 million to a woman who says she developed anxiety and depression due to her social media addiction 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.

The outcomes of these early trials are not binding on other claims, but they may provide both sides with important insight into how judges and juries respond to the evidence, legal arguments and alleged harms, potentially influencing future trial strategies and settlement negotiations.

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

A Texas man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging Athena Bitcoin failed to implement adequate fraud protections at its cryptocurrency ATMs, allowing scammers impersonating law enforcement officers to steal more than $26,000 from him.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Douglas Arnold Schuler in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on August 20, naming Athena Bitcoin Inc. as the sole defendant. Schuler seeks to pursue damages for all Texas residents over age 60 who were victims of financial scams involving Athena Bitcoin ATMs.

Schuler claims Athena has known since at least 2017 that its Bitcoin kiosks are routinely exploited in impersonation scams, particularly those targeting older consumers, but abandoned proactive safeguards in favor of passive warnings and checkbox disclosures that do little to stop fraudulent transactions.

Bitcoin ATM Risks

Athena operates about 3,000 Bitcoin ATMs throughout the U.S. and Latin America, including roughly 800 in Texas. The machines allow users to deposit cash that is immediately converted into cryptocurrency and transferred to a designated digital wallet.

Once cryptocurrency is transferred, the transaction is generally irreversible, without traditional chargebacks or other mechanisms for recovering the money, which Schuler maintains makes Bitcoin ATMs particularly attractive to scammers.

According to Schuler, Athena publicly discussed elderly fraud, IRS payment scams and government impersonation schemes as early as 2017, and previously used safeguards that included freezing first-time transactions, contacting customers and reversing suspicious transfers. The company also reportedly disclosed a $9,500 daily limit in 2019, with heightened scrutiny for transactions exceeding $3,000.

Athena’s own statements also allegedly indicate the company receives numerous fraud reports each month. In addition, FTC findings show that consumers age 60 and older are more than three times as likely as younger adults to report losses involving Bitcoin ATMs.

Schuler also points out that several U.S. senators called on Athena in September 2024 to address reports that its ATMs were contributing to widespread fraud against older Americans. The lawmakers allegedly questioned the company about transaction limits, fraud holds, identity verification and remediation for victims.

Bitcoin ATM Fraud Allegations

On February 19, Schuler, a 62-year-old Houston resident, allegedly received a call from a man claiming to be a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy, who told him an arrest warrant had been issued against him. Schuler subsequently received a text containing what appeared to be an arrest warrant, and the scammers demanded $20,000 in “bond” to prevent his immediate arrest.

The lawsuit indicates the scammers then directed Schuler to withdraw $20,000 from his bank and take the cash to an Athena Bitcoin kiosk inside a Chevron gas station on Richmond Avenue in Houston. Using codes provided by the scammers, Schuler deposited the money, which was converted to cryptocurrency and sent to a wallet he did not control.

While keeping Schuler on the phone, the scammers allegedly demanded another $6,600 for a separate state charge. He returned to his bank, withdrew the additional money and deposited it through the same Athena kiosk, with the cryptocurrency sent to a different wallet address. In total, Schuler allegedly lost $26,600.

After realizing he had been scammed, Schuler filed a police report and contacted Athena the following day seeking a refund. However, the company allegedly told him cryptocurrency transactions were final and irreversible and cited its Terms and Conditions and “Pledge of Ownership” screens in refusing reimbursement.

Schuler maintains the transactions presented numerous warning signs that should have triggered Athena’s fraud protections. He was a first-time user and 62 years old, deposited $26,600 through two transactions within a short period and sent the cryptocurrency to two different wallets. In addition, his initial $20,000 transaction alone allegedly exceeded Athena’s previously disclosed $9,500 daily limit.

The lawsuit claims Athena’s former practice of freezing first-time transactions and contacting customers could have prevented both transfers, while monitoring multiple destination wallets could have stopped at least the second transaction.

Schuler alleges Athena now relies primarily on generic scam warnings and checkbox attestations requiring users to indicate they are not being directed by someone else. He argues those measures are ineffective because scammers commonly remain on the phone with victims, tell them to disregard warnings and instruct them how to answer prompts.

The filing identifies several safeguards Schuler claims Athena could employ, including cooling-off periods for first-time or high-value transactions, live verification, destination-wallet screening and real-time intervention when transactions show signs of fraud.

“Schuler’s experience is not unique. Athena’s kiosks across Texas have been, and continue to be, used as instrumentalities of fraud targeting older adults.”

— Douglas Arnold Schuler v. Athena Bitcoin Inc.

Schuler estimates the proposed class includes more than 100 Texas residents over age 60 who were victims of scams involving Athena ATMs, claiming they were subjected to the same companywide fraud-prevention policies.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, design defect, civil theft, conversion, unjust enrichment, violations of Texas consumer protection laws, civil conspiracy and negligence per se. It seeks compensatory and potentially treble or punitive damages, restitution of fees Athena allegedly collected from scam-related transactions and an injunction requiring stronger fraud safeguards at Athena Bitcoin kiosks throughout Texas.

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

A Florida woman has filed a lawsuit on behalf of her child, alleging the minor suffered severe injuries when a wheel detached from a Ridstar electric bicycle purchased from Walmart.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Therese Evans, on behalf of her minor child, L.E., in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County Florida on July 30, naming Walmart Inc. as the sole defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on August 24, 2026.

Evans claims Walmart sold and profited from the allegedly defective e-bike despite having access to customer complaints, warranty claims and other safety information describing the wheel detachment issues.

E-Bike Safety Concerns

Electric bikes, or e-bikes, are similar to traditional pedal-powered bicycles but include a battery and electric motor that provide additional power while riding. Depending on the model, e-bikes can reach speeds of 20 to 28 mph, compared with about 10 to 12 mph for conventional bicycles.

In June 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a safety warning for Ridstar Q20 and Q20 Lite e-bikes indicating the front wheel may detach from the frame without warning, posing a crash risk for riders. According to federal regulators, the Chinese manufacturer of Ridstar products was unresponsive to the agency’s request for a recall.

The CPSC cited 32 reports of Ridstar front wheels detaching from the bikes’ frames, including 31 reports of injuries such as concussions, broken bones, cuts, scrapes and bruises.

Earlier this year, a Ridstar e-bike lawsuit was filed against Amazon, after the front wheel of an Oregon man’s Ridstar Q20 electric bicycle fell off, throwing him violently to the ground.

Ridstar Injury Allegations

In the lawsuit, Evans indicates the Ridstar e-bike was purchased through Walmart.com on August 29, 2025. About two months later, on November 1, L.E. was riding the bicycle when the front wheel allegedly detached during normal operation, violently throwing the child onto the pavement and causing severe and permanent injuries.

The lawsuit alleges the bicycle’s wheel retention system was defectively designed, permitting the front wheel to unexpectedly detach during ordinary use. Evans also claims the bicycle was defectively manufactured because the retention mechanism did not conform to its intended design specifications. She maintains a safer alternative design was economically and technologically feasible.

Evans argues Walmart knew or should have known about safety problems through customer complaints, warranty claims, product failures, return data and incident reports available through its marketplace. Despite having the ability to investigate safety concerns or remove products and sellers from Walmart.com, the lawsuit states the retailer continued to market, facilitate and profit from sales of the Ridstar e-bike.

The complaint also alleges Walmart exercised substantial control over its online marketplace, including approving third-party sellers, regulating product listings, processing payments and monitoring customer complaints and reviews. Evans claims Walmart failed to adequately investigate and vet Ridstar before allowing the company to sell electric bicycles through Walmart.com.

“Specifically, the bicycle’s wheel retention system was designed in a manner that permitted the front wheel to unexpectedly detach during ordinary operation, causing a sudden and catastrophic loss of control.”

— Therese Evans v. Walmart Inc.

In its August 24 notice removing the lawsuit to federal court, Walmart indicates Evans has produced medical bills exceeding $120,000 for treatment attributed to the accident. The company cited those expenses in arguing that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75,000 threshold required for federal diversity jurisdiction.

The lawsuit raises allegations of design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligent distribution/facilitation of sale and negligent selection, vetting and retention of marketplace seller.

Evans, on behalf of L.E., is seeking compensation for bodily injuries, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of the ability to earn money and aggravation of previously existing conditions.

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

A California man has filed a class action lawsuit alleging DraftKings uses its Predictions platform to offer betting opportunities in states where the company lacks authorization to operate a licensed sportsbook.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Ricardo Andrio in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 13, naming DraftKings Inc. and Gus III LLC, doing business as DraftKings Predictions, as defendants.

Andrio seeks damages on behalf of all California residents who purchased sports event contracts through DraftKings Predictions and lost money they would not have otherwise wagered had they known the company was allegedly misleading consumers about the nature and legality of its platform.

Online Sports Betting Concerns

Online sportsbooks such as DraftKings, FanDuel and BetMGM grew rapidly after a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision cleared the way for states to legalize and regulate sports wagering. Since then, consumers in many states have gained access to mobile platforms that allow them to bet on everything from game results and player performance to events occurring during live competition.

The expansion has also fueled concerns about rising rates of gambling addiction, particularly among young adults and college-age men. Researchers have noted that many individuals in this demographic are handling their own finances for the first time while being highly familiar with fast, app-based transactions.

Safety advocates also point to aggressive sportsbook marketing practices including individualized promotions, targeted advertising and in-game betting features that may encourage users to continue placing wagers. More recently, questions have emerged about gambling-related products being offered in states where conventional sportsbooks remain prohibited or require specific licenses.

Families and addiction specialists warn that repeated wagering can lead to substantial financial losses before signs of compulsive gambling are recognized. These concerns have contributed to a growing number of DraftKings lawsuits and FanDuel lawsuits alleging online betting companies use deceptive or unlawful practices that promote excessive gambling.

DraftKings Predictions Gambling Allegations

According to the lawsuit, DraftKings operates as a type of “prediction market” in certain states, allowing consumers to purchase contracts based on the outcomes of future events, including sports. The complaint alleges these markets have emerged as a way to offer wagering in jurisdictions where traditional sports betting is still prohibited or limited to licensed operators.

The filing contrasts Predictions with DraftKings’ traditional approach to sports betting, noting that the company obtained its first sportsbook license in New Jersey in 2018, and now operates regulated sportsbooks in 27 states and the District of Columbia.

However, Andrio alleges DraftKings markets Predictions using terms such as “event contracts” and “trading” rather than sports betting, giving consumers the impression that the platform is fundamentally different from, and more lawful than, a conventional sportsbook. The lawsuit argues that changing the terminology does not change the underlying transaction, which involves consumers risking money based on the outcome of sporting events.

Andrio indicates he opened a DraftKings Predictions account in California and lost money purchasing sports event contracts, which he claims he would not have bought had DraftKings accurately represented the nature and legality of the platform.

The complaint also alleges DraftKings leverages its reputation as a licensed sportsbook to promote Predictions to existing customers through in-app advertisements and pop-up banners. Andrio claims DraftKings, or its affiliates, may take positions against customers while the company profits from transactions, regardless of which side prevails.

Andrio maintains these similarities show DraftKings structured Predictions to circumvent state sports betting restrictions rather than obtain the licenses required to operate a traditional sportsbook. He also alleges Predictions lacks some of the responsible-gaming safeguards available through DraftKings’ sportsbook and permits individuals as young as 18 to participate.

“DraftKings deceives consumers by marketing Predictions as a legitimate ‘prediction market’ rather than a sports betting product, designing the platform to mimic a sportsbook while describing the activity as ‘trading’, failing to implement responsible-gaming safeguards, permitting users as young as eighteen to trade, and shifting all legal risk onto consumers through its Terms of Use, even while acknowledging active litigation and regulatory uncertainty surrounding event-contract legality.”

— Ricardo Andrio v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

Andrio looks to pursue financial compensation for hundreds of California residents who spent money purchasing sports event contracts through the DraftKings Predictions mobile or web platforms. The complaint indicates aggregate class claims could exceed $5 million.

The lawsuit raises allegations of violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. It is seeking restitution or disgorgement of money obtained from consumers, compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive relief, interest and attorneys’ fees.

Sports Betting Addiction Lawsuits

While this complaint seeks class action status, many other sports betting lawsuits have been filed by individuals who claim online gambling platforms contributed to compulsive betting and substantial financial losses. These claims often allege sportsbooks use detailed customer data, behavioral analytics and wagering histories to identify user habits and target consumers with personalized promotions intended to keep them betting.

Sports betting addiction attorneys are investigating potential claims for individuals who suffered substantial financial losses or psychological harm after developing problematic gambling behaviors allegedly encouraged by sportsbook promotions and incentives. Companies involved in these claims may include:

Individuals can request a free and confidential case review to learn whether they may have grounds to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. Attorneys handle these claims on a contingency fee basis, with no upfront legal fees or expenses.

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

A panel of federal judges has determined that all lawsuits over PFAS chemicals used in firefighter protective gear should be consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, as manufacturers face a growing number of similar claims over the sale of turnout gear that contained toxic substances linked to cancer and other serious health risks.

For decades, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” have been used in firefighter turnout gear because they resist heat, water and oil. However, the chemicals do not naturally break down and can accumulate in the environment and human body over time, raising concerns about repeated exposure among firefighters who wear the gear during emergency responses, training exercises and other routine duties.

The lawsuits similarly allege that chemical manufacturers and companies involved in the production and sale of turnout gear knew or should have known about the potential risks associated with PFAS exposure, yet failed to adequately warn firefighters and others.

Several lawsuits have now been filed over the use of PFAS in turnout gear, including proposed class actions brought by municipalities and other purchasers of the equipment, as well as a separate proposed class action involving firefighters and firefighter associations.

In May, plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consolidate the federal claims before one judge for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Turnout Gear Cancer Risks

In 2022, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association urged firefighters to reduce their PFAS exposure, and called on manufacturers to focus on developing alternatives that did not contain PFAS.

The groups warned that firefighters cannot fully eliminate PFAS cancer risks as long as the chemicals remain in protective gear and other firefighting equipment.

Following those warnings, firefighter turnout gear lawsuits began to raise claims that manufacturers failed to disclose the risks associated with PFAS-containing protective clothing and continued selling the products despite concerns about long-term exposure.

Firefighters have some of the highest cancer rates of any profession, and the lawsuits maintain that repeated contact with PFAS-containing turnout gear may contribute to that risk.

Firefighter Turnout Gear Lawsuits Consolidated

Following oral arguments earlier this summer, the JPML issued a transfer order (PDF) on August 18, establishing a new multidistrict litigation in the District of Minnesota before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan.

The proceeding has been titled In re: Non-AFFF Firefighter Turnout Gear Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, and will include federal claims involving PFAS in turnout gear that do not also involve exposure to aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF.

The judges noted that some parties opposed centralization because only a limited number of cases had been filed. However, the panel found that coordinated proceedings were still warranted because the claims involve overlapping factual and legal issues, including defendants’ knowledge about PFAS risks, product warnings, marketing practices and potential class certification questions.

“The opponents of centralization primarily argue that centralization is premature because there are relatively few actions pending, such that informal coordination is a practicable and preferable alternative to centralization. We disagree. Including the potential tag-along actions, there are now eight putative class actions by turnout gear purchasers in five districts, as well as a putative class action brought by firefighters and firefighter associations in the District of Connecticut.”

– U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

The five cases initially transferred into the Minnesota MDL include claims brought by governmental and fire-service purchasers from several states, including San Mateo County, the City of Peabody, the City of Rochester, Earlville Community Fire Protection District and the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow.

With the litigation now centralized, Judge Bryan will oversee coordinated discovery and other pretrial proceedings involving the common allegations. The structure is intended to reduce duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and make it easier for the parties to address overlapping issues involving PFAS-containing turnout gear.

AFFF Lawsuits

Some attorneys wished to transfer the lawsuits to an already existing MDL that focused on injury lawsuits over exposure to aqueous-film forming foam (AFFF), which is used at military bases, airports and by first responders who have to put out petroleum fires. AFFF also contains PFAS. The JPML rejected that idea, acknowledging that there was considerable overlap between the two litigations but did not feel that there was a significant enough benefit to merging the litigation.

All federal AFFF lawsuits have been consolidated in the District of South Carolina before U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel. In that litigation, chemical companies face tens of thousands of claims by individuals, firefighters, military personnel and others who say widespread use of PFAS has led to heavy water contamination.

Judge Gergel originally backed consolidating all PFAS-related lawsuits in his court in a request to the JPML in August 2025. However, the JPML said it was unnecessary, indicating that adding a potentially large number of non-AFFF claims would unnecessarily increase Judge Gergel’s already substantial workload of managing the complex AFFF litigation.

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

A new study shows that California has documented nearly 600 cases of silicosis among workers who handled quartz countertops since 2019, including more than 30 deaths and dozens of cases where the severe lung damage resulted in the need for lung transplants.

The California Department of Public Health published its findings in NEJM Evidence on August 12, warning that silicosis often develops in young workers after relatively short periods of exposure. The report also found that silica dust exposure may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and tuberculosis.

In recent years, workers who cut, grind and fabricate quartz countertops, also known as engineered stone, have faced increasing concerns about silica dust exposure. The fine particles released during this work can be inhaled deep into the lungs, causing inflammation and permanent scarring known as silicosis.

Silicosis is an irreversible lung disease caused by repeated inhalation of silica dust. In severe cases, the damage can progress to respiratory failure and may ultimately require a lung transplant.

As a result, a number of silicosis lawsuits have been filed on behalf of workers who claim that they were not adequately warned about severe health risks associated with exposure to silica dust, as well as the importance of making sure proper protective equipment or silica dust suppression systems were in place.

California Silicosis Study

In the report, a research team led by Dr. Amy Heinzerling reviewed silicosis diagnoses among California workers from January 2019 through June 2026.

The study period began with California’s first confirmed silicosis case, involving a countertop fabrication worker who was diagnosed at age 32 and died of respiratory failure six years later. Researchers found that hundreds of additional cases followed.

By June 2026, the California Department of Public Health had identified 595 silicosis cases, including 31 deaths and 56 workers who required lung transplants. California is home to a large share of the quartz countertop fabrication industry, leaving workers in the state particularly vulnerable to silica dust exposure.

“These cases are notable for the patients’ young age at diagnosis, short duration of exposure, severity and rapid progression of disease, and frequent co-occurrence of other silica-associated conditions, including autoimmune disease and tuberculosis.”

– California Department of Public Health

According to the study, this data is already being used to change policy and regulations in the state, including new, more stringent workplace rules and mandatory silicosis reporting. However, the researchers noted the state has a long way to go to address the problem.

In 2024, state regulators were only able to inspect 85 of California’s more than 1,300 quartz countertop fabrication shops. They found violations of safety regulations at 95% of them.

The researchers note that exposure could be suppressed by the use of proper water-based tools and ventilation, but notes that they are costly to install and maintain, and would not prevent all silica dust exposure or silicosis diagnoses.

In May, California agreed to prohibit all quartz countertop products that contained more than 1% crystalline silica as part of an emergency rule to address the problem more fully. The rulemaking was in response to a petition by the Western Occupational and Environmental Medical Association. A similar policy was put in place in Australia in 2024.

Quartz Countertop Silicosis Lawsuits

A number of silicosis lawsuits have been filed by countertop fabrication workers who developed severe lung damage after years of cutting, grinding and polishing engineered stone products.

The claims generally allege that quartz countertop manufacturers and suppliers knew about the potential silicosis risks, yet withheld information from workers about the risk that silica dust released during fabrication and may leave them with permanent lung damage. Several major companies have been named in the litigation, including:

• Caesarstone
• Cosentino
• Cambria
• MSI
• Arizona Tile

The lawsuits seek compensation for medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, lung transplant costs and other damages linked to silica-related illnesses.

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

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits being pursued against Boston Scientific in the federal court system has appointed a group of lawyers to serve in key leadership positions, taking certain actions that benefit all plaintiffs during the coordinated pretrial proceedings.

Spinal cord stimulators are medical implants consisting of electrodes and a battery-powered pulse generator placed under the skin near the spine, as well as an external remote control. The devices use mild pulses of electricity that are supposed to be calibrated to prevent the pain signals from reaching the brain.

However, the devices have been linked to an alarming number of reports involving painful and debilitating spinal cord stimulator problems, including risks of lead fractures and migration, which can cause the devices to malfunction, deliver painful electrical shocks and worsen chronic pain rather than relieve it.

As a result, a growing number of lawsuits have been filed against Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro over the design of the companies’ spinal cord stimulator devices. Many claims contain similar allegations by users who say they were implanted with the chronic pain treatment devices, yet suffered injuries and other health complications as a result.

Boston Scientific Lawsuit Consolidation

Earlier this year, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) assigned all federal Boston Scientific lawsuits to U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton, creating a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Central District of California. The judge will guide the litigation through coordinated discovery, pretrial proceedings and a likely series of early test “bellwether” trials.

Judge Staton and attorneys for the plaintiffs and the defendants met for an initial scheduling conference on August 5, where they addressed the leadership structure for plaintiffs’ attorneys and appointed some to leadership positions in the litigation.

In an August 13 pretrial order (PDF) the judge announced the appointment of 19 spinal cord stimulator injury lawyers to serve in various leadership positions. This includes three attorneys assigned to serve as co-lead counsel, one plaintiffs’ liaison counsel, a four-person plaintiffs’ executive committee, a six person plaintiffs steering committee, and five attorneys appointed to serve as a leadership development committee designed to coach younger attorneys on how to handle multidistrict litigations.

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.

Judge Staton noted that additional leadership may be appointed in the future if circumstances change and the need arises.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

When the Boston Scientific claims were consolidated, plaintiffs had originally sought for all spinal cord stimulator lawsuits, regardless of manufacturer, to be rolled into one MDL. However, the JPML refused, saying the cases, injuries and products were too diverse.

Since then, plaintiffs have filed separate motions calling for Nevro stimulator lawsuit consolidation and Abbott stimulator lawsuit consolidation. Both motions are asking for the cases to be centralized as separate proceedings in the same district as the Boston Scientific stimulator MDL. The JPML is scheduled to hear arguments on September 24 over those issues.

In the meantime, spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator problems, including:

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

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

A Nevada man has filed a lawsuit alleging that regular use of OPMS and Remarkable Herbs kratom products left him with a severe addiction and cardiac injuries.

The complaint (PDF) was brought late last month by Noah Seri in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada, naming Martian Sales Inc., doing business as OPMS, and Skelmis LLC, doing business as Remarkable Herbs, as defendants. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on August 12.

Seri claims the manufacturers sold addictive, opioid-like kratom products without adequate warnings about dependence, withdrawal or serious health consequences.

Kratom Addiction Risks

Kratom is a psychoactive substance derived from the leaves of the Mitragyna tree, which is native to Southeast Asia. Products containing kratom are widely available at gas stations, smoke shops, convenience stores, wellness retailers and online, often marketed as dietary supplements.

Although it is sold as a dietary supplement, kratom contains compounds that act on some of the same brain receptors as opioids such as morphine and heroin. It is sold in powders, capsules, tablets, extracts, concentrated shots, gummies and beverages, although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved kratom for any medical use.

Amid widespread abuse and reports of kratom addictions, Federal health officials have also raised concerns about serious adverse events involving the products. A report published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that kratom poisoning reports increased by more than 1,200% since 2015.

Those concerns have also been reflected in a growing number of kratom lawsuits, which allege manufacturers sold highly addictive products without warning consumers about the risks of dependence, withdrawal and other serious health complications.

Kratom Injury Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Seri purchased OPMS and Remarkable Herbs kratom products and consumed them as intended. He alleges that his use caused him to become addicted and physically dependent, resulting in withdrawal, cardiac injuries and other health problems. 

The filing states that the companies’ products contained inadequate warnings about the risk of kratom addiction, physical dependence, withdrawal or other serious health consequences.

Instead, the complaint argues the manufacturers promoted kratom as a harmless, “all-natural” herbal supplement that could boost energy, improve mood, relieve pain and ease opioid withdrawal symptoms.

In particular, Seri alleges the defendants targeted individuals struggling with or recovering from addiction, as well as young and vulnerable consumers. The complaint points to brightly colored packaging, sweetened gummies, fruit-flavored shots, social media promotions and over-the-counter sales that allegedly often occurred without age verification.

The lawsuit indicates the defendants knew or should have known kratom was addictive and dangerous, yet had a financial incentive to create repeat customers. It claims Seri would not have purchased the products had he known about the potential risks.

“Because kratom is addictive, every new customer is a potential repeat customer, and upon information and belief Defendants’ marketing is intended to create and sustain addiction and thereby maximize their profits.”

— Noah Seri v. Martian Sales Inc. et al.

Seri raises allegations of strict product liability—design defect/unreasonably dangerous product, strict product liability—failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranties, breach of express warranty and deceptive trade practices/consumer fraud. He seeks damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages and diminished earning capacity, loss of household services, pain and suffering, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

Kratom Addiction Lawsuits

As kratom addiction lawsuits continue to be filed, personal injury lawyers are investigating claims involving individuals who allege they 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 handle all claims on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no expenses unless a settlement or award is secured on your behalf.

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

Nearly 40,000 bottles of Clear Eyes Maximum Itchy Eye Relief eye drops are being recalled nationwide over concerns that a potential contamination problem may have compromised the sterility of the products, raising the risk of eye infections and other adverse health effects.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the Clear Eyes recall involving eye drops distributed by Medtech Products Inc., part of Prestige Brand Holdings in Tarrytown, New York. According to the FDA enforcement report, the company initiated the recall due to a “lack of assurance of sterility” after identifying a potential contamination issue affecting certain lots.

The FDA classified the action as a Class II recall, indicating use of the affected eye drops may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse health consequences, although the likelihood of serious health effects is considered remote.

Clear Eyes Recall

The eye drops recall involves 15 mL bottles of Clear Eyes Maximum Itchy Eye Relief with lot code 2552A and an expiration date of September 30, 2027.

Clear Eyes Maximum Itchy Eye Relief is marketed as an astringent, lubricant and redness reliever intended to ease redness, itching, burning and watery eyes. The product is widely sold through major retailers, including Walmart, Target, CVS, Kroger, Dollar General and Family Dollar.

No other Clear Eyes products are included in the recall, and no injuries have been reported to date. The manufacturer also states that none of the recalled eye drops have been confirmed to be contaminated, indicating the recall was issued out of an abundance of caution.

Consumers are advised to stop using the affected eye drops and return them to the retailer where they were purchased for a full refund. Anyone who experiences symptoms or has concerns about possible side effects should seek medical attention or contact a doctor, healthcare provider or pharmacist for further guidance.

Eye Drop Contamination Lawsuits

Contaminated eye drops have been tied to a series of major recalls and lawsuits in recent years, as failures to maintain sterility may expose users to serious eye infections, vision problems and other potentially permanent injuries.

In March, K.C. Pharmaceuticals issued a sterile eye drop recall affecting more than 3 million bottles sold under several retail brands, including products available at Kroger, Walgreens, CVS and Harris Teeter.

Similar concerns led to a Systane eye drops lawsuit following a December 2024 recall involving potential fungal contamination. The FDA warned that use of the affected products could result in serious health consequences, including eye irritation and potential vision loss.

Individuals who believe they were injured by contaminated or otherwise compromised sterile eye drops may contact a product liability lawyer to investigate whether they may have a claim. There are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.

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

Abbott Laboratories has reached a major settlement agreement to resolve a portion of the Similac NEC litigation involving premature infants who developed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after receiving the company’s cow’s milk-based formula products.

The company announced this week that it will pay approximately $670 million to resolve one specific case that reached trial, together with claims brought on behalf of another 2,000 infants represented by specific law firms.

The claims are part of a large litigation being pursued against Abbott and its competitor Mead Johnson, involving lawsuits brought by families who allege cow’s milk-based formulas increase the risk of NEC for pre-term infants, indicating that the manufacturers should be held accountable for failing to warn consumers and the medical community about those risks.

Each Similac NEC lawsuit and Enfamil NEC lawsuit raises claims involving premature infants who developed the potentially life-threatening intestinal disease after being fed specialized formula products. NEC is a condition that occurs when harmful bacteria infiltrate the intestines, causing infection and necrosis. Preterm infants are particularly vulnerable due to their underdeveloped gastrointestinal systems.

Treatment for NEC can require large amounts of antibiotics and surgery to remove dead tissue and reroute the intestinal tract. Often, the newborns are left with life-long injuries and the need for medical monitoring before their lives are even really started. In many cases, the child does not survive.

Infant formula NEC lawsuits have been filed at both the federal and state level, with the federal claims consolidated into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Numerous other claims are also filed in state courts in Missouri and Illinois.

Several state trials have already been held, with many ending in massive multi-million verdicts against the manufacturers. According to an Abbott Laboratories press release, the failed appeal of a 2024 $495 million verdict in one of these early trials led to the decision to settle a group of Similac cases.

Similac NEC Settlement

On August 20, Abbott issued a press release announcing the Similac lawsuit payouts, which will see the company turning over $670 million to settle the lawsuit being appealed and about 2,000 more.

Few details were released, but the lion’s share will likely go to Margo Gill, who won the $495 million verdict in July 2024. Gill alleged that her infant daughter suffered brain damage as a result of Similac-induced NEC.

Abbott appealed the verdict, but a Missouri appeals court upheld the decision in May. Abbott then filed an appeal to the Missouri state Supreme Court, but on August 18 the parties filed a joint motion (PDF) to vacate the judgment and remand the case back to a lower court to finalize a settlement.

“Rather than continuing to appeal or paying approximately $600 million, representing the Gill judgment plus accrued interest to date, Abbott entered into agreements to resolve the Gill case as well as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) claims asserted on behalf of approximately 2,000 additional infants for an aggregate amount of approximately $670 million.”

– Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

The additional lawsuits involve plaintiffs represented by three law firms, according to the release. There was no information on whether additional settlements were on the horizon, but Abbott claims that it still believes the products are safe, despite the agreement.

Abbott says that after the settlement, roughly 1,700 lawsuits will remain pending in federal and state courts, involving claims on behalf of approximately 12,700 infants against Abbott, Mead Johnson, or both manufacturers over their preterm infant formula products.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

The settlement announcement comes as the first federal infant formula NEC bellwether trial is underway, involving claims brought by Alex Inman against Mead Johnson, the makers of Enfamil. He alleges his infant son, Daniel, died due to NEC complications after being fed the cow’s milk-based formula.

The trial over Inman’s claims will be followed by several additional federal trials if no settlement agreement is reached.

While none of these bellwether trial outcomes are binding on other cases, they are still being closely watched since they could help attorneys reach a future Enfamil or Similac infant formula settlement agreement.

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

According to a recently filed lawsuit, gaps in child protection measures employed by the gaming platform Roblox allowed an adult woman to groom a minor into performing sexual acts for her on camera.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by the teen boy’s state appointed guardian, identified only as AW-GAL-0018 on behalf of the boy himself, identified as AW-0018, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 11. It names Roblox Corporation and Discord Inc. as the defendants.

AW-GAL-0018 alleges both companies failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect minors using their platforms, allowing adults to sexually exploit children in numerous instances. She further claims the companies prioritized profits over child safety and knowingly allowed those deficiencies to persist, leaving minors vulnerable to grooming, exploitation and, in some cases, kidnapping, sexual assault and trafficking.

Roblox and Discord Child Safety Problems

Roblox is an online gaming platform marketed specifically toward children that allows users to design their own games and game worlds, inviting others to play and join. Tens of millions of users, a significant portion of whom are children, access the platform on a daily basis.

Despite developers repeatedly claiming Roblox is safe for children, the company now faces hundreds of Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits filed by parents and now-adult users. The complaints allege inadequate age and identity verification allows adults to pose as children and coerce minors into sexually compromising situations.

These interactions often involve convincing the child to switch to a more interactive chat system, like Discord, which allows text, audio and video interactions between individuals and groups. Plaintiffs in Roblox lawsuits often say that Discord also lacks proper safety features to prevent children from being exposed to sexual predators.

Roblox finally began implementing facial recognition technology late last year, which the company says can estimate users’ ages and restrict communications between adults and children without parental approval. However, families pursuing lawsuits maintain the safety measures were introduced too late to protect children who had already suffered abuse through the platform and the technology has received criticism even after rollout for failing to properly estimate users’ ages.

Roblox Grooming Allegations

AW-GAL-0018’s claims involve a boy who began using Roblox in 2024, when he was 12 years old. By the time he was 13, the lawsuit alleges an adult woman had targeted him for grooming by posing online as a girl his age and sending him sexually explicit material.

The woman then maneuvered the teen onto Discord, where she convinced him to perform sexual acts for her on camera in return for Robux, a currency used on the Roblox platform.

“Over the course of the grooming relationship, the predator escalated her communications with Plaintiff across Roblox and Discord. She transmitted naked photographs and videos of herself to Plaintiff and induced him to perform sexual acts on camera for her viewing, continuing to promise Robux. The abuse was sustained and repeated, occurring on multiple times.”

– AW-GAL-0018 et al. v. Roblox Corporation et al.

The relationship was not discovered until the boy’s mother walked in on an interaction. The lawsuit states she immediately realized the voice of the person her son was chatting with was not that of a child, but an adult, discovering the explicit videos and images she had coerced her minor son to send and receive.

According to the complaint, the boy, now 15, has suffered severe emotional trauma, resulting in diagnoses for depression, severe anxiety and PTSD all linked to the sexual exploitation. His mother indicates she has been told her child will suffer lasting trauma and difficulties forming healthy relationships as a result of his encounters on Roblox and Discord.

The lawsuit presents claims of fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, unreasonable design, negligent undertaking and design defect.

Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation Lawsuits

AW-GAL-0018’s claim will be consolidated with nearly 200 other Roblox child sexual exploitation lawsuits 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.

Judge Seeborg is expected to establish a bellwether trial program for the litigation, which would lead to attorneys selecting a series of representative cases that are most reflective of the litigation as a whole. These cases would then go through additional discovery and be the first of the claims 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. In hopes of such a solution, the court also appointed a special master earlier this year to facilitate preliminary settlement negotiations. If those discussions result in a global resolution, large numbers of claims could be resolved without the need for individual trials, reducing the time and expense associated with continued litigation.

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 Delaware woman has filed a product liability against the medical device manufacturer AngioDynamics, claiming she was implanted with one of the company’s Xcela port catheters, which was defectively designed and migrated out of position.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rachel Dinan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on August 8, seeking damages from AngioDynamics Inc. and Navilyst Medical Inc., who are named as the defendants.

Dinan claims the company’s line of port catheter implants are unreasonably dangerous and defective, and that the manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings to medical professionals or patients so they could be aware of the risk of migration, fractures and infections.

Port Catheter Problems

Port catheters are implantable devices placed beneath the skin to provide long-term access to a patient’s veins for chemotherapy, blood transfusions, medications and other intravenous treatments. The devices consist of an access port connected to a polyurethane catheter, allowing repeated treatments without the need for a new needle stick each time.

However, AngioDynamics and other port manufacturers, including C.R. Bard, currently face hundreds of port catheter lawsuits involving claims that the devices caused bloodstream infections, blood clots, vascular damage and other serious complications. Plaintiffs allege the design and materials used in the port catheters can cause the material to deteriorate after implantation, creating irregular surfaces where bacteria and blood products may collect and contribute to infections and other problems.

Dinan and other individuals pursuing AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits maintain the company was aware, or should have been aware, of the potential for these complications but continued selling and promoting the devices without providing adequate warnings to patients and the medical community about the alleged risks.

Port Catheter Migration Allegations

According to Dinan’s lawsuit, she underwent placement of an AngioDynamics Xcela port catheter in July 2016. However, just a couple months later she was diagnosed with chest wall cellulitis, a form of infection.

Doctors examining Dinan discovered that the port had migrated out of position, causing the soft tissues around the port to swell. Between the implant’s migration and resulting infection, they decided to surgically remove the failed implant.

Dinan indicates AngioDynamics knew, or should have known, about the potential risk of failure before she was implanted with the device, and claims the company has downplayed those risks for the sake of retaining profits.

“Defendants advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and distributed the Xcela port as a safe medical device when Defendant knew or should have known the Xcela port was not safe for its intended purposes and that the product could cause serious medical problems. Defendants had sole access to material facts concerning the defective nature of the Xcela port product and its propensity to cause serious and dangerous side effects.”

– Rachel Dinan v. AngioDynamics Inc. et al.

According to Dinan, AngioDynamics has received numerous reports of port catheter failures, including infections and migration, and has intentionally concealed the severity of those reports.

She presents claims of negligence, failure to warn, design defect, breach of warranty and fraudulent concealment.

Port Catheter Lawsuits

Dinan’s claims join hundreds of other AngioDynamics port catheter lawsuits, which have been consolidated before U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta in the Southern District of California. Judge Ohta is leading the litigation through coordinated discovery and addressing common pretrial issues involving allegations that the company marketed defective implantable port systems.

Judge Ohta is eventually expected to order attorneys to identify a limited number of representative claims for early bellwether trials. Although those verdicts will not determine the outcome of other cases, they may provide insight into how juries view recurring evidence and allegations, potentially shaping future AngioDynamics port catheter settlement negotiations.

Similarly, thousands of Bard PowerPort lawsuits are also pending in a separate federal multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell in the District of Arizona. Those lawsuits allege design and manufacturing problems make the implanted catheters prone to fractures, blood clots, infections and other potentially serious injuries.

The first Bard PowerPort bellwether case went before a jury earlier this year leading to an incomplete verdict and the plaintiff seeking a new trial, claiming jurors received improper instructions.

Additional Bard PowerPort bellwether trials are planned throughout 2027. If the test cases and settlement negotiations fail to produce a broader resolution, individual claims could eventually be sent back to their originating federal courts for separate trials.

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

A New Jersey woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she suffered severe burns after the water tank of her SaunaBox Smart Steam personal sauna suddenly exploded.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Arriele Cannon in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 14, pursuing claims against SaunaBox LLC, as the sole defendant.

Cannon claims her SaunaBox personal sauna was defectively designed, inadequately tested and sold without sufficient warnings about the risk of serious burns.

Personal Sauna Risks

Personal saunas are compact devices designed for at-home use, which heat the body through steam, infrared energy or other technologies,. The devices are often marketed for relaxation, detoxification and weight loss. However, several lawsuits filed in recent years allege that personal sauna products have caused serious burn injuries.

In May, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against Amazon by a Texas man who alleges he suffered severe burns after becoming trapped inside a portable infrared sauna purchased through the platform. According to the complaint, the sauna’s zipper failed, preventing him from escaping before he lost consciousness and sustained extensive burns.

A Pennsylvania woman also filed a product liability lawsuit last year after allegedly suffering severe burns and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when an infrared sauna pod malfunctioned. Her complaint alleges the sauna pod reached an unsafe temperature because of a product defect.

SaunaBox Smart Steam Injury Allegations

In this recently filed home sauna lawsuit, Cannon indicates that she received a SaunaBox Smart Steam Pro kit as a gift. On October 11, 2025, she was allegedly using the device when the water tank suddenly exploded, causing scalding hot water to spray across her body and resulting in severe burn injuries.

Cannon claims she required medical treatment following the incident and continues to receive care for injuries she alleges are permanent.

The lawsuit argues that there were alternative sauna designs available which would have prevented Cannon’s injuries or greatly reduced her risk of suffering them. Moreover, the complaint alleges SaunaBox failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with the product.

Cannon also points to advertising claims that the personal sauna “delivers the full rejuvenating experience of a traditional sauna.” However, she alleges the SaunaBox exposes users to an unreasonable risk of injury that is not associated with traditional saunas.

“When placed in the stream of commerce, the Sauna was defective in design and formulation, making the use of the Sauna more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, and more dangerous than other risks associated with other portable sauna units on the market.”

— Arriele Cannon v. SaunaBox LLC

The complaint raises allegations of violation of the New Jersey Products Liability Act, defective design, failure to warn and breach of express warranty. It seeks compensation for pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life and medical treatment.

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

A California woman has filed a lawsuit alleging the manufacturers of Dupixent knew that she and other patients could develop a rare form of cancer after only a few months of injections, yet withheld critical warnings from consumers and the medical community.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Juliana Perez in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 12, naming Sanofi-Aventis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Genzyme Corporation as the defendants.

Perez claims the manufacturers are aware that side effects of Dupixent represents a danger to patients, but are more concerned about their bottom lines than an increased risk of death or the potential need for life-long monitoring and cancer treatments.

Dupixent Lymphoma Risks

Dupixent (dupilumab) was initially approved in 2017 as a treatment for a form of eczema known as atopic dermatitis. However, in recent years the manufacturers have convinced federal regulators to add additional approvals for the drug, allowing the medication to be promoted 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.

While the manufacturers have maintained the drug is safe, a series of Dupixent side effects have been linked to the drug, including a rare type of cancer known as cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), the most common form of which is mycosis fungoides.

Complicating matters even more is that the symptoms of CTCL, such as rashes, patches of scaley skin, plaques and tumors often resemble the very skin conditions Dupixent was designed to treat. This increases the risk of a potential cancer misdiagnosis.

As a result, Perez joins an increasing number of similar Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits alleging that the manufacturers knew, or should have known, about the potential risks but failed to provide an adequate warning to the medical community or patients. Plaintiffs say they may have been able to avoid a cancer diagnosis and the need for life-long medical treatments if the manufacturers had done their due diligence.

Dupixent CTCL Allegations

According to the complaint, Perez was prescribed Dupixent in August 2023 for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. The plaintiff indicates neither she nor her doctor were warned at the time about potential Dupixent lymphoma risks.

Perez received the injections only until January 2024. However, she was diagnosed with mycosis fungoides in February of this year and has required extensive medical treatments as a result, including medications, phototherapy and chemotherapy, and will likely require treatment and monitoring for the rest of her life.

The lawsuit argues there was enough scientific data long before Perez’s diagnosis for the manufacturers to know Dupixent carried an increased lymphoma cancer risk, but it says they intentionally ignored and downplayed that data for the sake of the companies’ bottom lines.

“But for Defendants’ failure to provide a clear warning regarding the increased risk of CTCL with the use of Dupixent, Plaintiff’s physician would not have prescribed her Dupixent and Plaintiff, Juliana Perez would not have taken Dupixent to treat her atopic dermatitis. At the time Plaintiff, Juliana Perez was first prescribed Dupixent, the available scientific data were adequate to put Defendants on notice that there existed reasonable evidence of causal association between Dupixent and the development and progression of CTCL.”

– Juliana Perez v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al.

Perez presents claims of failure to warn, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. She seeks both compensatory and punitive damages.

Dupixent Lymphoma Lawsuits

The complaint will join other Dupixent lymphoma lawsuits in the District of New Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, who is leading the litigation through coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Eventually, a group of cases will likely be selected to serve as representative Dupixent claims in a series of “bellwether” trials. These early test trials are designed to give plaintiffs and defendants an opportunity to see how a jury responds to evidence and testimony likely to make up the core of most claims. They could also help the parties reach a Dupixent lymphoma lawsuit settlement.

If no settlement or other resolution is reached after the bellwether trials are completed, Judge Quraishi could end up remanding the claims back to their U.S. District Courts of origin for individual trials.

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

A New York woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging an indoor tabletop fire pit suddenly burst into flames during normal use, setting her body on fire and causing severe, permanent burns to her head, face, chest, ears and hands.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Rachel Lerner and her husband, Shaya Lerner, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 12. It names Amazon.com, Inc., as well as MT Global Enterprises LLC, doing business as Stonhome, as defendants.

The Lerners claim a Stonhome tabletop fire pit was defectively designed to burn pooled isopropyl alcohol, commonly known as rubbing alcohol, which can suddenly eject flames that travel outside of the device and burn individuals or objects.

The lawsuit seeks to hold Amazon liable as a seller and distributor of the fire pit, pointing to a 2024 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) decision that found the online retailer should bear responsibility for recalling certain hazardous products it receives, stores and delivers. 

Tabletop Fire Pit Flame Jet Risks

Tabletop fire pits are small, portable devices designed for use on tables and other flat surfaces, where they burn liquid alcohol or similar fuels to create an open flame for heat, decoration or cooking. Depending on the product, they may be marketed for use on patios, decks and balconies, as well as inside the home.

Some tabletop fire pits require users to pour liquid fuel directly into an open reservoir before lighting the device. These fuels can reach temperatures above 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, potentially causing third-degree burns almost immediately, while spilled or pooled fuel can ignite and rapidly spread flames to nearby people or surfaces.

In recent years, these hazards have been linked to a growing number of serious tabletop fire pit burn injuries, affecting both individuals using or refueling the devices and nearby bystanders.

As a result, tabletop fire pit lawsuits are being pursued against manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging they sold dangerously designed products without sufficient safety features, refueling instructions or warnings about risks such as invisible flames and flame jetting.

Indoor Fire Pit Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Shaya Lerner purchased a Stonhome Tabletop Fire Pit Bowl through Amazon on December 23, 2024, for $40.87.

The purchase came just days after the CPSC expanded a warning about pooled alcohol fire pits. Stonhome also posted a safety warning on Instagram on December 27, referencing the federal alert, but the Lerners allege they were never adequately warned about the risk.

The complaint states that Amazon was later required to notify purchasers about the hazards and offer refunds intended to remove affected products from use.

On January 25, 2025, Rachel and Shaya Lerner were using the fire pit inside their home when it allegedly produced a sudden flame jet that struck Rachel and ignited her clothing.

Rachel allegedly suffered severe burns to her head, face, chest, ears and hands, resulting in ongoing medical treatment and lasting limitations. Shaya witnessed the incident and claims he suffered severe emotional distress after seeing his wife engulfed in flames.

The lawsuit alleges the fire pit was defectively designed because it required users to burn combustible isopropyl alcohol in an open container, creating a foreseeable risk of flame jetting and serious burn injuries.

The plaintiffs also claim the defendants failed to adequately test the product or provide sufficient warnings about the danger. According to the complaint, Amazon did not send the Lerners a product safety email specifically warning about the flame jetting risk until July 4, 2025, more than five months after Rachel was burned. A second email sent July 14 provided refund instructions.

“Defendants were further negligent in failing to effectively communicate to Plaintiffs a reasonable and adequate warning and instruction respecting the nature, extent, and severity of the danger of devastating injury and harm presented to consumers of the subject product, such as the Plaintiffs herein, including the negligent failure to recall the subject product in a reasonable and timely manner due to the propensity of the subject product to cause devastating injury and harm.”

— Rachel Lerner et al. v. MT Global Enterprises LLC et al.

The Lerners raise allegations of negligence, strict product liability, breach of implied warranty and breach of express warranty. Shaya also brings a “zone of danger” negligence claim based on the emotional and physical injuries he allegedly suffered after witnessing the fire engulf his wife. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

Tabletop Fire Pit Lawsuits

Amid a growing number of recalls and reports of serious burns, attorneys are reviewing potential tabletop fire pit lawsuits nationwide for individuals injured by flame jetting, flashbacks and explosions, as well as families who lost loved ones in these incidents.

Reported injuries and losses associated with tabletop fire pits may include:

• Second- and third-degree burns requiring medical care
• Permanent scarring, disfigurement, nerve damage or reduced mobility
• Respiratory injuries from sudden flames or burning fuel
• Severe burns caused by flare-ups during refueling
• Fatal injuries following fire pit explosions
• Lost wages and reduced earning capacity
• Hospitalization, rehabilitation and other ongoing medical treatment
• Emotional and psychological trauma resulting from permanent injuries

Individuals who suffered serious burns or other injuries involving a tabletop fire pit may be entitled to financial compensation. Tabletop fire pit attorneys can investigate the device involved, determine whether it was defective or subject to a recall and explain what legal options may be available.

These claims 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 recovered.

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

A Missouri appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to order a new trial in an infant formula lawsuit involving Similac and Enfamil, which alleges that the cow’s milk-based products caused a newborn to develop necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC).

Elizabeth Whitfield originally filed the lawsuit in 2022 on behalf of her son, Kaine. The case ultimately went to trial in October 2024 and ended with a defense verdict for Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson.

However, Missouri Circuit Court Judge Michael Noble later threw out that verdict and ordered a new trial in March 2025, after finding that attorneys for the infant formula manufacturers engaged in misconduct during the proceedings.

Judge Noble determined that the defense violated court instructions, presented evidence that had previously been excluded and suggested to jurors that babies could starve if Similac and Enfamil were removed from the market.

Infant Formula NEC Risks

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a serious intestinal condition that primarily affects premature infants, whose gastrointestinal systems are not fully developed. The condition can occur when harmful bacteria penetrate the intestinal wall, causing inflammation and tissue damage.

In severe cases, NEC can cause portions of the intestine to die, leading to life-threatening complications. Treatment may require antibiotics or surgery to remove damaged sections of the intestine. Even infants who survive NEC can be left with long-term health problems and may require ongoing medical care.

These risks have led to a growing number of Similac lawsuits and Enfamil lawsuits against Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson. The lawsuits allege that the cow’s milk-based formulations increase the risk of premature infants developing NEC.

Similac and Enfamil NEC Verdict Appeal

Following the original trial in Whitfeld’s lawsuit, Abbott Laboratories and Mead Johnson appealed Judge Noble’s ruling to the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District, which issued an opinion (PDF) on August 11, upholding the judge’s decision.

“[T]his Court holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a new trial was warranted on the ground the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.”

– Judge Michael S. Wright, writing for the Missouri Court of Appeals

The appeals court emphasized that it was not permitted to independently reweigh the evidence presented during the trial. Instead, the judges were required to view the evidence in a manner favorable to Judge Noble’s decision and defer to the trial court’s assessment of conflicting testimony and witness credibility.

Abbott and Mead Johnson argued that Whitfield failed to present sufficient evidence that their products caused Kaine’s NEC injuries. However, the appeals court rejected those arguments, noting that both sides presented expert testimony on causation and that disagreement among experts did not mean Whitfield had failed to present a viable case.

The manufacturers also challenged Whitfield’s failure to warn claims, arguing that additional warnings would not have changed the outcome. The appeals court found that argument lacked merit, pointing to Missouri law establishing a presumption that an adequate warning would have been followed if one had been provided.

Abbott separately argued that Whitfield’s design defect allegations improperly challenged an entire category of cow’s milk based infant formulas. The appeals court rejected that argument as well, finding that the lawsuit targeted the products made by Abbott and Mead Johnson rather than attempting to establish that all infant formula products were inherently defective.

Ultimately, the appeals court determined that Judge Noble clearly identified the defense verdict as being against the weight of the evidence, which was sufficient under Missouri law to order a new trial. The panel therefore affirmed the ruling without addressing every remaining argument raised by Abbott and Mead Johnson.

The ruling clears the way for Whitfield’s claims against Abbott and Mead Johnson to return for another trial, where a new jury will again be asked to consider whether Similac and Enfamil products contributed to Kaine’s NEC injuries.

Infant Formula NEC Lawsuits

The decision in this Missouri state court comes as the first federal bellwether trial is currently underway, involving claims brought by Alexis Inman, whose infant son, Daniel, allegedly died due to necrotizing enterocolitis after being fed Enfamil Premature Formula.

However, in addition to Whitfield’s claim, several other state court cases have already gone before juries, with several resulting in massive damage awards against the formula manufacturers.

A separate 2024 trial in Missouri state court ended with Abbott being ordered to pay nearly $500 million to a woman whose daughter suffered NEC-related brain damage. In April, a Cook County, Illinois, jury issued a $70 million verdict in a Similac lawsuit.

Another Cook County jury returned a $60 million verdict in an Enfamil NEC lawsuit, yet an appeals court tossed that verdict out on June 12 and ordered a new trial.

While none of these bellwether trial outcomes are binding on other cases, they are still being closely watched since they could help attorneys reach a future Enfamil or Similac infant formula settlement agreement.

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

A Virginia woman has filed a product liability lawsuit over severe burns she suffered when an Instant Pot pressure cooker exploded without warning, due to design defects that allowed the lid to be removed before all of the internal steam and pressure had been released.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Najae Williams in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois on July 9. It names as defendants Corelle Brands LLC formerly known as Instant Brands LLC, Instant Brands Inc., Corelle Brands Acquisition Holdings Inc., as well as multiple other entities involved in the design, manufacture, distribution and sale of the Instant Pot device. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on August 17.

Williams claims the safety features of her Instant Pot electric pressure cooker failed due to product defects, which the manufacturers knew or should have known about.

Pressure Cooker Explosion Risks

The Instant Pot device used by Williams is a kind of electric pressure cooker that prepares food by sealing steam inside the appliance to generate high pressure and temperatures. Since the contents can become extremely hot, the cooker incorporates multiple safety systems intended to keep the lid secured until pressure inside the pot has been released.

However, a growing number of lawsuits allege these pressure cooker safety systems can fail, potentially allowing the lid to be turned or removed while hazardous pressure remains inside.

If the lid opens under pressure, scalding steam, liquid and food can be forcefully expelled from the cooker and strike nearby users. Reported injuries have included serious burns to the face, chest, arms and hands, sometimes resulting in hospitalization, skin grafts and extensive medical care.

Instant Pot Injury Allegations

According to the lawsuit, Williams was preparing food on February 14, 2022, with an Instant Pot Programmable Electric Pressure Cooker Model DUO 60 Mickey Mouse Classic. When the cook cycle finished, the filing indicates Williams began to release the steam from the pressure cooker.

Once there was no more steam, Williams says she began to rotate the handle of the device when the lid exploded and blew off. The device released scalding hot steam, liquid and other hot food onto her body with great force. Williams sought medical attention. However, she suffered painful, disfiguring burns to her breasts and abdomen, resulting in permanent scars.

Williams points out that the Instant Pot is advertised as having certain safety features to prevent the lid from opening while under pressure, yet she argues that these advertising claims are false and the device safety features are defective and often fail.

The complaint alleges Instant Pot brand companies have received numerous consumer complaints and independent reports indicating other individuals have suffered injuries stemming from similar device defects. However, the manufacturers allegedly put profits over safety and failed to redesign the device with better safety features.

“As a direct and proximate cause of the sudden release of pressure, and discharge of the scalding contents of the Instant Pot, Najae Williams sustained serious, painful, disfiguring, and permanent scalding burn injuries to Najae Williams’s breasts, abdomen, and other injuries and damages as set forth in this Complaint.”

— Najae Williams v. Corelle Brands LLC et al.

The complaint raises allegations of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defect and manufacturing defect. It seeks compensation for pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life and medical care and treatment.

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

A Pennsylvania man has filed a lawsuit against FanDuel, claiming that the sportsbook was designed to intentionally exploit and target his gambling addictions, with targeted advertisements and promotions, which caused him to suffer substantial losses he could not afford.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Maurice Faulk in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania on August 12, naming Flutter Entertainment PLC, FanDuel Group Parent LLC, Betfair Interactive US LLC, FanDuel PA LLC and FanDuel Inc. as the defendants.

Faulk accuses the defendants of designing a sports betting app that tracks users’ every interaction and uses that data to foster addiction and mental health problems. He alleges the platform financially drains users instead of warning them when their gambling habits may be dangerous.

Sports Betting Addiction Problems Fueled by FanDuel

Sports betting apps like FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM and others have exploded in popularity over the past decade, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2018, which granted each state the ability to decide for itself whether online sports betting should be allowed within its borders.

The widespread legalization of the platforms has resulted in substantial increases in problem gambling, especially among young adults and college-age men. For many of these new gambling addicts, it is their first time away from home, and they are just beginning to learn how to manage their finances.

However, there is now increasing evidence that many of these addictions were fueled by aggressive sportsbook promotions and targeted advertisement, with growing evidence that young are men particularly vulnerable to online sportsbook tactics. Rather than identifying problem gambling patterns, FanDuel and other sportsbooks have been accused of designing their systems to increase sports betting losses before parents, schools or others recognize that a gambling problem has developed.

As a result of these tactics, a number of FanDuel addiction lawsuits and  DraftKings addiction lawsuits are now being pursued in courts nationwide, each raising similar claims that sportsbooks should be held accountable for placing their desire for profits before the health and safety of consumers.

FanDuel Addiction Allegations

According to the FanDuel Addiction lawsuit filed by Faulk, he began making wagers through the platform’s mobile app in 2021. Over the last five years, Faulk states he placed nearly $1 million in wagers, with net losses of about $75,000.

Faulk claims he has been bombarded with aggressive advertising targeted directly at him, with emails and notifications repeatedly attempting to entice him into placing riskier and more expensive wagers. Faulk estimates he spends an average of eight to 10 hours per day on FanDuel’s apps.

The lawsuit states Faulk has maxed out his credit cards, taken out multiple loans, fallen behind on vehicle payments and now faces “constant harassment” from debt collectors. It also argues the platform has caused severe financial and relationship problems for his wife and children.

“As the company behind these sophisticated apps, FanDuel knowingly refuses to implement any reasonable safeguards and, in fact, intentionally designs their sports gambling platforms to addict. Consequently, their customers face massive monetary losses, bankruptcy, career loss, physical harm, and mental anguish, such as depression and even suicide when they fall into gambling addiction.”

– Maurice Faulk v. Flutter Interactive PLC et al.

Faulk indicates that he now suffers from gambling addiction, depression, anxiety, chronic worry, feelings of hopelessness and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as struggles with suicidal ideation. He presents claims of defective design, failure to warn, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Sportsbook Gambling Addiction Lawsuits

Faulk is one of many individuals nationwide who have filed lawsuits in recent years seeking compensation through a sportsbook lawsuit. These cases typically allege FanDuel, DraftKings and other online sportsbooks employ sophisticated algorithms, user data and behavioral tools to track individuals’ betting patterns and deliver promotions geared toward convincing them to make riskier and more expensive wagers.

Sports betting addiction attorneys are reviewing claims nationwide for individuals who believe they suffered significant financial losses or psychological harm after developing compulsive gambling behaviors allegedly fueled by the marketing practices and promotional incentives used by online sportsbooks, including:

Individuals may request a free, confidential case evaluation to determine whether they qualify to pursue a sports betting addiction lawsuit. These cases are handled on a contingency fee basis, meaning there are no upfront attorney fees or litigation costs, and compensation is owed only if a recovery is obtained.

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

Two Michigan women have joined together to file a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that inadequate AirTag stalking safeguards allowed former romantic partners to secretly track their movements after they attempted to avoid contact.

The complaint (PDF) was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on August 10, on behalf of two women using the pseudonyms Jane MH Doe-1 and Jane WP Doe-2.

Apple AirTag Stalking Risks

Apple introduced AirTags in April 2021 as small Bluetooth devices designed to help consumers locate personal belongings.

The devices use Bluetooth signals and Apple’s “Find My” network to determine their location. Nearby Apple devices can detect an AirTag and anonymously relay its location through Apple’s network, giving the owner updated information about where the tracker is located.

However, critics argue those same features create a cheap and easily concealed way to track another person’s movements, leading to reports of AirTags being misused in connection with stalking, domestic violence, assaults and even homicides.

As a result of those problems, a number of Apple AirTag lawsuits are now being pursued, alleging the company knew about the potential for misuse before releasing the devices, pointing to warnings from technology experts and domestic violence advocates. Plaintiffs claim Apple received more than 40,000 reports of AirTag stalking between 2021 and 2024, or about 1,000 complaints per month on average.

AirTag Tracking Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Doe-1 believes a former romantic partner began stalking and tracking her no later than July 2026, repeatedly appearing at locations where she had not expected him to know she was present.

On July 2, the former partner allegedly appeared at a park where Doe-1’s vehicle was hidden behind a truck. The following day, he appeared to know she was attending a fireworks event even though she had not told him about her plans.

Doe-1 eventually moved her camper from a campground she had visited for 10 years in an effort to escape the suspected stalking, but the former partner continued locating her and allegedly appeared at her new residence on July 23.

Two days later, her 12-year-old son discovered an AirTag hidden in her vehicle.

Although Doe-1 was using an iPhone, the lawsuit indicates Apple’s unwanted tracking system never notified her that an unknown AirTag was traveling with her. She indicates the stalking has left her fearing for both her life and her child’s safety and has severely disrupted her daily activities.

Doe-2 describes similar problems after leaving an abusive four-year relationship and moving into a new apartment in March 2023 without providing her former partner with the address.

However, her former partner allegedly appeared at the apartment the same day she moved in. Doe-2 initially saw a man walking around her vehicle and later recognized him as her former partner after he began banging on her apartment door. After he left, she discovered her vehicle had been keyed.

About two weeks later, an AirTag was discovered beneath the back seat of her vehicle. Doe-2 was using an Android smartphone and received no warning about the tracker, discovering it only after her niece visited with an iPhone that generated an unknown AirTag alert.

“The AirTag’s inadequate anti-stalking measures failed to protect each Plaintiff from being tracked without her knowledge or consent, resulting in severe emotional and psychological harm.”

— Jane MH Doe-1 et al. v. Apple Inc.

Apple allegedly recognized the potential for unwanted tracking and developed anti-stalking features intended to deter misuse, but the women claim those protections were inadequate from the outset.

At launch, an AirTag separated from its owner could take three days to produce an audible warning, according to the lawsuit. Although iPhone users could receive notifications about unknown AirTags traveling with them, Android users initially had no comparable automatic protection.

Apple introduced its Tracker Detect app for Android devices in December 2021, but the lawsuit alleges users had to know about the app, download it and manually initiate scans. As a result, individuals generally needed to already suspect they were being tracked before searching for an AirTag.

Apple and Google announced plans for a cross-platform unwanted tracking detection standard in May 2023, which the complaint indicates was not fully implemented until 2024. However, the women maintain neither operating system currently provides adequate protection against AirTag stalking.

Doe-1 and Doe-2 claim Apple could have adopted stronger safeguards before AirTags were released, including identity verification to activate trackers, equivalent detection features for Android users, louder speakers that were more difficult to disable, periodic owner authentication and designs that made the devices harder to conceal.

The lawsuit alleges Apple continued selling AirTags and relied on incremental safety updates despite reports of unwanted tracking. The women argue Apple placed the devices on the market despite knowing foreseeable misuse could expose individuals to stalking and abuse, even though safer alternative designs were technologically feasible.

The complaint includes claims for negligence, product liability—design defect, invasion of privacy—intrusion upon seclusion and violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. It seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and other relief, as well as an injunction requiring Apple to address allegedly unlawful or unfair practices involving the design, manufacture and sale of AirTags.

Apple AirTag MDL

As AirTag stalking lawsuits continue to mount, plaintiffs have asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to centralize all federal lawsuits in an Apple AirTag MDL, arguing one judge should preside over coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings given similar questions of fact and law involved. 

More than 20 AirTag lawsuits are pending across at least 17 federal districts, with additional claims expected. Many were filed individually after a federal judge rejected class certification in a proposed nationwide AirTag stalking lawsuit earlier this year.

As litigation over the alleged misuse of location-tracking devices expands, attorneys are evaluating potential claims for individuals who say they were unknowingly monitored with an Apple AirTag, Samsung SmartTag or similar device.

Apple AirTag lawyers are investigating cases nationwide involving claims that tracking devices were improperly used in connection with:

• Stalking
• Harassment
• Domestic violence
• Other criminal conduct

Potential claims are being reviewed on a contingency fee basis, meaning individuals have no upfront legal fees or expenses, and attorneys are only paid if compensation is recovered.

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

According to a new study, patients taking medications designed to treat epilepsy and other seizure disorders, including Lamictal, Dilantin and Tegretol, may face an increased risk of severe and potentially deadly skin reactions.

The findings were published in JAMA Dermatology late last month. In the study, Canadian researchers analyzed years of data linking use of the anti-seizure drugs to incidents of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), suggesting these medications may be leading causes of the conditions.

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

SJS is a rare skin reaction usually triggered by a medication. Often beginning with flu-like symptoms, patients develop painful rashes. If diagnosis is delayed and SJS goes untreated, it can destroy skin, cause blindness and become life-threatening.

Once more than 30% of the skin is affected, an SJS diagnosis is upgraded to TEN, symptoms of which include widespread blistering and peeling skin and damage to the mucous membrane, typically resulting in the need for inpatient treatment in a hospital burn unit.

Side effects of both conditions can include vision impairment, permanent skin damage, sepsis, meningitis, organ failure, acute respiratory failure and in some cases death. Treatment requires immediately stopping the drug suspected of causing the condition, administering fluids, preventing infections and managing pain.

Over the past few decades, various drug manufacturers have faced SJS lawsuits and TENS lawsuits involving claims that specific products do not contain adequate warnings about the risk of users developing the dangerous skin reactions.

Anti-Seizure Medication Skin Disorders

For the new study, a team of researchers from the University Health Network and Sinai Health conducted a meta-analysis of 50 observational studies published before March 2026. Led by Dr. Ericka Yue Lee, they looked at data on confirmed cases of SJS and TEN, identifying 4,403 individuals.

The researchers examined incidents of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) tied to SJS/TEN reactions, finding that antiepileptics accounted for nearly 23% of all SJS and TEN diagnoses, including approximately 88% of cases attributed to a single drug exposure. Virtually all of those cases were linked to a specific type of antiepileptic medications known as aromatic AEDs.

According to the data, 39% of those cases were linked to Tegretol use, 19% were linked to Dilantin, and 15% were associated with the use of Lamictal. They determined that nonaromatic AEDs accounted for less than 2% of all AED-linked SJS and TEN cases.

“SJS/TEN is considered the most serious type of drug hypersensitivity reaction, and in our analysis, at least 87% of cases reported worldwide were attributed to a single implicated drug.”

— Dr. Ericka Yue Lee, Proportion of Antiepileptic Drug–Associated Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Additionally, the researchers noted that the risk was higher with pediatric use than when the drugs were used by adults. They also found that geography appeared to play a role, with higher rates of diagnoses in West Asia and the lowest rates detected in Africa.

The team concluded that aromatic AEDs are a leading cause of SJS and TEN, urging doctors to favor the use of nonaromatic antiseizure medications when clinically appropriate.

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

A Texas woman has filed a product liability lawsuit alleging she fell and broke her arm while riding a Lime bicycle due to defectively designed brakes.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Brittany Perkins in the Travis County District Court of Texas on June 25, naming Neutron Holdings Inc., doing business as Lime, as the sole defendant. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on August 13 .

Perkins’ lawsuit alleges her injuries occurred because Lime negligently failed to inspect or maintain its publicly accessible e-bikes and e-scooters. As a result, she indicates the brakes on the Lime bike she used malfunctioned, throwing her from the vehicle.

Electric Bicycle and Scooter Risks

Electric bikes and scooters have become popular rental options in many urban areas. However, as reports of rider injuries increase, critics have raised concerns that the devices are often rented without helmets, safety training or other protective equipment, and may not receive adequate maintenance or repairs.

In addition to risks for riders, e-bikes and e-scooters can pose collision hazards for pedestrians and other vehicles. Although these incidents are relatively uncommon, the speeds at which the devices travel can result in serious injuries or deaths when crashes occur.

As a result, numerous e-bike lawsuits and e-scooter lawsuits have been filed against Lime, Bird, Spin, Segway and other companies in recent years. Many of these claims allege riders suffered serious injuries due to malfunctioning or defectively designed equipment.

Lime Bicycle Lawsuit Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Perkins and a friend were leaving an event in Austin on November 9, 2024, when they rented Lime e-bicycles to return to their car. As they rode downhill, Perkins attempted to slow the bicycle, but the brakes allegedly failed to respond.

The filing states the bicycle continued accelerating toward a busy roadway, forcing Perkins to choose between entering traffic or attempting to get off while the bike was still moving. She tried to dismount but was unable to do so safely because the bicycle would not slow down.

Perkins alleges the bicycle ultimately crashed into the pavement, throwing her from the seat. She suffered a broken arm that required surgery.

The lawsuit claims Lime places its bicycles and scooters on public streets with little instruction, no meaningful rider training and limited access to safety equipment. Perkins also alleges the bicycles remain in constant circulation without adequate inspections for wear, damage or needed repairs.

According to the complaint, Lime was aware that inadequate maintenance and equipment failures could place riders at risk. Perkins points to prior consumer reports and other Lime bicycle lawsuits involving similar alleged malfunctions and rider injuries.

“Lime users are routinely injured – in some cases very seriously – by Lime’s braking system, as public records show.”

— Brittany Perkins v. Neutron Holdings Inc.

The complaint presents claims of negligence and gross negligence. It seeks compensatory damages for pain and suffering, medical expenses, disfigurement, physical impairment and loss of earning capacity.

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

A Kentucky man has filed a product liability lawsuit claiming he was told a Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator would alleviate his chronic pain, but instead caused unexpected electric shocks and permanent nerve damage.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Jeffrey Fields in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on August 11, naming Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation as defendants.

Fields claims Boston Scientific’s spine stimulators are “chronically dangerous and defective,” alleging that the manufacturers knew about the problems but continued aggressively marketing the devices to patients seeking pain relief while overstating their safety and effectiveness.

Spine Stimulator Problems

Designed to treat chronic pain after other options fail, spinal cord stimulators are medical implants that attempt to disrupt pain signals on the way to the brain. They consist of electrodes and a battery-powered implantable pulse generator (IPG), both of which are placed under the skin near the spine, and an external remote control to alter modulation. It is designed to be a permanent implant.

In recent years, Boston Scientific, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic and Nevro have faced growing reports involving spinal cord stimulators that allegedly failed, worsened pain or caused complications requiring surgical removal.

Those problems have led to a growing number of spine stimulator lawsuits alleging patients experienced unexpected and painful shocks, burning sensations, migrating electrodes, pulse generators that eroded through the skin and complete device failures.

All Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are currently consolidated in the Central District of California as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) before U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton, who is overseeing coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

Plaintiffs have also asked for similar Nevro stimulator lawsuit consolidation and Abbott stimulator lawsuit consolidation, seeking separate MDL proceedings in the same federal district. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is scheduled to hear arguments on September 24 over whether those cases should also be centralized.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Defect Allegations

According to this recently filed complaint, Fields was implanted with a Boston Scientific SCS system in 2017 for the treatment of chronic pain syndrome. He only agreed to the procedure after undergoing a trial period with a temporary model that appeared to provide him with pain relief.

However, the lawsuit indicates that the permanent implant he received was substantially different from the trial version and did not provide the same results. Instead, Fields states that he experienced unexpected shocks and pain in his left shoulder. In addition, the original pain the device was meant to address went unalleviated.

This led to doctors surgically removing the implant in December 2021. Surgeons told Fields they had to leave some wires inside of his body after they became fused to his bones due to calcification.

Fields indicates he suffered permanent nerve damage as a result but argues his injuries could have been avoided if Boston Scientific had been transparent about the actual risks, and had adequately designed, tested and manufactured the devices.

“The Boston Scientific SCS Products are chronically and dangerously defective. Specifically, the electrical leads and implantable pulse generators integral to these devices have an unacceptably high rate of failure, including but not limited to lead fracture, insulation breach, lead migration, and IPG/battery malfunction – resulting in permanent neurological injury, including nerve damage, to implanted patients.”

– Jeffery Fields v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al.

The lawsuit presents claims of manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence per se, breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, fraudulent concealment, negligence per se for practicing medicine without a license and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and California Unfair Competition Law.

Fields is seeking compensatory damages for physical injuries, emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and past and future medical expenses, in addition to punitive damages and other expenses.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Lawsuits

As the Boston Scientific MDL moves forward, Judge Staton is expected to order attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants to select a small group of representative claims to serve as early test trials. These “bellwether” trials will help gauge how juries may respond to evidence, testimony and arguments that are likely to be central to many spinal cord stimulator claims.

Although the outcomes of those trials will not be binding on other claims, the results could be a key factor in Boston Scientific spinal cord stimulator lawsuit settlement negotiations. However, if no settlement is reached, it is likely that Judge Staton would begin remanding cases back to their originating federal district to be slated for individual trials.

Spinal cord stimulator lawyers continue to review plaintiffs’ claims of spinal cord stimulator injuries and complications, including:

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

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

A Texas couple has filed a lawsuit alleging IVF companies used a defective machine to perform preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), ultimately resulting in the loss of their two embryos.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Paul Myles and Rosa Myles in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 14, naming Genomic Prediction Inc. and NextGen Genetics, doing business as Luminary Genetics, as the defendants.

The Myleses claim the allegedly defective testing machine produced inconclusive results for both embryos, requiring them to be thawed and biopsied again. Their highest graded embryo did not survive the second thaw, while testing later showed the remaining embryo had an abnormal number of chromosomes, leaving the couple with no viable embryos.

PGT-A Testing Concerns

IVF is a widely used fertility treatment in which eggs are fertilized outside the body, with selected embryos later transferred to the uterus.

PGT-A is an optional genetic screening procedure offered as part of many IVF treatments. Once embryos develop to the blastocyst stage, several cells are biopsied and analyzed in a laboratory for chromosomal abnormalities, with the results used to help determine which embryos may be appropriate for transfer.

Previous PGT-A genetic testing lawsuits have alleged that companies market their testing as nearly 100% accurate and claim it can improve implantation rates and IVF outcomes, reduce the risk of miscarriage and help patients become pregnant sooner. However, plaintiffs maintain those claims overstate the reliability and benefits of the testing while failing to disclose important limitations, potentially causing patients to discard viable embryos and incur substantial financial and emotional harm.

Defective PGT-A Test Allegations

According to the complaint, the Myleses purchased donor eggs and underwent IVF treatment at Texas Fertility Center in Austin, Texas. Six eggs were fertilized through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ultimately producing two blastocyst-stage embryos.

Texas Fertility Center biopsied both embryos before they were cryopreserved. On June 20, 2025, the biopsy samples were sent to the defendants for PGT-A testing, for which the couple paid Luminary $1,200.

However, on July 7, the Myleses were informed that testing produced inconclusive results for both embryos. The lawsuit indicates the companies initially provided no explanation for the results or disclosed that they allegedly resulted from an equipment malfunction.

Concerned about the lack of information, the couple contacted Genomic Prediction for an explanation and participated in a virtual call on July 9 with Jennifer Eccles, the company’s senior director and head of clinical genetics.

During that call, Eccles allegedly acknowledged that the inconclusive results were caused by a malfunctioning testing machine. Plaintiffs claim she offered to have the embryos retested at no additional charge because the malfunction was the defendants’ fault.

However, the Myleses were informed the following day that retesting would require new biopsy samples, meaning both embryos would have to be thawed again.

Between July 10 and July 15, both embryos were thawed at Ovation Fertility Austin for a second biopsy. The couple’s highest-graded embryo did not survive and was permanently lost.

The remaining embryo survived the procedure and was re-biopsied. However, on August 6, the couple was informed that it was aneuploid, meaning it had an abnormal number of chromosomes and was not considered viable for implantation.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ use of a malfunctioning Testing Machine, Plaintiffs’ highest-graded embryo was needlessly thawed and destroyed, and Plaintiffs were left with no viable embryos from their entire IVF cycle.”

— Paul Myles et al. v. Genomic Prediction Inc. et al.

The Myleses maintain their highest-graded embryo would not have needed to be thawed a second time if the original PGT-A testing had been performed with properly functioning equipment.

The complaint also alleges the informed consent documents provided before testing did not adequately warn the couple that equipment could malfunction, produce inconclusive results and require embryos to undergo another thaw and biopsy.

The lawsuit maintains Genomic Prediction and Luminary should have provided warnings about those risks before the couple submitted their biopsy samples and before they authorized the additional procedures. The Myleses claim adequate warnings could have led them to seek a second opinion, additional assurances or other safeguards before agreeing to have their only two viable embryos thawed again.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability based on alleged design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of express and implied contract and unjust enrichment. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

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