Author: Class Action Defense

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. 

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.

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 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.

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.

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, 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.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Mauro Wolfe and senior associate Hayley Ryan with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Digital Assets & Blockchain Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this space.

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 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 joining me today are my colleagues Mauro Wolfe and Hayley Ryan. Mauro is joining us for the first time – he’s our lead partner in Duane Morris’ Digital Assets and Blockchain Practice Group, a multidisciplinary group of over 50 lawyers providing a full suite of services to clients in the cryptocurrency, digital assets, and blockchain industries, both domestically and internationally. Thank you both for being on the podcast today.

Mauro Wolfe: Thank you, Jerry, very happy to be here.

Hayley Ryan: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we are discussing the publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book version of the publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Hayley, could you tell our listeners a bit about the desk reference publication?

Hayley: Absolutely, Jerry. So, Duane Morris just released the first in a series of industry-focused class action publications called the Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review – 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 companies and employers will benefit from this resource in compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: It seems like crypto litigation is everywhere right now. What’s driving that?

Mauro: First, Jerry, that’s exactly right. So, by 2025, litigation involving digital assets and blockchain companies really moved from sidelines to center stage in the area of complex financial litigation. One of the big drivers, quite frankly, is the current policy environment, and specifically what I’m referring to is, look, enforcement cases at the federal level, specifically by the SEC, is at a historic drop, you know, in excess of 30 to 40%. And what that means is that private plaintiffs are stepping in to fill the gap. We saw a huge surge in class actions last year as dozens filed, and it’s not just token issuers anymore. The net has widened significantly as to the targets of these class action cases.

Jerry: So, who specifically are the targets, now that we’re in 2026?

Hayley: Yeah, Jerry, so pretty much everyone in the ecosystem. So early on, lawsuits focused on token issuers and promoters, but now we’re seeing claims against crypto exchanges, blockchain developers, fintech platforms, Bitcoin ATM operators, and even decentralized protocol creators.

Mauro: And, major exchanges like Coinbase have been frequent defendants. I mean, plaintiffs are alleging things like operating unregistered securities under the SEC laws, listing tokens that are later characterized as securities, a lot going on.

Jerry: So private lawsuits are almost foreshadowing regulatory enforcement in this space?

Mauro: Exactly, and sometimes it’s even getting ahead of it. In fact, certainly getting ahead of it in the context of this administration, and referring to the SEC and CFTC enforcement regimes.

Jerry: What sort of claims are we talking about, then, in this space?

Hayley: Well, we’re talking about a wide range of claims, Jerry, but the most common include the sale of unregistered securities, misstatements or omissions, consumer protection violations, and data privacy breaches.

Mauro: And then, of course, there’s a long tail that includes, you know, breaches of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and even RICO claims. The plaintiffs’ bar is, as you know very well, Jerry, they’re very creative.

Jerry: Nothing if not innovative, that’s for sure. Why is it, then, that unregistered securities claims are so popular, for the plaintiffs’ bar?

Hayley: It’s a good question, Jerry. It’s because they’re powerful and easier to prove. You don’t need to show fraud, just that a security was sold without proper registration. So, that opens the door to rescission claims, and also class certification is often easier.

Jerry: Let’s talk about one of the key legal developments: centralized versus decentralized exchanges.

Mauro: Yeah, this was huge in ‘25. So, courts in the Second Circuit, for example, started drawing a clear distinction. If an exchange is centralized, meaning its intermediary’s transactions can potentially be liable as a statutory seller. If it’s decentralized, just coding, facilitating transactions, courts have been more hesitant to impose liability. In those cases, plaintiffs struggle to show the platform to actually a seller under the securities laws.

Jerry: Well, the million-dollar question, or maybe the billion-dollar question, is what counts as a security in digital assets?

Hayley: So, Jerry, that is still hotly contested. Courts are often sidestepping it when they can, but 2025 did bring some clarity. For example, Congress passed the Genius Act, which says fiat-backed stablecoins themselves are not securities. But, and this is key, transactions involving them still might be. Courts are still relying heavily on the Howey test, which asks whether there’s an investment contract based on expectation of profits from others’ efforts.

Jerry: In terms of your analysis of rulings in 2025, are there any standout decisions?

Mauro: Yeah, there are a couple of major rulings. One court found that selling stablecoins during a de-pegging event didn’t qualify as a security under Howey. Another reaffirmed that selling certain quote-unquote bridge tokens to institutional investors did not constitute an unregistered securities offering and refused to revisit $125 million-dollar penalty. And importantly, courts are not backing off prior rulings, just because regulatory attitude shifts, and that’s a big deal. And I would be remindful of folks to keep in mind that there is a really important case that predates ‘25, which is the Loper-Bright case from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. And that’s important because in the 6-3 decision on June 28th of ’24, the Supreme Court officially overruled the Chevron deference, which is a 40-year-old legal doctrine that previously required federal courts to defer to federal agencies reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. In other words, the courts historically had to defer to reasonable decisions made by the federal agency who was the expert on the area. That no longer is true, which I think opens up the door for court decisions in a variety of areas, including the securities laws and fraud.

Jerry: Very interesting. What about class certification? That’s obviously the Holy Grail in class actions. How did courts rule over the past 12 months in either granting or denying plaintiffs’ motions to certify a class in this space?

Hayley: Though two federal courts granted certification in part, specifically for unregistered securities claims, but they rejected certification for things like consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims, which tend to have more individualized issues.

Jerry: Also, again, it seems that those security claims are leading the charge. Let’s shift to regulations. The SEC made waves with something called Project Crypto. What should our listeners know about that?

Mauro: So, in 2025, in late ‘25, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins came out with a proposed framework, that recently, in the past couple months, had been released in an interpretive guidance. And the purpose of the Project Crypto was designed to provide more clarity, at least from the regulator’s perspective, of what is and is not a security. It’s built around, sort of, three key ideas: token taxonomy, categorizing assets like digital commodities, digital securities, digital tools, utility tokens, tokenized securities. And a temporal view of securities – that is, meaning a token might start out as a security, but not remain one forever. And tailored regulation, what the SEC refers to as fit for purpose. And that’s focusing on capital-raising activities, not necessarily crypto activities. And all of that is important for two reasons. One, the Project Crypto was in the release of the interpretive guidance a couple months ago. It was important because it was the first joint interpretive guidance on these issues issued by the CFTC and the SEC jointly. That was historic – outlining what is and is not a security, and what are these other categories. And it’s really important in order to give clarity and guidance to the markets, which will be hotly contested, no doubt, by the federal securities class action lawyers.

Jerry: Well, this sure sounds like a shift away from “everything is a security.” Where is all this heading, in your opinion?

Hayley: Though 2026 will definitely bring more litigation without a doubt, the combination of regulatory uncertainty and evolving case law is certainly fueling continued filings, Jerry.

Mauro: Yeah, and Jerry, from my perspective, you know, we’re going to see more clarity, guidance from the federal regulators, but it’s likely to result in lots of court and private litigation about that interpretive guidance. Now, I mentioned Loper for a reason, right? So that means that the courts are not really bound by whatever the SEC says or doesn’t say about what the law is. So, it’s going to be really interesting, and I think it’s going to generate a lot of litigation, because there’s a lot of money, as you put it, billions at stake, for the parties that are right on the issues.

Jerry: Well, that’s fascinating stuff, but sure feels like we’re watching an entirely new area of law being built or unfolded in real time. So thanks, Mauro and Hayley, for being here today, and thank you for loyal listeners for tuning in. Please stop by our blog for a free copy of the Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review e-book.

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

Mauro: Thanks, everyone. Appreciate the time.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Daniel Spencer with their discussion of a new desk reference series from the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Team analyzing key developments in California, Illinois, and New York.

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, loyal blog 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 joining me today are my colleagues and partners, Daniel Spencer of our Los Angeles office, and Jennifer Riley of our Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco offices. Welcome.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks, Jerry. Happy to be part of the podcast today.

Daniel Spencer: Yeah, thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re discussing three of the most significant jurisdictions for class action litigation, what are called epicenters of class action filings – and that would be California, New York, and Illinois – and a brand new set of resources and desk references designed to make sense of it all: the California, New York, and Illinois class action reviews for 2026 put together by Duane Morris Class Action Defense lawyers with over 125 years of collective experience. Jen, can you tell us about these desk references and the skinny on each of them?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. We are very excited about this launch. These are new, state-specific class action reviews. They are comprehensive desk references designed to help legal professionals and companies better understand the landscape of class action law and developments in California, New York, and Illinois. Those states are true epicenters for class action litigation. A significant number of cases are filed and decided in each of those states each year, so they often set the tone for broader legal trends that we then see nationwide.

Jerry: That makes a lot of sense in terms of having available desk references on the three jurisdictions where most class actions are filed. Daniel, from your perspective, why is it important for corporate counsel to stay on top of developments in these particular geographic areas?

Daniel: Well, as you know, Jerry, class action litigation just plays a major role in shaping everything from consumer protection laws, employment practices, and even corporate accountability. Each state has its own nuances and different procedural rules, different judicial interpretations, and evolving case law in each of these areas – and it creates a real challenge for clients and for corporate counsel who are looking at this landscape. Even experienced practitioners can find it difficult to stay current, especially when the landscape is constantly shifting.

Jerry: So that’s where these reviews come in, both hard copies and as e-books that can be put on a computer.

Daniel: Exactly, and we created this collection of reviews to simplify that process. Each volume provides a clear, practical insights into the rules, the trends, and strategic considerations that define class action practice for these specific states.

Jennifer: And to build on that, each review also dives deep into the state-specific procedures in play, highlights recent case developments, as well as offers guidance on how to approach some of those complex litigation challenges that class actions present. Whether you are advising clients, litigating a case, or just trying to deepen your knowledge in this area, these resources are designed to be accessible as well as actionable.

Jerry: I got a call last week from a client who actually had the desk reference on her phone. She said he used it while she was traveling and was able to answer a question while she was traveling – actually from New York to California. And she was able to get the answer in the most recent case. So, definitely a great goal for these desk references.

Jennifer: Absolutely, that’s a great example, and that’s definitely our goal. We wanted to create something that supports better decision-making and helps professionals navigate this increasingly complex area with confidence.

Jerry: Well, great, thanks so much. Before we wrap up, where can listeners find these tools and desk references?

Daniel: The California, New York, and Illinois class action reviews are now available on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. We encourage everyone to explore this series and see how it can support their work, broaden their perspective on class action law.

Jerry: Fantastic. Jen and Daniel, thanks so much for joining us today on the Class Action Weekly Wire and walking us through this set of desk references that are designed for our loyal listeners. And thank you for stopping in and hope you’ll visit our Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog and download the new e-books.

Jennifer: Thanks for having me, Jerry, and thanks to all of our listeners.

Daniel: Yeah, thanks again, Jerry, and thanks to everybody who’s tuning in for the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associates Olga Romadin and Elizabeth Underwood with their discussion of a key ruling in the Southern District of New York denying certification of an FLSA collective action.

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: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers, for joining us for the next episode of our weekly podcast series, The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today on the podcast are my colleagues Elizabeth Underwood and Olga Romadin. Thanks so much for being here.

Elizabeth Underwood: Great to be here, thank you for having me.

Olga Romadin: Thanks, Jerry. Always good to be on the podcast.

Jerry: Today, we’re going to unpack a major recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that’s getting quite a bit of attention in the wage and hour area. It involves a failed attempt by a plaintiff’s counsel to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action against a medical school. Elizabeth, could you set the stage for our listeners on this case?

Elizabeth: Sure, Jerry. This case involves a study coordinator who sued a medical school and related entities, claiming they misclassified him and others as learned professionals, exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA. He wanted to bring a collective action on behalf of similarly situated research and study coordinators who allegedly weren’t paid overtime.

Jerry: And as I understand it, the ruling at question involved not a preliminary preemptive motion to dismiss, but rather a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, to, in essence, certify this wage in our case.

Olga: Exactly. The case had already gone through some discovery, and that’s important because it affected the standard the court applied when evaluating whether to conditionally certify the collective.

Jerry: Let’s talk about the standard, Elizabeth. I know that that standard around the United States is in flux. What did the Southern District of New York opine on in terms of that standard?

Elizabeth: Sure, so typically at step one of the FLSA certification process, plaintiffs just need to make a modest factual showing that they, and others, are similarly situated. But here, because discovery had already taken place, the court applied a more demanding modest plus standard.

Jerry: That’s not quite, then, like, a Rule 56 summary judgment standard, but it’s certainly more than the usual kind of ‘breathe on a mirror’ standard, where plaintiffs have enjoyed, from the analytics we keep, about an 80% success factor.

Olga: Right. The court expected more developed evidence, not just general allegations or a couple of declarations.

Jerry: In this particular case, what did the plaintiffs offer in support of their motion to conditionally certify the collective action?

Elizabeth: They relied on two declarations and six job descriptions to argue that coordinators were uniformly misclassified and performed similar duties.

Jerry: That’s a little thin, doesn’t sound like much, given the scope that the plaintiff was aiming for in terms of the size of the case.

Olga: It wasn’t. He was trying to represent hundreds of employees across dozens of departments. The court found that his evidence just didn’t capture that breadth or demonstrate meaningful similarity in job duties.

Elizabeth: The defendants came in with much more robust evidence, including 49 job descriptions, showing a wide range of responsibilities. Some coordinators were doing basic data collection, while others were designing clinical studies, making medical recommendations, or interacting directly with patients.

Olga: And the court emphasized that those differences mattered. The roles varied in terms of intellectual rigor, autonomy, and educational requirements, and all this was relevant to whether the learned professional exemption applies.

Jerry: By my way of thinking, having done this for about 35 years, that’s a really key point, because often an employer will ascribe a label to a certain job and classify everyone under that label in the same way, and for the court to determine that simple matter of labeling doesn’t render everybody similarly situated, I think it’s a very key finding by the court.

Olga: Yeah, and it kind of backfired. The plaintiff relied on testimony from the employer’s vice president of human resources, but that testimony actually reinforced the idea that job duties varied widely across coordinators.

Elizabeth: So instead of showing uniformity, it highlighted differences. And the court specifically noted that this undermined the plaintiffs’ argument for collective treatment.

Jerry: So, the bottom line with the court ruling is no conditional certification.

Olga: Correct. The court denied conditional certification, finding the plaintiff failed to meet even the modest plus standards.

Jerry: Let’s turn to the implications of this ruling and the broader meaning of it in terms of the wage and hour space. What should the employers take away from this particular decision?

Elizabeth: So, one big takeaway is the importance of detailed, accurate job descriptions. The employer’s ability to produce dozens of descriptions showing meaningful differences across roles was critical in this case.

Olga: And not just having them – maintaining and organizing them so they can be used effectively in litigation.

Jerry: What about the strategy on the defense side in terms of encountering and opposing these sorts of motions?

Elizabeth: This case highlights the value of pushing for pre-certification discovery. If you can develop a factual record early, you may be able to trigger that higher modest plus standard. And, once you’re there, submitting your own evidence, such as varied job descriptions or testimony, can be very effective in defeating certification. Plaintiffs need more than surface-level evidence to move forward collectively.

Olga: And for employers, this is a reminder that variability in roles, if properly documented, can be a strong defense against collective actions.

Jerry: Well, those are great insights and analysis, Elizabeth and Olga, so thanks so much for joining us on our podcast this week, and I urge all of our listeners to keep checking the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog for updates such as this ruling, and we’ll make sure to keep everyone on top of new developments in both the wage and hour space and across the board on class action rulings. So, thanks for being here, and thanks to our listeners for tuning in.

Elizabeth: Thanks for having me, and thanks to the listeners for being here.

Olga: Thanks, everyone. Great to be here.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and John Reade and associate Anshul Agrawal with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 edition of the ERISA Class Action Review.   

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, listeners! Thank you for being here on our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris and joining me today are my colleagues John Reade and Anshul Agrawal. Thanks so much for being on our podcast.

John Reade: Thank you, Jerry. Happy to be part of the podcast.

Anshul Agrawal: Yeah, thank you for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast we’re discussing publication of the third edition of the Duane Morris ERISA Class Action Review, which we published and posted on our Class Action Defense Blog this past week. John, can you tell our listeners a bit about this publication and desk reference?

John: Absolutely, Jerry. Duane Morris is pleased to present the ERISA Class Action Review for 2026, which analyzes the key ERISA-related rulings and developments in 2025, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action in 2026. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource to help with navigating these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Thanks so much. Let’s start with the big picture. We’ve seen quite a surge in ERISA class action litigation over the past decade, and especially in the last two years. What are the takeaways from the trend in the last 12 months?

Anshul: Yeah, so that trend absolutely continued over the past 12 months. The plaintiffs’ bar has remained very focused on challenging how fiduciaries manage 401(k) and other retirement plans. A huge portion of these lawsuits center on what we call, sort of, fee and expense claims. You know, allegations that plan participants were charged excessive fees, or offered investment options that were too expensive or underperformed.

John: And to add to that, there have been hundreds of these cases filed just since 2020. And while established plaintiffs’ law firms are still leading the charge, we’re seeing new entrants entering space, which is only accelerating the trend.

Jerry: Well, that’s quite a lot of activity and focus by the plaintiffs’ class action bar, and especially the advent of an ERISA plaintiffs’ class action bar. Let’s talk about the holy grail in these sorts of cases: the motion for class certification. How easy, how difficult is it for plaintiffs and defendants to fight over that motion at this stage of the litigation?

Anshul: It’s definitely very challenging. So, courts tend to view these cases as inherently suited for class treatment, because the alleged misconduct usually affects large groups of plan participants in similar ways. So even if there are differences in individual investments or benefits, courts often say that those differences go to damages, and not to whether a class should be certified.

John: Right, and that’s why plaintiffs are so successful at this stage. In fact, just last year, in 2025, plaintiffs won class certification in 18 out of 19 cases. It’s about a 95% success rate.

Jerry: Kind of eye-popping success conversion ratio for plaintiffs, and kind of their mantra of find the claimant, file the lawsuit, certify the class, and then monetize it as the plaintiffs’ kind of approach. What do you see as the key attributes of a successful defense strategy, given that sort of statistical analytics underlying the class certification process?

John: Well, Jerry, the real battleground is early in the case. Defendants invest heavily in motions to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs haven’t stated a plausible claim. The idea is really to stop the case before it gets into expensive discovery and class proceedings.

Anshul: Exactly, so defendants often argue that plaintiffs are simply second-guessing fiduciary decisions with hindsight, you know, basically saying, oh, you could have picked cheaper or better investments, but without actually alleging a flawed decision-making process.

Jerry: How are the courts reacting to that sort of opposition and response by the plaintiffs’ bar?

Anshul: So I think that, you know, plaintiffs push back by saying that they don’t have access to the internal fiduciary process before discovery. So they argue that it’s unfair to require detailed allegations at the pleading stage, when that information is usually in the defendant’s hands.

John: And courts have been split on that issue. In 2025, like prior years, outcomes on motions to dismiss and standing challenges were mixed and very fact-specific.

Jerry: Well, taking a page from your book, John, about trying to stop these cases before they get started. The U.S. Supreme Court obviously has decided in the employment-related space quite a few arbitration issues, and one way to stop a class action before it starts is with an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver that forces the claim and an individual arbitration claim. How is that working, or what are the limits to that defense in the ERISA space?

John: Yeah, unfortunately, there has not been a big shift to arbitration and enforcement of that. In 2025, courts were actually more inclined to deny motions to compel arbitration in ERISA cases and were hesitant to enforce class action waivers. Despite these broader trends that you mentioned favoring arbitration, ERISA cases are being treated differently, and courts seem reluctant to limit participants’ ability to bring class-wide claims.

Jerry: A very interesting divergence in terms of the case law. Were there some major legal developments on the ERISA front this past year that would inform this sort of decision-making?

Anshul: Yes, so one of the biggest was the Supreme Court’s decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University, which clarified and, you know, arguably lowered, the pleading standards for prohibited transaction claims under ERISA. In siding with the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court in this case held that Section 1108 exceptions are affirmative defenses, not implied elements, and that a plaintiff need only provide a plausible argument that Section 1106 has been violated in order to survive a motion to dismiss.

John: And another major trend is the rise of 401(k) forfeiture claims. These cases focus on how plan sponsors use forfeited employer contributions. The Internal Revenue Code gives employers, plan sponsors latitude on this area, but plaintiffs argue that those funds should reduce administrative costs for participants and not benefit the employer. Litigation tied to ESG investing decisions and even planned surcharges on tobacco users show how ERISA litigation continues to evolve into new areas.

Jerry: Well, it’s certainly true that treatment of 401(k) forfeitures and the rise of ESG investing are reshaping the ERISA landscape. I see it every morning when we check the docket of the new class actions filed around the country. This is certainly a burgeoning area under ERISA. High certification numbers typically beget settlements. How did the plaintiffs’ bar do in terms of taking down major ERISA settlements in 2025?

John: Very well. Plaintiffs did very well in securing high-dollar settlements in 2025. The top 10 ERSA class action settlements totaled over $680 million, which was a significant increase from 2024, when the top 10 yielded $413 million, and from even 2023, where the top 10 class action settlements totaled $580 million.

Jerry: Well, we’re tracking those numbers day by day in 2026 in terms of the record-breaking numbers underlying ERISA class action settlements. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for being here and joining us, and thank you, loyal listeners, for tuning in. Please stop by our blog and download a free copy of the ERISA Class Action Review e-book.

John: Thanks for having me, Jerry, and thanks to all your listeners.

Anshul: Yes, thank you, Jerry, and thank you all for tuning in to the Weekly Wire.