Class Action Defense

May 7, 2026May 7, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 147: Class Action Litigation In The Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Industry

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Alyson Walker Lotman and associate Jamar Davis with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Transportation, Automotive, & Logistics Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this industry.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our loyal blog listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast, The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues Alyson Walker Lotman and Jamar Davis, who are both members of the Duane Morris Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Industry Group. Thank you so much for both being here on our podcast.

Alyson Walker Lotman: Thank you, Jerry. Happy to be here.

Jamar Davis: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we are discussing publication of a brand-new e-book and desk reference, the Duane Morris Transportation, Automative, And Logistics Class Action Review. Listeners can find our e-book on our blog at the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Jamar, can you tell our listeners a little bit about this new offering and desk reference?

Jamar: Absolutely, Jerry. Duane Morris released the fourth in a series of industry-focused class action publications, the Transportation, Automotive, And Logistics Class Action Review – 2026. The publication analyzes the key related rulings and developments in 2025 and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting class action litigation in this industry for 2026. We hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource and compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, class action litigation certainly seems to be on the rise across all industries. What’s driving this trend here?

Alyson: It was really a mix of old and new risks. You still have product liability and labor issues, but now they’re intersecting with technology, supply chains, and regulatory shifts. Overall, four themes stood out: product liability and recalls, data and antitrust claims, labor misclassification, and supply chain disputes. Automotive companies are still dealing with defect and recall cases, but courts are more open to economic loss claims now. Plaintiffs don’t always need physical injury – allegations of pre-sale knowledge of defects can be enough. And newer technologies like ADAS, EV batteries, and connected systems are driving the next wave of litigation risk.

Jerry: That’s exceedingly interesting, a lot going on in this space, and it certainly gives a clean perspective on the vast array of claims we’re seeing in class actions in this particular industry. Jamar, what did the analytics and data show in 2025?

Jamar: We’re seeing more antitrust and data access cases as these industries digitize. The CDK Global case is a great example: a $630 million settlement over restricting dealership data and inflating software prices. These cases focus on control of platforms and data, and that’s likely to expand as vehicles become more software-driven labor issues with misclassification claims and logistics and delivery networks also led to multi-million dollar settlements in 2025. These cases continue to test the line between contractor and employee status with real implications for companies.

Jerry: Certainly, for the plaintiffs’ bar, certification is the Holy Grail, and the most important moment in these lawsuits. In terms of getting these cases certified as class actions, we saw an increasingly consistent and enhanced certification rate across the board in 2025 as compared to prior years. Procedurally, are courts granting class certification for claims against these defendants at a higher rate?

Alyson: So, Jerry, courts are tightening class certification standards, especially around predominance, ascertainability , and standing. That matters here because individualized issues like vehicle use or contract differences can make class treatment harder.

Jerry: Well, as we mentioned before, the rate of class actions being filed each year seems to keep going up. What are the filing numbers like for the transportation and logistics space?

Jamar: Jerry, they’ve been fairly steady. Transportation and warehouse filings rose slightly to 1,393 in 2025, from 1,304 in 2024, but still below the 2021 peak of 2,514.

Jerry: Well, thank you for those analytics. Before we wrap up, any final thoughts on where this trend is heading?

Alyson: So, I think we’ll continue to see growth in the number of class actions, particularly as regulations evolve and technology becomes even more integrated into operations.

Jamar: I agree with Alyson, and with continued growth comes the ability for a plaintiffs’ lawyer to try and monetize the filings into settlement dollars. Businesses need to adapt accordingly.

Jerry: Well, it’s certainly been the case and justified by our analysis and the data over the last several years, and settlement dollars have been increasing, and our sense is don’t look for any downward trend in settlement numbers in the near future.

Well, thanks, Alyson and Jamar, for being here today, and thank you, loyal listeners, for tuning in. Please stop by our blog for a free copy of the Transportation, Automotive, And Logistics Class Action Review e-book.

Jamar: Thank you for having me, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.

Alyson: Thanks so much, everyone.

May 6, 2026May 6, 2026 by Justin Donoho

Data Security and Privacy Liability – Takeaways From The Sedona Conference Working Group 11 Annual Meeting in Kansas City, MO

By Justin R. Donoho

Duane Morris Takeaways: Data privacy and data breach class action litigation continue to explode. At the Sedona Conference Working Group 11 on Data Security and Privacy Liability, in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 5-6, 2025, Justin Donoho of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group served as a dialogue leader for two panel discussions, “Privacy and Data Security Litigation Update” and “Legislative Drafting Considerations: Lessons from Colorado’s Privacy and AI Law Intersection.” The working group meeting, which spanned two days and had over 50 participants, produced excellent dialogues on these topics and others including unique procedural aspects of data breach class actions, data privacy primer, onward transfer of consumer PII in M&A and bankruptcy contexts, privacy and data security state regulator roundtable, and application of attorney-client privilege in the cybersecurity context.

The Conference’s robust agenda featured over 30 dialogue leaders from a wide array of backgrounds, including federal and state regulators and governmental officials, data security industry experts, in-house attorneys, cyberlaw professors, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and defense attorneys. In a masterful way, the agenda provided valuable insights for participants toward this working group’s mission, which is to identify and comment on trends in data security and privacy law, in an effort to help organizations prepare for and respond to data breaches, and to assist attorneys and judicial officers in resolving questions of legal liability and damages.

Justin had the privilege of speaking about current trends in data privacy class actions and lessons from the intersection of the Colorado Privacy Act (CPA) and Colorado AI Act (CAIA) and how these lessons might guide future legislatures when drafting AI and data privacy statutes. Highlights from his presentations included two recent cases resulting in helpful precedent for defendants facing cases alleging privacy violations for their uses of website advertising technologies (adtech), including a case that disposed of a claim under the California Invasion of Privacy Act under the rule of lenity (see here), and a case that dismissed an adtech class action due to failure to allege highly offensive conduct (see here).

Finally, one of the greatest joys of participating in Sedona Conference meetings is the opportunity to draw on the wisdom of fellow presenters and other participants from around the globe. Highlights included:

Litigators from both sides of the “v.” and a neutral debating early case procedural rules and practices, choice of law, and discovery mechanisms in the context of data breach class actions, with an unprompted shoutout to the Duane Morris Class Action Review for supplying statistics.
Sedona Conference veterans discussing Sedona’s latest version of a data privacy primer and the proper level of detail to include in this document ten years in the making in order to keep it reasonably current to account for the rapid evolution of data privacy laws and related developments in artificial intelligence.
Panelists with different backgrounds discussing the law regarding when a company that has obtained personal data with consent can and cannot transfer the data in M&A and bankruptcy contexts.
A lively dialogue among some of my panelists and other participants regarding trends in decisions regarding mass arbitration protocols and whether a company’s use of website advertising technology is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Federal and state regulators discussing enforcement priorities and issuances of advisory opinions in the contexts of data breaches, alleged data privacy violations, and concerns regarding national security.
Data breach litigators discussing factors to consider when conducting dual track investigations following a cybersecurity incident in order to segregate and maintain confidentiality over attorney work product and attorney-client communications.
A lively dialogue among some of my panelists and other participants regarding whether compliance with AI and antidiscrimination statutes should provide a safe harbor for compliance with data privacy statutes including, for example, the heavily litigated California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Thank you to the Sedona Conference Working Group 11 and its incredible team, the fellow dialogue leaders, the engaging participants, and all others who helped make this meeting in Redmond, Washington, an informative and unforgettable experience.

Finally, I want to thank to share the exciting news that I have been selected as a new steering committee member of Working Group 11. Thank you Sedona! In this role, I will help lead the identification of cutting-edge issues and oversee development of principles, guidelines, commentaries and other projects representing the work product of the Sedona Conference.

For more information on the Duane Morris Class Action Group, including its Data Privacy Class Action Review e-book, and Data Breach Class Action Review e-book, please click the links here and here.

May 5, 2026May 5, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Introducing The Energy, Oil, And Gas Class Action Review – 2026: A Guide To Litigation In A Transforming Industry

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaway: The global energy landscape in 2025 stands at a moment of profound transformation. Oil and gas companies—long the backbone of industrial development and economic growth—now operate under intensifying scrutiny from regulators, investors, and an increasingly litigious public. As markets evolve and the long-term consequences of decades of extraction become more visible, class action litigation has emerged as one of the most powerful mechanisms for accountability and redress.

It is against this backdrop that Duane Morris has published the Energy, Oil, And Gas Class Action Review – 2026. It arrives as a timely and essential resource for understanding the rapidly shifting legal terrain. This new publication examines the complex and fast-developing world of energy class action litigation, offering a comprehensive look at how both plaintiffs and defendants are adapting their strategies. The industry now operates within a landscape shaped by scientific uncertainty, geopolitical volatility, and the accelerating transition to alternative energy sources.

The Energy, Oil, And Gas Class Action Review – 2026 captures these developments in a structured, accessible format and offers practitioners, in-house counsel, and industry stakeholders a clear understanding of where litigation risk is heading.

Download your copy today and stay ahead of the curve in in this industry.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on the Energy, Oil, And Gas Class Action Review – 2026 coming soon!

May 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Seventh Circuit Holds That Refusing To Register An Arbitration Agreement With The AAA Is Not A “Refusal To Arbitrate” Under The FAA

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Hayley Ryan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 1, 2026, in Bernal et al. v. Kohl’s Corporation et al., No. 24-2806, 2026 WL 1193991 (7th Cir. May 1, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s denial of a petition to compel arbitration, holding that the defendant’s refusal to register its arbitration agreement with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), which caused the AAA to close the arbitration proceedings, did not constitute a “refusal to arbitrate” under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The Seventh Circuit reasoned that because the parties had delegated that procedural question to the AAA, the district court had no authority to compel arbitration.

This decision is a significant win for businesses facing mass arbitration campaigns, particularly where arbitration agreements incorporate the AAA’s Consumer Arbitration Rules. The decision offers a concrete mechanism to avoid the steep filing fees such campaigns generate.

Background

Plaintiffs purchased products through Kohl’s website in 2020 and 2022 and agreed to arbitration provisions that required all disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration before the AAA under its rules, including the AAA’s Consumer Arbitration Rules. Id. at * 1. The arbitration agreement also delegated to the arbitrator exclusive authority “to resolve any dispute related to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of” the arbitration agreement. Id.

In December 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel initiated the pre-arbitration process by serving Kohnl’s with approximately 10,000 notices of dispute, followed by an additional 44,656 notices in April 2023. These claims alleged that Kohl’s marketing practices violated California’s consumer protection laws. Id. at *2. This is a classic mass arbitration strategy in which plaintiffs’ firms file thousands of individual demands to exploit mandatory per-claim filing fees paid by corporate defendants.

On May 22, 2023, while settlement discussions were ongoing, Kohl’s modified its terms and conditions to designate the National Arbitration and Mediation tribunal (rather than the AAA) as the arbitration forum for all claims. That same day, Plaintiffs filed formal individual demands with the AAA and paid all applicable filing fees. Id. Under AAA Consumer Arbitration Rule R-12, however, a business must register its arbitration clause and pay administrative fees for the AAA to administer consumer arbitrations. Kohl’s declined to do so. As a result, the AAA exercised its discretion to decline administration, closed the cases, and refunded Plaintiffs’ filing fees. Id. at *3.

Plaintiffs then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to the forum selection clause, petitioning the court to compel Kohl’s to register its arbitration agreement with the AAA, pay all necessary filing fees, and proceed to arbitration. Id.

The District Court’s Ruling

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the petition. Relying on Wallrich v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., 106 F.4th 609 (7th Cir. 2024), the district court found that the parties had bargained for the AAA to apply and interpret its own Consumer Arbitration Rules. Id. at *3. When the AAA exercised that discretion by closing Plaintiffs’ cases upon Kohl’s non-registration, the court concluded it lacked authority to override that decision. Id.

Plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal, arguing that Kohl’s refusal to register its agreement constitutes a refusal to arbitration in violation of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Id.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Id. at *7. It held that the AAA’s exercise of discretion in closing Plaintiffs’ cases “flowed directly from the parties’ agreement granting AAA that power, leaving nothing for the district court to compel under the Federal Arbitration Act.” Id.

Under the FAA, a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish: (1) an enforceable written arbitration agreement; (2) a dispute falling within the scope of the agreement; and (3) a refusal to arbitrate. Id. at *4 (citing Wallrich, Inc., 106 F.4th at 617-18). The Seventh Circuit’s analysis centered on the third element, i.e. whether Kohl’s non-registration constituted a refusal to arbitrate. Id.

The Seventh Circuit characterized the AAA’s registration requirement as a “forum-specific procedural gateway” matter – the kind of matter parties implicitly delegate to the arbitration provider when they agree to arbitrate under its rules. Id. at *6 (citing Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 85–86 (2002)). Citing Howsam, 537 U.S. at 85, the Seventh Circuit reasoned that, absent contrary language in the arbitration agreement, parties who agree to AAA arbitration intend to withhold registration disputes from judicial review. Id. Because the AAA exercised its own discretion (consistent with the parties’ agreement) in closing the cases, there was “nothing for the district court to compel” under the FAA. Id. at *7.

The Seventh Circuit also relied on its prior decision in Wallrich, which held that a defendant’s failure to pay AAA fees, which resulted in termination of the arbitration, did not constitute a refusal to arbitrate where the outcome flowed from the parties’ agreed-upon procedures.

The Dissent

Judge Joshua P. Kolar dissented. In his view, Kohl’s non-registration “was a conscious step to depart from its agreement to arbitrate,” not a procedural question delegated to the AAA. Id. at *8. Judge Kolar warned that the majority’s reasoning stretches Wallrich’s holding too far and effectively converts “any bilateral agreement to arbitrate under AAA’s Consumer Rules into something of a unilateral option-to-arbitrate for business.” Id. at *9. Judge Kolar would have compelled Kohl’s to register so that the AAA could initiate proceedings. Id.

Implications for Companies

Bernal has immediate practical significance for companies facing mass arbitration exposure under AAA arbitration agreements. By simply declining to register its arbitration agreement with the AAA, a company can cause the AAA to close the proceedings without judicial recourse, at least in the Seventh Circuit. Businesses with AAA arbitration clauses in their consumer-facing agreements should assess whether this strategy is available and appropriate given their specific contractual language and forum.

That said, the dissent’s warning deserves attention. If other circuits adopt Judge Kolar’s reasoning, or if the AAA amends its rules in response, the window this decision opens may narrow. Companies should monitor developments carefully and consult counsel before relying on non-registration as a mass arbitration defense.

May 4, 2026May 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Disorganization Defense: North Carolina Federal Judge Finds That Litigation Practices Of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Sufficient Grounds To Deny Class And Collective Certification

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Betty Luu, and Ryan T. Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 22, 2026, in Ayers, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., No. 23-CV-00581, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89819 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied several motions to certify various claims as class and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and the North Carolina Wage And Hour Act (the “NCWHA”). This decision underscores the responsibility of plaintiffs’ counsel to manage a case and present the court with a viable plan to bring their clients’ claims through trial. Otherwise, plaintiffs’ counsel runs the risk that the court will not certify these claims at all.

Case Background

This decision emerges in the context of a series of seven-year-long lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (“GKN”), the supplier of all-wheel-drive and other automotive components, for several major automotive manufactures. Plaintiffs James Ayers, John Carson, and Tameka Ferges (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought three separate wage-and-hour lawsuits, asserting claims under the FLSA and the NCWHA. Plaintiffs alleged that GKN required them to perform work off the clock, including before and after shifts, and during unpaid meal breaks.

In 2018, Plaintiffs filed an earlier case against GKN. In that case, Plaintiffs alleged GKN had two policies that resulted in underpayment of their wages: (1) a “time rounding” policy; and (2) an “automatic deduction” policy for meal breaks. The Court originally conditionally certified an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action under both of those theories. But the court ultimately decertified both the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class, finding that “individual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve the claims on the class or collective basis.” Id. at *5

After that decision, Plaintiffs – represented by the same counsel – refiled three similar lawsuits, which split the claims based on GKN’s plant locations, but otherwise left the theories mostly intact. Plaintiffs then filed renewed motions for class and collective certification in each of the three actions and again asked the Court to allow them to proceed on a representative basis. The Court’s opinion, for all three cases, followed.

The Court’s Decision

In her 28-page opinion, Chief Judge Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Plaintiffs’ motions based largely on manageability grounds.

Chief Judge Eagles explained that “manageability principles are explicit in the requirements for a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class” and that “wider case management concerns remain relevant in the collective context.” Id. at 13. Thus, it is generally a plaintiff’s attorney’s responsibility to present the court with an “organized presentation of claims, organized discovery and motions practice, and organized submission of evidence.” Id. But here, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to present a manageable class or collective in at least four different ways.

First, and perhaps most fundamentally, Chief Judge Eagles found that “plaintiffs propose no efficient method of resolving class-wide liability and individual damages across three different subclasses.” Id. at *18. Although Plaintiffs’ theory was premised on the notion that GKN had a “de facto off-the-clock” policy, Plaintiffs did not explain how they planned to “efficiently prove that each and every nonexempt employee was subject to that de facto policy and, even more crucially, how each class member was injured by this policy.” Id. at *18-19. Chief Judge Eagles found this omission troubling given that “plaintiffs have had years to think about these problems” and could not present the court with a manageable solution. Id. at *19. But Chief Judge Eagles did not stop there.

Second, having dispensed with the omissions in Plaintiffs’ theory of case manageability, Chief Judge Eagles turned to Plaintiffs’ counsel who she reasoned has “not demonstrated the organization, diligence, and mindset required to prosecute a complex case.” Id. at *21. Chief Judge Eagles explained that because she often had to prompt Plaintiffs’ counsel to prosecute the case, via supplemental briefing and discovery, she had lost confidence in their ability to manage the docket. This problem was compounded by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s filing of “several ‘emergency’ motions and amended ‘emergency motions’” which underscored their inability to “handle ordinary litigation problems.” Id. at *21-22.

Third, Chief Judge Eagles characterized Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Rule 23 analysis as the product of an unreliable “narrator of the record.” Id. at *22-23. She described Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submissions as “inaccurate at best and misrepresentations at worst.” Id. at *23. Similarly, for the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles held that the “factual representations about the evidence in the plaintiffs’ briefing on an FLSA collective do not always hold up to scrutiny.” Id. at *31-32. These inaccuracies did not give her confidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel would be able to present a manageable case through trial.

Fourth, as to the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles concluded by finding that “the plaintiffs have not proposed any plan, much less a workable plan, for the aggregation of all these claims.” Id. at *31. For example, Chief Judge Eagles highlighted that plaintiffs “have not explained how they will manage presenting evidence on all the different work activities at issue and [across] three different plants.” Id. She noted that – although it is often possible for plaintiffs’ counsel to create such theories — “[i]f they are unable to make the required showing after over seven years of litigation, there is no reason to think they will be able to do so by the time these cases are called for trial.” Id. at *33.

In short, Chief Judge Eagles explained that she “has certified several dozen class actions over the past fifteen years and is familiar with how to deal with disagreements between parties about managing and trying common and individual issues.” Id. at *26. “The problem here is not that management might be hard” but rather “that the plaintiffs proffer no plan for management . . . [a]nd the Court has no confidence that counsel will devise a workable plan.” Id. Thus, the motions were denied in their entirety.

Implications For Employers

Ayers presents two key lessons for corporate counsel grappling with how to manage these complex cases.

The first lesson is that the value of class and collective claims often can hinge on the identity and competency of opposing counsel. Where plaintiffs’ counsel is savvy, competent, and organized, the value of otherwise weaker claims can go up. In these cases, competent plaintiffs’ counsel can often be the difference in whether a class is certified, which is often the difference between millions of dollars of potential of exposure and not. Thus, corporate counsel should weigh the competency of his or her adversaries when assessing the risk that a putative class or collective action poses.

The second lesson is that hiring experienced defense counsel and developing an aggressive litigation strategy are critical for success in such cases. In Ayers, Chief Judge Eagles observed defense counsel’s strategy and explained “it has been clear for years that GKN intended to hold the plaintiffs to their burden of proof at every stage on every issue, as is their right.” Id. at *22, n.13. As a result, any delay by GKN ultimately did not negate the deficiencies by Plaintiffs’ counsel. It takes experienced counsel to toe this line and keep the focus on a plaintiff’s conduct. Corporate counsel should consider such experience when deciding who is best to represent their organizations.

April 30, 2026April 30, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 146: Class Action Litigation In The Healthcare Industry

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and John Polzer with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Healthcare Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this industry.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and I’m pleased to be joined today for the first time on our podcast show by my partner, John Polzer, who is also co-chair of the Duane Morris Healthcare Litigation Division of our Trial Practice Group. Welcome, John.

John Polzer: Thank you, Jerry, I’m happy to be here.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re going to be discussing the publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Healthcare Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. John, can you tell our listeners a bit about the publication?

John: Absolutely, Jerry. You know, I’m a huge fan of all these iterations within our Class Action Review. I think they’re very helpful. Duane Morris released the third in a series of industry-focused class action publications, the Healthcare Class Action Review, for 2026. This publication was really about making sense of a rapidly expanding area of litigation, one that myself and my colleagues at Duane Morris live in every day. We wanted to provide a clear picture of where cases are being filed, the legal theories the plaintiffs are using, and how courts are responding. It’s really meant to help companies understand not just the risks, but also how to proactively manage them. I could tell you, Jerry, in-house lawyers, my clients use this resource in their day-to-day duties to make sure that they’re doing their best to align with the constantly changing and current trajectory of risk and class actions.

Jerry: Well, certainly class action litigation is on the rise, in general across many industries, but especially so in the healthcare sector. What’s significant to you in this particular space?

John: Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that, Jerry. Two things stick out to me. I think first, just the sheer diversity of claims. We’re seeing cases tied to data breaches, billing practices, ERISA fiduciary duties, and even AI-driven decision tools. And I think second, Jerry, it’s the increasing sophistication of plaintiff attorneys as they get more strategic, often combining multiple legal theories into a single class action.

Jerry: That’s very interesting feedback in this space. Let’s talk about some trends. What are you seeing as the biggest healthcare class action trends in your day-to-day practice?

John: Yeah, I think there’s a few key ones. I think data privacy, which won’t surprise anyone, is still front and center. You know, breaches and authorized data sharing continue to drive class action litigation. There’s also a rise in claims related to pricing transparency and surprise billing, especially as the regulations evolve through the NSA. We’re also seeing more ERISA-related lawsuits targeting health plan fiduciaries, particularly around excessive fees or mismanagement of plan assets. Another emerging area that we’re seeing is algorithmic bias, and that’s a mouthful, but those are cases alleging that healthcare algorithms produce discriminatory outcomes, so we’re seeing cases starting to be filed along those lines as well.

Jerry: Well, I’m defending class actions coast to coast at any one time in about 40 to 42 states, and my practice mirrors your articulation of what’s new, what’s hot, what the plaintiffs’ bar is looking at. How would you measure the degree of seriousness and the battening down the hatches, so to speak, in terms of compliance in the healthcare space to counteract this trend towards big class actions against the industry?

John: Well, Jerry, I think some are out in front of it, but not all. And I think that’s a risk, especially in the healthcare space. So, if you’re not paying attention to what’s happening in this risk area, you need to be. As healthcare providers and insurers increasingly rely on these predictive tools, plaintiffs are starting to question how these tools are designed and whether they create inequities. So, I expect this to become an even bigger issue moving forward.

Jerry: In terms of looking ahead and providing prognostications for the remainder of 2026, what do you think companies in the healthcare industry should be focused on in terms of reducing the risks of class actions?

John: I think, Jerry, if you talk to some of my clients, we could be here all day with that question, but I think I can probably break it down to three major developments. First, continued growth in privacy-related class actions, especially as more states, pass their own data protection laws. I think second, more regulatory-driven litigation. There’s new rules, new laws out there, particularly around transparency and patient rights that I think we’ll see plaintiffs now using as a basis for these class claims. And I think third and finally, for what to expect in 2026, Jerry, an increased scrutiny of digital health and AI. Companies are operating in telehealth and have been for some time, but we’re seeing a progression into things like wearable tech or AI diagnostics. That should now expect a closer examination, both from regulators and from the plaintiffs’ bar.

Jerry: I think as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, in essence, the risk landscape is expanding, and certainly not shrinking in the healthcare industry.

John: Yeah, I think, Jerry, that’s exactly right, and it’s not just about reacting when that lawsuit drops on your doorstep or in your inbox. It’s also about prevention. I think companies need to invest in compliance and data governance and documentation now, because those are the things that will determine how well they can defend against a class action later. In a way, Jerry, when we’re talking about healthcare, this is, like, a little bit like preventative maintenance that you would get from your provider.

Jerry: That’s a great analogy. If you had to give one piece of advice to your clients in the healthcare sector heading into the remainder of 2026, what would you focus on?

John: Yeah, I’d say just don’t treat legal risk as an afterthought. Like we talked about before, don’t wait till the class action lawsuit hits. Integrate it into your business strategy. That means involving your legal teams early when adopting new technologies, reviewing policies regularly, and then stress testing those practices against potential class action theories to know that you’re on the right path for what you’re doing internally.

Jerry: Those are great insights, and we know from the data analytics that we collect on a daily basis in the class action world that settlements in the healthcare sector are growing. More lawsuits are being filed, and my suspicion is at the end of 2026, we’re going to see a definite uptick in the amount of class action litigation brought in the healthcare sector.

Well, John, thanks for breaking down these issues on our podcast today. It’s certainly clear this is an area of concern and something that healthcare providers cannot ignore. And thanks to our listeners for tuning in. We’ll be back next time with more insights on emerging legal and business trends.

John: Thanks, Jerry, I was happy to be here, and listeners, don’t forget to check out this amazing resource, and stop by the blog for a free copy of our Healthcare Class Action Review e-book.

April 30, 2026April 30, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Georgia Federal Court Holds That To Establish Article III Standing To Sue In Data Breach Class Actions, The Named Plaintiffs’ Injury-In-Fact Requirement Demands Nuanced And Detailed Pleadings

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Ryan Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 23, 2026, in Hall v. Bitcoin Depot, Inc., Case No. 25-CV-04317 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2026), Judge William Ray of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a putative class action alleging that users of Bitcoin Depot’s cryptocurrency ATMs were at significant risk of identity theft and attendant personal, social and financial harms due to a data breach. The District Court held that the Named Plaintiff did not properly plead a cognizable injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue, due to not pleading any specific misuse of his data. The decision clarifies the legal standards within the Eleventh Circuit regarding standing requirements in data breach class action cases, thus providing helpful and nuanced guidance for defendants facing similar lawsuits. This is especially true because the dismissal was granted without prejudice, affording the Named Plaintiff an opportunity to cure his defective pleading and potentially setting the stage for further litigation on this issue.

Case Background

Quincey Hall sued Bitcoin Depot, Inc. in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of consumers who used the company’s cryptocurrency ATMs. Id. at 2. After a data breach occurred affecting the ATMs, approximately 26,000 individuals’ personally identifiable information was exposed online. Id. After being notified by Bitcoin Depot that his information was amongst that involved in the breach, Hall filed his class action lawsuit as a “proposed representative of a class of individuals ‘impacted by [Bitcoin Depot’s] failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect’ their personal information prior to the data breach.” Id.

Hall’s Complaint alleged that because of the data breach, he and the putative class members are “at [a] significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm.” Id. at 3. He alleged that Bitcoin Depot is liable for common law tort and contract claims, as well as for violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and he sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id.

Bitcoin Depot filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based both on a failure to state a claim and for lack of standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution. Id.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Ray granted Bitcoin Depot’s motion to dismiss the complaint and he did so without prejudice, allowing the Named Plaintiff an opportunity to correct his defective pleading. Id. at 10. The court’s analysis of the legal requirements for standing in data breach cases is clarifying because it demonstrates that nuance matters when considering whether the injury-in fact requirement for Article III standing is properly pled.

First, the court explained that to constitute a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III, the plaintiff must have standing to sue (id. at 3), and in the context of a class action lawsuit “only one named plaintiff must have standing as to any particular claim in order for it to advance.” Id. at 5 (citation omitted).

Second, the court explained that to demonstrate standing, a named plaintiff must show that “[he] has suffered ‘an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical[.]’” Id. Furthermore, when seeking damages specifically, the court explained that “the mere risk of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm.” Id. (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 436 (2021). And for injunctive relief, too, the named plaintiff must establish that there is a “substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury.” Id.

Third, the court applied these standards to the allegations in the Named Plaintiff’s complaint and held that those allegations were insufficient to establish Article III standing. Hall had only pled a risk of identity theft and the resulting potential adverse impacts on him and putative class members. He had not pled any facts that his specific information had been leaked to known criminal dark websites that in similar circumstances have survived motions to dismiss in data breach cases. Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Green-Cooper v. Brinker, Int’l., Inc., 73 F. 4^th883, 889 (11^th Cir. 2023).) In short, the Named Plaintiff had failed to allege that there was any misuse of his stolen identity data, and that was fatal to his pleading under the established rules for Article III standing.

Implications For Data Breach Class Action Defendants

Data breach class actions are abundant, as corporate counsel working in this space know. As such, it is crucial for all to have an understanding of the possible defenses available at the pleading stage to reduce litigation risk and force potentially meritless claims to a second round of pleading and motion to dismiss practice. Understanding how district courts analyze nuances in plaintiffs’ pleadings relating to this important area of the law – Article III standing – is critical to launching a successful defense to any such claims.

April 28, 2026April 28, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Introducing the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review – 2026!

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley

Duane Morris Takeaway: In an era where the transportation industry underpins global commerce, from last-mile delivery networks to international logistics, legal risk has never been more complex or consequential. Class action litigation, in particular, has emerged as a powerful force shaping how transportation, automotive, and logistics companies operate, manage risk, and plan for the future. Against this backdrop, Duane Morris is proud to announce the first edition of the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review.

This new publication is designed to provide a comprehensive, data-driven overview of class action litigation trends specific to the transportation sector. Building on the broader framework established by leading annual reviews of class action activity—which analyze hundreds of decisions and billions of dollars in settlements each year—the Review narrows the focus to one of the most dynamic and heavily litigated industries in the modern economy.

Class actions have long been recognized as high-stakes litigation, capable of reshaping business models and imposing significant financial exposure. By aggregating claims across large groups of plaintiffs, these cases can exponentially increase potential damages and create industry-wide ripple effects. Nowhere is this more evident than in transportation, where evolving workforce models, regulatory frameworks, and technological change continue to generate new legal challenges.

Recent litigation trends highlight the growing complexity of the space. For example, courts have wrestled with the scope of the “transportation worker exemption” under federal arbitration law, producing inconsistent rulings that affect employers ranging from trucking companies to warehouse operators. At the same time, issues involving wage-and-hour compliance, independent contractor classification, accessibility requirements, and data privacy are increasingly finding their way into class action complaints.

The Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review captures these developments in a structured, accessible format and offers practitioners, in-house counsel, and industry stakeholders a clear understanding of where litigation risk is heading.

Download your copy today and stay ahead of the curve in transportation, automotive, and logistics class action litigation.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review – 2026 coming soon!

April 27, 2026April 27, 2026 by Gregory Tsonis

Class Action Issues In 2025/2026 – Report From The Perfect Law Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference In London

By Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaways: Gregory Tsonis, a Partner in the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group, recently spoke at the Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference organized by Perfect Law in London. During the conference on April 22 and 23, 2026, over 200 attendees discussed key issues impacting class action litigation in 2025/2026. As a guest presenter from the United States on employment class actions, Greg spoke on United States class action trends and defense strategies.

The Conference

Perfect Law brings together top practitioners on both sides of the bar, as well as academics and the judiciary, to tackle contemporary issues in complex litigation, focusing on class actions and mass torts. The conference featured several prominent federal judges who handle leading MDL proceedings and class actions, including Judge Robert Dow, Northern District of Illinois (and Counselor to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, Southern District of Florida, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Northern District of California. In addition, Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit spoke on multiple panels.

The organizers compiled a wide range of knowledge and experience on cutting edge class action topics, including recent trends and emerging issues. The presenters covered the latest developments in class action trends across Canada, the United States, and Europe. They discussed trends and legal developments in consumer, privacy, and employment class actions, as well as the continued growth of mass tort actions targeting various industries.

Trends in Global Mass Torts and Public Nuisance

I had the privilege of speaking on class action and mass tort trends. Our panel addressed a wide variety of cutting-edge class action issues running the gamut from settlements, the important arbitration defense, and litigation funding.

The proliferation of mass tort and class action litigation is largely driven by heightened risks and elevated exposure that are connected to record-breaking settlement numbers. In 2025, settlement numbers reached an unprecedented level in class action litigation. In 2024, settlement numbers broke the $40 billion mark for the third year in a row. In 2025, the cumulative value of the highest ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation surpassed that benchmark and totaled $79 billion. Combined, the top 10 settlement numbers of the past four years in all substantive areas exceeded $238 billion, representing use of the class action mechanism to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level. Mass tort litigation has recently also somewhat shifted away from areas like the pharmaceutical companies and the opioid crisis to industries like technology companies, for example, on the basis that tech companies knew and disregarded harms from social media.

I was also able to address the effectiveness of the arbitration defense to preclude or limit class action litigation. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers provide the foundation for one of the most potent defenses to class action litigation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to promote arbitration agreements, plaintiffs have continued to attack their enforceability, and courts across the country have continued to apply exceptions in inconsistent and expansive ways. Mass arbitration has also emerged as a way to weaponize arbitration proceedings, with the plaintiffs’ bar seeking to adjudicate hundred or thousands of claims by bypassing Rule 23’s class certification requirements.

Litigation funding by private entities also continues to fuel the prevalence of class action and mass tort litigation. Financial firms are continuing to invest substantial sums into portfolios of class action and mass tort litigation, and disclosure requirements continue to be a source of dispute.

Panel On Thresholds For Class Certification Across Jurisdictions

On the first day of the conference, an interesting panel discussion ensued on class certification standards in various jurisdictions. Panelists spoke to the general requirements under Rule 23(a) – numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality – and the differences between class action requirements in the United States and other countries. In Canada, for example, a sufficiently numerous class can consist of as little as two people, while in the United States 40 individuals will typically be sufficient to satisfy numerosity.

In discussing the Rule 23 standard in the United States, the panel presented to the audience the statistics on class certification presented in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026. In terms of class certification motions, the Plaintiffs bar successfully secured certification in 68% of cases over the past year, a slight increase from the 63% success rate in 2024. In 2025, plaintiffs also maintained more consistent certification rates across substantive areas, from a low of 33% in the data breach area, to highs above 70% in the antitrust, wage & hour, and securities fraud areas. Likewise, courts granted more than 90% of the motions for class certification that they adjudicated in 2025 in the ERISA and WARN areas. Additionally, the panel spoke to the importance of reaching the class certification stage in a case, which in many cases can take three to four years, and that approximately 75% of Rule 23(f) petitions to appeal class certification decisions during the pendency of the case are denied by courts of appeal.

Panel on Class Representative Duties

Another panel of plaintiffs lawyers, defense lawyers, judges, and professors addressed the duties of class representatives in varying jurisdictions. The panelists discussed how in the United States, class representatives are expected to be knowledgeable about the litigation, the claims asserted, and the class nature of the action. The class representatives must individually be adequate and have claims that are typical of the putative class as well. The panelists discussed the ability to compensate class representatives for their participation as class representatives, with all but one circuit in the United States permitting such incentive payments (the Eleventh Circuit does not allow incentive payments). Europe largely does not permit incentive payments to class representatives, with such payments expressly forbidden in the Netherlands.

April 23, 2026April 23, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 145: Class Action Litigation In The Hospitality Industry

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Greg Tsonis with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Hospitality Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this sector – from the increase in filings to the sophistication of claims brought on behalf of workers and consumers – and best practices for hospitality companies.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome, listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast series, The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and I’m pleased to be joined today by my colleagues and partners, Jennifer Riley and Greg Tsonis, who are both members of the Duane Morris Fashion, Retail, and Consumer Branded Products Industry Group. Welcome, Jen and Greg.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks, Jerry, happy to be here.

Greg Tsonis: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re discussing publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Hospitality Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Greg, can you tell our listeners a little bit about this new publication?

Greg: Absolutely, Jerry. So, Duane Morris released the second in a series of industry-focused class action publications, the Hospitality Class Action Review for 2026. This publication analyzes the key related rulings and developments in 2025, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting class action litigation in this industry for 2026. We hope that the companies and employers out there will benefit from this resource in compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, certainly class action litigation seems to be on the rise across many industries, but especially for the hospitality industry. Jen, what’s driving that trend?

Jennifer: You’re absolutely right, Jerry. The hospitality industry has grown rapidly over the past decade, but with that growth comes some complexity. Hotels, restaurants, resorts – they all operate in a highly complex space, dealing with overlapping laws: employment laws, consumer protection, data privacy, accessibility – you name it. Those overlapping obligations can create some fertile ground for systemic issues, which is exactly what the plaintiff’s class actions lawyers are hoping to leverage.

Jerry: So, it’s just not more lawsuits, it’s the type of industry sometimes that lends itself to susceptibility to class action litigation.

Jennifer: Exactly. When you have large groups of employees or customers potentially affected by the same practice, class action litigation becomes a very efficient tool for the plaintiffs.

Jerry: Greg, let’s talk about the numbers. What are we seeing in terms of filings these days?

Greg: Well, the growth is pretty striking, Jerry. In 2025 alone, there were 1,787 class action filings in federal courts involving hospitality companies. That’s up from about 1,585 in 2024. And these cases span across traveler accommodations, food service, and drinking establishments.

Jerry: That’s quite a significant jump in year-after-year analytics. What sorts of claims are we talking about here when we’re focusing on the hospitality industry?

Greg: Well, on the employment side, wage and hour claims really dominate. We’re seeing allegations of unpaid overtime, improper tip pooling, and employee misclassification. These are classic issues in hospitality, especially given the reliance on hourly workers and tipped employees.

Jerry: Well, I know, Jen, you argued and won the signal tip credit case involving the hospitality industry before the Seventh Circuit a few years ago. Are these issues new, or are they just getting more attention these days?

Jennifer: Well, Jerry, I think it’s a bit of both. These issues have been around for a long time, but enforcement and awareness have really increased. Plus, plaintiffs’ attorneys are being more aggressive in bringing representative claims, especially when they see patterns across locations or franchises.

Jerry: But it’s just not employees, right? Customers are getting involved, too, in class action litigation?

Greg: Absolutely. So, consumer-facing class actions are growing very quickly. We’re seeing cases involving hidden fees, like resort fees, misleading advertising, and even data breaches. With so much business happening online now, these risks have expanded quite a bit.

Jerry: Let’s focus on that for a minute. How has technology changed this class action landscape?

Jennifer: Technology has introduced a whole new category of exposure. Digital booking platforms, mobile apps, and loyalty programs all collect and store customer data. If that data isn’t properly protected, it can lead to large-scale privacy claims. And because the effective group can be huge, those cases are often brought as class actions.

Jerry: So, what we’re seeing is more digital the business, the bigger the potential risk in this space?

Jennifer: That’s right, convenience for customers often means increased responsibility and potential liability for businesses.

Jerry: Greg, what about accessibility? That seems to be another growing area of risk.

Greg: It is, Jerry. We’re seeing more class claims alleging noncompliance with disability access requirements, particularly related to websites and online booking systems. If a platform isn’t accessible to individuals with disabilities, it can trigger significant legal exposure.

Jerry: Let’s shift our focus to the structure of the industry. Hospitality businesses often operate differently than other industries, with franchising, high turnover, multiple locations. How does that impact litigation risk in this space?

Jennifer: I think it really amplifies it. Franchising models can create complicated questions about liability. Who’s responsible, the franchisor or the franchisee? High employee turnover makes consistent compliance harder, and multi-jurisdictional operations mean businesses have to navigate different laws in different states, which really increases the risk of missteps.

Greg: And from a litigation standpoint, those factors Jen talked about really make it easier to argue that an issue’s widespread enough to justify class treatment.

Jerry: Well, class actions against any business can be devastating, but when it comes to the hospitality industry, I would imagine reputational brand stakes are pretty high on the radar screen.

Jennifer: Very high. Hospitality is a customer-centric industry. A class action, especially one involving consumer issues, can quickly damage a brand reputation. Even before a case is resolved, that publicity alone can have real business consequences.

Jerry: So, given all these risks, what should companies be doing in this day and age to protect themselves?

Greg: Well, first, I would say proactive compliance is key. Doing regular audits of wage and hour practices, having clear policies around tips and classification, and really staying up to date with evolving laws can go a long way.

Jennifer: I would add that companies need to invest in data security and privacy protections. That includes not just technology, but also training employees on proper data handling. And don’t overlook accessibility, both physical and digital.

Jerry: What about legal strategy? If a company does get hit with a class action, what should they keep in mind?

Greg: Early assessment of the case, I think, is critical. Understanding the scope of the claim, the potential class size, and the legal vulnerabilities can really help shape the defense strategy. In some cases, early resolution might make sense. In others, it’s worth fighting class certification.

Jennifer: And documentation matters. Having clear records, whether it’s payroll data, customer disclosures, or compliance efforts, those can make a huge difference in defending these cases.

Jerry: As we wrap up this edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire, any final thoughts, Jen and Greg, where this trend is heading?

Jennifer: I think we’ll continue to see growth in class actions, particularly as regulations and laws evolve and technology becomes even more integrated into hospitality operations.

Greg: Absolutely agreed. I think the key takeaway is that this isn’t a passing trend. It’s a fundamental part of the legal landscape now, and businesses really need to adapt accordingly.

Jerry: Well, thank you, Jen and Greg, for being here today, and for your thought leadership in this space, and thank you to our loyal listeners for tuning in. Please stop by our blog for a free copy of the Hospitality Class Action Review e-book.

Greg: Thank you for having me, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.

Jennifer: Thanks so much, everyone.