Trend #2 – Courts Certified Classes At High Rates Across Nearly All Substantive Areas Of Class Action Litigation

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: Although courts issued a similar number of decisions on motions for class certification in 2025 as compared to 2024, the plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained certification at a higher rate overall across all substantive areas, suggesting that plaintiffs are being more selective in their investments and the cases they pursue through class certification.

Watch Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley discuss the certification rates in 2025 and what it means for 2026 in the video below:

Courts issued a similar number of decisions on motions for class certification in 2025, as compared to 2024, but the plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained certification at a higher rate overall.

Across all major areas of class action litigation in 2025, courts issued rulings on 435 motions for class certification. By comparison, in 2024, courts issued rulings on 432 motions for class certification, and, in 2023, court issued rulings on 451 motions for class certification.

In 2025, however, courts granted motions for class certification at a higher rate. Courts granted 297 motions for class certification in whole or in part, a rate of approximately 68%.

This number is higher than the percentage granted in 2024, where courts granted 272 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 63%, but on par with plaintiffs’ success rate in 2023. In 2023, courts granted 324 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 72%.

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.

  1. Plaintiffs Certified Classes At High Rates

In 2025, plaintiffs succeeded in certifying class actions at a high rate. Across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on 435 motions to grant or to deny class certification in 2025. That number represents a very slight increase from 2024, when courts issued rulings on 432 motions to grant or to deny class certification.

Of these, plaintiff succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 297 rulings, for an overall success rate of approximately 68%. Thus, although courts certified fewer classes in 2025, they granted certification at a higher rate as compared to 2024.

In 2024, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 272 rulings, an overall success rate of approximately 63%.

The success rate plaintiffs achieved in 2025 is closer to the rates of certification in 2022 and 2023. In 2023, courts issued rulings on 451 motions to grant or deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 324 rulings, with an overall success rate of 72%. In 2022, courts issued rulings on 335 motions to grant or to deny class certification, and plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining or maintaining certification in 247 rulings, an overall success rate of nearly 74%.

In 2025, the number of motions that courts considered and the number of rulings they issued varied significantly across substantive areas. The following summarizes the results in each of ten key areas of class action litigation (sorted by plaintiffs’ success rate):

  • WARN Act Class Actions:                 100% granted (5 of 5 granted / 0 of 5 denied) 
  • ERISA Class Actions:                          95% granted (18 of 19 granted / 1 of 19 denied)
  • Securities Fraud Class Actions:    79% granted (26 of 33 granted / 7 of 33 denied)
  • Antitrust Class Actions:                     77% granted (17 of 22 granted / 5 of 22 denied)
  • Wage & Hour Class/ Collective:    76% granted (103 of 135 granted / 32 of 135 denied)
  • RICO Class Actions:                            75% granted (6 of 8 granted / 2 of 8 denied)
  • Privacy Class Actions:                       67% granted (8 of 12 granted / 4 of 12 denied)
  • Consumer Fraud Class Actions:   66% granted (34 of 51 granted / 17 of 51 denied)
  • FLSA Decertification:                         62% denied (8 of 13 denied / 5 of 13 granted)
  • Civil Rights Class Actions:               61% granted (48 of 79 granted / 30 of 79 denied)
  • TCPA Class Actions:                            53% granted (10 of 19 granted / 9 of 19 denied)
  • Discrimination Class Actions:       50% granted (10 of 20 granted / 10 of 20 denied)
  • Products Liability Class Actions:  38% granted (3 of 8 granted / 5 of 8 denied)
  • FCRA Class Actions:                           38% granted (3 of 8 granted / 5 of 8 denied)
  • Data Breach Class Actions:             33% granted (1 of 3 granted / 2 of 3 denied)

The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained high rates of success on motions for class certification across most substantive areas in 2025. Plaintiffs obtained the highest rates of success in class actions asserting violations of the WARN Act, the ERISA, and the RICO, followed closely by wage & hour and securities fraud.

In cases where plaintiffs alleged claims for violation of the WARN Act, plaintiffs succeeded in certifying classes in all five of the rulings they obtained during 2025, a success rate of 100%. In 2024, by contrast, plaintiffs prevailed in six of seven rulings, a success rate of 85.7%.

In ERISA class actions, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders granting certification in 18 of the 19 rulings issued during 2025, a success rate of 95%. In cases alleging RICO violations, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 6 of 8 rulings during 2025, a success rate of 75%. In 2024, by contrast, plaintiffs achieved a lower rate of success in both areas. In ERISA litigation, plaintiffs prevailed on 24 of 36 motions for class certification, for a success rate of 66.6%, and, in cases alleging RICO violations, plaintiffs prevailed on only two of six motions for class certification in 2024, a success rate of 33.3%.

In wage & hour class and collective actions, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders granting certification in 103 of the 135 rulings issued during 2025, a success rate of 76%. In securities fraud class actions, plaintiffs succeeded in certifying classes in 26 of 33 rulings issued during 2025, a success rate of 79%. These numbers are on par with plaintiffs’ rates of success in 2024. In 2024, plaintiffs succeeded on 124 of 156 motions for certification of wage & hour class and collective actions, a success rate of 79%, and on 19 of 27 motions for class certification in securities fraud matters, a success rate of 70%.

As noted above, the overall certification rate was higher in 2025, moving from 63% in 2024 to 68% in 2025, but plaintiffs also fared better across substantive areas. Plaintiff succeeded in certifying classes at a rate greater than 50% across all substantive areas except discrimination (50%), products liability (38%), FCRA (38%), and data breach (33%). By contrast, in 2024, plaintiffs fell short of that benchmark in data breach (50%), products liability (50%), privacy (45%), civil rights (40%), FCRA (38%), TCPA (38%), and RICO (33%).

  1. Courts Issues More Rulings In FLSA Collective Actions Than In Any Other Area Of Law

In 2025, courts condintued to issue more certification rulings in FLSA collective actions than in any other type of complex litigation area. Many courts historically have applied a two-step process in the FLSA context that allows a plaintiff to obtain an order granting “conditional” certification early in the proceeding with a modest showing. This standard allows plaintiffs to increase the size of their cases with comparatively low investment, contributing to the number of filings in this area. In 2025, courts considered more motions for certification in FLSA matters than in any other substantive area. Overall, courts issued 148 rulings. Of these, 135 addressed motions for conditional certification of collective actions, and 13 addressed motions for decertification of conditionally certified collective actions. Of the 135 conditional certification rulings, 103 granted conditional certification, for a success rate of over 76%.

While plaintiffs’ success rate has remained steady over the past few years, the number of rulings has declined.

In 2024, courts issued 171 rulings on motions for certification. Of these, 156 addressed motions for conditional certification of collective actions, and 15 addressed motions for decertification of conditionally certified collective actions. Of the 156 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 124 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 79.5%.

In 2023, courts issued 183 rulings on motions for certification. Of these, 165 addressed motions for conditional certification of collective actions, and 18 addressed motions for decertification of conditionally certified collective actions. Of the 167 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 125 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of nearly 75%.

In 2022, courts issued 236 rulings on motions for certification. Of these, 219 addressed motions for conditional certification of collective actions, and 18 addressed motions for decertification of conditionally certified collective actions. Of the 219 rulings that courts issued on motions for conditional certification, 180 rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 82%.

The likely reason for this drop is the prevalence of arbitration agreements with class action and collective action waivers. Such arbitration agreements cause a depression in the numbers because: (i) some plaintiffs’ lawyers will bypass the court system altogether and proceed with claims in arbitration; or (ii) for those that file lawsuits, a significant percentage are thrown out of court based on motions to compel arbitration filed by the defendant.

The decline in the number of rulings on motions for conditional certification from 236 in 2022, to 135 in 2025, represents a decrease of 43%. This phenomenon reflects the impact of the shifting standards by which courts are adjudicating such motions.  

Until 2021, courts almost universally applied a two-step process to certification of FLSA collective actions. At the first stage, courts required a plaintiff to make only a “modest factual showing” that he or she is similarly situated to others. Plaintiffs often met that burden at the outset of litigation by submitting declarations from themselves and/or a limited number of potential collective action members, and courts then authorized them to send notice of the lawsuit to potential opt-in plaintiffs. At the second stage, courts conducted a more thorough examination of the evidence to determine whether, with the benefit of discovery, a plaintiff demonstrated that he or she in fact is similarly-situated to others and the court manageably can try the case on a collective basis.

Over the past five years, however, courts have revisited the two-step process and considered whether it comports with the plain language of the FLSA. Federal appellate courts in three circuits – the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, and the Seventh Circuit – along with various district courts – have answered that question in the negative.

In 2021, the Fifth Circuit in Swales, et al. v. KLLM Transport Services, LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected the two-step approach to evaluating motions for certification of collective actions. The Fifth Circuit held instead that district courts should “rigorously scrutinize the realm of ‘similarly-situated’ workers … at the outset of the case.”

In 2023, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Center, LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), likewise jettisoned the two-step approach but expressly declined to adopt the standard approved by the Fifth Circuit. Instead, the Sixth Circuit introduced a new standard that requires the plaintiff to demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that other employees are “similarly-situated” to the plaintiff.

In 2025, the Seventh Circuit in Richards v. Eli Lilly & Co., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejected the two-step process but declined to go as far as Clark or Swales. Instead, the Seventh Circuit required the plaintiff to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to whether proposed collective action members are similarly-situated, noting that a defendant “must be permitted to submit rebuttal evidence” for the court to consider.

Although encompassing different standards, Swales, Clark, and Richards require plaintiffs to make a more substantial showing than the first step of the two-step approach entails, thereby requiring more factual development and, as a result, more investment on the part of the plaintiffs’ bar.

As a result, filings have shifted. Plaintiffs filed fewer wage & hour lawsuits (and hence brought fewer certification motions) in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits over the past two years, as plaintiffs shifted their efforts away from pursuing collective actions in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits. As a result of Richards, plaintiffs likely will shift their efforts away from pursuing collective actions in the Seventh Circuit over the upcoming year.   

Indeed, once a hotbed of filings, the number of rulings in the Fifth and Sixth Circuits were muted in 2024 and 2025.

In 2025, courts in the Fifth Circuit, issued rulings on three motions for conditional certification, and plaintiffs prevailed on all of them, for a success rate of 100% and, in the Sixth Circuit, courts issued rulings on three motions for conditional certification, and plaintiffs prevailed on only one, for a success rate of 33%  Similarly in 2024, courts in the Fifth Circuit issued rulings on six motions for conditional certification, and plaintiffs prevailed on five, for a success rate of 83%, and, in the Sixth Circuit, courts issued rulings on ten motions for conditional certification, and plaintiffs prevailed on eight, for a success rate of 80%.

While the results continued to be solid for plaintiffs, the investment of time and effort to secure certification has deterred plaintiffs from filing in these circuits. By way of example, in 2022, the last full year before Clark, courts in the Sixth Circuits issued 36 decisions on motions for conditional certification.

In 2023, as Clark began to take hold, courts in the Sixth Circuit issued 22 decisions on motions for conditional certification. In 2024, the first full year after Clark, courts issued rulings on ten motions for conditional certification, and, in 2025, courts in the Sixth Circuit issued rulings on only three motions for conditional certification, reflecting a 92% decline in just four years.

These numbers may continue to shift and decline as plaintiffs shift their case filings to other circuits that have retained the lenient two-step approach or, as more courts revisit the standards applicable to certification, shift their case filings to other areas.

At the decertification stage, courts generally have conducted a closer examination of the evidence and, as a result, defendants historically have enjoyed an equal if not higher rate of success on these second-stage motions as compared to plaintiffs. The results in 2025, however, were less favorable for defendants. Courts issued 13 rulings on motions for decertification. Of these, five favored defendants, for a success rate of 38%, and eight rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 62%.

In 2022, 2023, and 2024, by comparison, courts issued more rulings on motions for decertification. In 2024, courts issued 15 rulings, five of which favored defendants, for a success rate of only 33.3%, and 10 of which favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 66.6%. In 2023, courts issued 18 rulings on motions for decertification.

Of these, eight favored defendants, for a success rate of 44.4%, and ten rulings favored plaintiffs, for a success rate of 55.6%. In 2022, courts similarly issued 18 rulings on motions for decertification. Defendants prevailed in nine, for a success rate of 50%, and plaintiffs prevailed in nine, for a success rate of 50%.

Implications: The decrease in rulings on motions for decertification likely flows from the decrease in rulings on motions for conditional certification, as well as the decrease in the number of courts applying the traditional two-step certification model. If more courts abandon the traditional two-step certification process, and thereby increase the time and expense required to gain a certification order, the number of decertification rulings likely will continue to decrease.

DMCAR Trend # 1 – Settlement Numbers Broke The $40 Billion Mark For The Fourth Year In A Row

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

Duane Morris Takeaway:  As authors and editors of our firm’s our Class Action Review, we identified ten (10) key trends in class action litigation over the past year. Trend # 1 focuses on how 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.

In today’s video blog, Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman discusses how the aggregate monetary value of class action settlements continued to reach incredible highs in 2025, as plaintiffs’ lawyers and government enforcement agencies monetarized their claims into enormous settlement values. In 2025, the plaintiffs’ bar was successful in converting case filings into significant settlement numbers again. Tune in below to hear all about this or read the blog post blow for more information.

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.

That number is the highest value tallied in the past two decades, and exceeding the settlement numbers from 2022, 2023, and 2024 by a significant margin. In 2022, these settlement numbers totaled $66 billion; in 2023, they totaled $51.4 billion; and, in 2024, these settlement numbers totaled $42 billion.

Combined, the settlement numbers of the past four years exceeded $238 billion, representing use of the class action mechanism to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level.

On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, defendants settled class actions and government enforcement lawsuits for more than $79 billion in 2025.

The following chart illustrates the highest 20 settlements during 2025, which collectively totaled $68.63 billion.

The highest 20 settlements during 2024 totaled $34.6 billion, which fell slightly short of the numbers seen in 2023 and 2022.

The value of the highest 20 settlements in class and government enforcement actions topped $51 billion in 2023, whereas the highest 20 settlements topped $66 billion in 2022.

Combined, the four-year settlement total eclipses any other four-year period in the history of American jurisprudence.

In 2025, several settlements met or exceeded the one-billion-dollar mark.

In 2025, parties agreed to settle eight matters for one billion dollars or more.

There were 10 settlements of one billion dollars or more recorded in 2024, and nine settlements of one billion dollars or more in 2023 and 15 class action settlements of one billion dollars or more in 2022.

Together, corporations have agreed to 42 settlements of one billion dollars or more over the past four years. This string of settlements marks the most extensive set of billion-dollar class action settlements in the history of the American court system. These expansive settlement numbers spanned nearly every area of class action litigation.

In fact, the ten highest settlements cumulatively exceeded one billion dollars in six different areas of class action litigation, including antitrust, consumer fraud, generative artificial intelligence and crypto cases, government enforcement litigation, products liability, and securities fraud.

The following shows the cumulative value of the ten highest settlements in each key area of class action litigation:

  • Antitrust Class Actions: $45.99 billion (up from $8.412 billion in 2024)
  • Products Liability Class Actions:  $17.9 billion (down from $23.40 billion in 2024)
  • Securities Fraud Class Actions:  $3.45 billion (up from $2.55 billion in 2024)
  • Government Enforcement Litigation: $3.29 billion (up from $335.9 million in 2024)
  • Consumer Fraud Class Actions: $2.1 billion (down from $2.44 billion in 2024)
  • Generative AI & Crypto Class Actions: $1.59 billion
  • Privacy Class Actions: $801.85 million (down from $2.01 billion in 2024)
  • ERISA Class Actions: $680.30 million (up from $413.3 million in 2024)
  • Civil Rights Class Actions: $580.9 million (up from $313.8 million in 2024)
  • Data Breach Class Actions: $515.79 million (down from $593 million in2024)
  • Discrimination Class Actions: $507.1 million (up from $356.8 million in 2024)
  • Wage & Hour Class/Collective Actions: $430.58 million (down from $614.55 million in 2024)
  • Labor Class Actions: $210.5 million (down from $237.0 million in 2024)
  • BIPA Class Actions: $136.6.0 million (down from $206.85 million in 2024)
  • TCPA Class Actions: $69.1 million (down from $84.73 million in 2024)
  • FCRA Class Actions: $74.77 million (up from $42.43 million in 2024)
  • EEOC Enforcement Litigation: $41.43 million (up from $25.95 million in 2024)

The value of the ten highest settlements in the antitrust, government enforcement, EEOC, securities fraud, ERISA, government enforcement, civil rights, and FCRA areas increased in 2025, reflecting the growth of class action litigation in these areas, as they account for a higher percentage of the overall total.

By contrast, the value of the ten highest settlements in the privacy and BIPA class actions decreased to up to 50% below their 2024 total. In 2025, we began tracking a new category of settlements, for class actions in the generative artificial intelligence and crypto areas of law. The top ten settlements in that category equaled $1.59 billion in 2025.

Implications: Particularly when viewed in conjunction with the settlement values observed in 2023 and 2024, the settlement numbers in 2025 confirm that corporate defendants are operating in a new era of enhanced class action risks. Corporations should expect these numbers to continue to incentivize the plaintiffs’ class action bar to be equally if not more aggressive with their settlement positions in 2026.

IT IS HERE – Announcing The Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026!

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

Duane Morris Takeaways:  As we kick off 2026, we are pleased to announce the publication of the annual edition of the Duane Morris Class Action Review. It is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting corporations, including class certification rulings in the substantive areas of antitrust, appeals, the Class Action Fairness Act, civil rights, consumer fraud, data breaches, discrimination, EEOC-initiated and government enforcement litigation, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, labor, privacy, procedural issues, product liability and mass torts, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, securities fraud, state court class actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, wage & hour class and collective actions, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, the largest class action settlements across all areas of law, and primers on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the California Private Attorney General Act and in Generative Artificial Intelligence & Crypto cases. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2026.

We are humbled and honored by the recent review of the Duane Morris Class Action Review by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) – the review is here. EPLiC said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular. The Duane Morris Class Action Review analyzes class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting corporate America and provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect in terms of filings by the plaintiffs’ class action bar and government enforcement agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL).”

We are also proud that the Review made its way into American jurisprudence on several occasions recently, with a federal district court citing our analysis on class action trends in its decision on a motion for class certification, and both petitioners and amici citing the Review in U.S. Supreme Court briefing as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

Click here to access our customized website featuring all the Review highlights, including the ten major trends across all types of class actions over the past year. Order your free copy of the e-book here and download the Review overview here.

Check out an exclusive article featuring the Review posted this morning in Forbes here. The Firm’s press release on the Review can be found here.

The 2026 Review analyzes rulings from all state and federal courts in 23 areas of law. It is designed as a reader-friendly research tool that is easily accessible in hard copy and e-book formats. Class action rulings from throughout the year are analyzed and organized into 23 chapters and 8 appendices for ease of analysis and reference.

Key Class Action Trends In 2025

Trend # 1 – Settlement Numbers Broke The $40 Billion Mark For The Fourth Year In A Row

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. That number is the highest value tallied in the past two decades, and exceeding the settlement numbers from 2022, 2023, and 2024 by a significant margin. In 2022, these settlement numbers totaled $66 billion; in 2023, they totaled $51.4 billion; and, in 2024, these settlement numbers totaled $42 billion. Combined, the settlement numbers of the past four years exceeded $238 billion, representing use of the class action mechanism to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level. On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, defendants settled class actions and government enforcement lawsuits for more than $79 billion in 2025.

Trend #2 – Courts Certified Classes At High Rates Across Nearly All Substantive Areas Of Class Action Litigation

Courts issued fewer decisions on motions for class certification in 2025, as compared to 2023 and 2024, but the plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained certification at a higher rate overall. Across all major areas of class action litigation in 2025, courts issued rulings on 435 motions for class certification. By comparison, in 2024, courts issued rulings on 432 motions for class certification, and, in 2023, court issued rulings on 451 motions for class certification. In 2025, however, courts granted motions for class certification at a higher rate. Courts granted 297 motions for class certification in whole or in part, a rate of approximately 68%. This number is higher than the percentage granted in 2024, where courts granted 272 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 63%, but on par with plaintiffs’ success rate in 2023. In 2023, courts granted 324 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 72%.

Trend #3 – Class Action Filings Reached New Heights

The gargantuan settlement numbers and high rates of certification have continued to fuel growth in class action filings by the plaintiffs’ class action bar. In 2025, large settlements continued to attract skilled attorneys to the plaintiffs’ side and continued to incentivize plaintiffs’ attorneys to file more and more lawsuits on a class basis. In 2025, the number of class action lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country exceeded 13,229, which equates to more than 52 class actions filed per day on each of the 250 court days in 2025.

That number represents an increase from 2024 and reflects a growth trend relative to the number of class action filed over the past four years. Indeed, the number of class action lawsuits filed in 2022 in federal courts totaled 12,071, the number of class actions filed in 2023 totaled 12,450, and the number of class actions filed in federal courts in 2024 totaled 12,029.

The number filed in 2025 represents a 9% increase over the number of class actions filed in federal court in 2022 and 2024.

Trend #4 – The Landscape Of Privacy Class Actions Continued To Shift

Continued settlements in the privacy space have inspired more members of the plaintiffs’ bar to make privacy litigation the centerpiece of their business models. Although the landscape has shifted over the past five years, the recipe has remained similar — combine archaic statutory schemes, which provide for lucrative statutory penalties, with a ubiquitous technology, to yield the threat of a potential business-crushing class action that can be made via widespread use of form letters and cookie-cutter complaints, to generate payouts on a massive scale. Privacy continued to dominate as one of the hottest areas of growth in terms of class action filings by the plaintiffs’ bar in 2025.

As noted, the landscape has shifted over the past five years. In 2023, many plaintiffs’ attorneys targeted session replay technology, which captures and reconstructs a user’s interaction with a website, or website chatbots, which are programs that simulate conversation through voice or text, or biometric technologies, which capture traits like fingerprints or facial scans for purposes of identification. Over the past two years, the focus for many plaintiffs’ class action lawyers has shifted to website pixels – pieces of code embedded on websites to track activity and, in some circumstances, to provide information about that activity to third-party social media and analytics providers. Plaintiffs have launched thousands of claims via form letters, cookie-cutter complaints, and mass arbitration campaigns.

In 2025, while plaintiffs pulled back on filings in areas like biometric privacy, we saw a surge in litigation over internet tracking technologies based on a patchwork quilt of state-level laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).

Trend #5 – Exceptions Continued To Erode The Rule In The Arbitration Space

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. One of the most impactful examples is the transportation worker exemption, which courts have applied expansively to local workers, such that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to examine the exemption again, for a third time in the past five years. A defendant’s ability to enforce an arbitration agreement containing a class or collective action waiver continues to reign as one of the most impactful defenses in terms of shifting the pendulum of class action litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the last hurdle to widespread adoption of such agreements with its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, et al., 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). In response, more companies of all types and sizes updated their onboarding systems, terms of use, and other types of agreements to require that employees and consumers resolve any disputes in arbitration on an individual basis. In 2025, defendants continued to win most of the motions to compel arbitration they filed. Across substantive areas of class action litigation, courts issued rulings on approximately 189 motions to compel arbitration, and defendants prevailed on 122 of those rulings, for a success rate of approximately 65%.

Trend #6 – Data Breaches Filings Continued To Grow As The Playbook Became More Refined

Data breach class action filings continued to expand in 2025, marking it as one of the fastest growing areas in the complex litigation space. Plaintiffs filed approximately 1,822 data privacy class actions in 2025. This represents an average of more than 150 fillings per month and more than seven filings per business day. These numbers reflect growth of more than 18% over the number of data privacy class actions filed in 2024 and growth of more than 200% over the number of data privacy class actions filed just three years ago in 2022.

Trend #7 – The Trump Administration’s Policies Had A Profound Impact On Government Enforcement Litigation

While the EEOC and DOL historically have been among the most aggressive litigants in terms of their pursuit of claims, the Trump Administration has had a profound impact on these agencies and their enforcement agendas. President Trump ran for election on a platform that runs counter to many of the “emerging issues” on the EEOC’s priority list, foreshadowing a realignment of litigation priorities. The Trump Administration has kept its promise of less government oversight and regulation and has shifted the priorities of these agencies to more closely match the administration’s objectives. In several respects, FY 2025 represented a hard pivot in EEOC enforcement targets. While total filings decreased, the new administration foreshadowed a new direction and targeted approach in upcoming EEOC enforcement.

Trend #8 – Chasms Among Circuits Continued To Expand In Several Areas Crucial To Class Action Litigation

In 2025, case law continued to develop in fragmented ways among the federal circuits on issues material to plaintiffs’ ability to maintain and certify class actions, enhancing the likelihood of and incentive for forum shopping. In terms of standards governing conditional certification of FLSA, EPA, and ADEA matters, 2025 saw the crystallization of four distinct standards, ranging in the burdens applicable to plaintiffs, as well as in the review and consideration of the evidence presented. A second chasm relates to courts’ approaches uninjured class members, or the notion that each member of a putative class as defined might not have experienced a concrete injury sufficient to provide such individual standing to pursue a claim. A third chasm reflects courts’ divergent views relative to personal jurisdiction and whether a court that cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction must have a basis for specific personal jurisdiction as to each putative class member.  These fractures have made forum selection more consequential than ever. Plaintiffs are increasingly skewing their filings toward federal circuits where they anticipate a greater likelihood of a favorable outcome, including toward jurisdictions where judges are taking a more lenient approach to certification or a more permissive view on issues like standing and jurisdiction. To date, efforts to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to take up cases that would resolve these splits have failed, so we expect they will continue to drive uncertainty in class-related litigation through 2026.

Trend #9 – Artificial Intelligence Impacted The Class Action Landscape On Multiple Levels

In 2025, Artificial Intelligence – AI – continued to influence class action litigation on multiple fronts. First, we saw a growth of class action lawsuits targeting AI, including in the copyright area and employment space, as well as the securities fraud area with claims of “AI washing.” Second, we saw an increasing number of courts and lawyers err in their use of AI to generate documents filed on dockets across the country and encountered numerous examples of the ways in which AI is continuing to impact the efficiencies that underlie the litigation process.

Trend #10 – California Continued Its Dominance As “Ground Zero” For Expansion Of Representative Litigation

The California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) inspired more representative lawsuits than any other statute in America over the past three years. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed in 2025 approached 9,900, which surpasses the 9,464 PAGA notices in 2024. The so-called PAGA reform legislation passed in 2024 by California lawmakers seemingly did little to nothing to curb interest in these cases. The PAGA created a scheme to “deputize” private citizens to sue their employers for penalties associated with violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of other “aggrieved employees,” as well as the State. A PAGA plaintiff may pursue claims on a representative basis, i.e., on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees, but need not satisfy the class action requirements of Rule 23. Thus, the PAGA provides the plaintiffs’ class action bar a mechanism to harness the risk and leverage of a representative proceeding without the threat of removal to federal court under the CAFA and without the burden of meeting the requirements for class certification. The PAGA’s popularity in recent years, however, also flows from its status as one of the most viable workarounds to workplace arbitration agreements. Thus, it presents one of the most pervasive litigation risks to companies doing business in California.

According to data maintained by the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed with the LWDA has increased exponentially over the past two decades.  In 2024, notices exceeded 9,464 for the first time and, in 2025, the number of PAGA notices reached a new all-time high of over 9,981.

III. What Should Companies Expect In 2026?

Class action litigation is a staple of the American judicial system. The volume of class action filings has increased each year for the past decade, and 2026 is likely to follow that trend. In this environment, programs designed to ensure compliance with existing laws and strategies to mitigate class action litigation risks are corporate imperatives. The plaintiffs’ bar is nothing if not innovative and resourceful. Given the massive class action settlement figures from 2022 through 2025 (a combined total of $238 billion), coupled with the ever-developing law, corporations can expect more lawsuits, expansive class theories, and an equally if not more aggressive plaintiffs’ bar in 2026. These conditions necessitate planning, preparation, and decision-making to position corporations to withstand and defend class action exposures.

We hope the Duane Morris Class Action Review provides practical insights into complex potential strategies relevant to all aspects of class action litigation and other claims that can cost billions of dollars and require changes to business practices in order to resolve such claims.

Coming Soon: The Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026!!

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: Happy Holidays to our loyal readers of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog! Our elves are busy at work this holiday season in wrapping up our start-of-the-year kick-off publication – the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026. We will go to press in early January and launch the 2026 Review from our blog and our book launch website. This announcement also marks our 600th blog post.

The 2026 Review builds on the success of our previous editions and represents our 22nd annual study of the class action space. It will be the biggest and most comprehensive edition yet, at over 750 pages. The 2026 Review has more analysis than ever before, with discussion of over 1,700 class certification rulings from federal and state courts over this past year. The Review will be available for download as an E-Book too.

The Review is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America, including the substantive areas of antitrust, appeals, the Class Action Fairness Act, civil rights, consumer fraud, data breach, EEOC-Initiated and government enforcement litigation, employment discrimination, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, labor, privacy, procedural issues, product liability and mass torts, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, securities fraud, state court class actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, wage & hour class and collective actions, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, and the top-class action settlements in each area. It also will contain a brand-new appendix featuring analysis of rulings in the generative artificial intelligence and crypto space. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2026.

The Duane Morris Class Action Review was recently cited in briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court in as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

In its review of our practice group’s resource, Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular.

With the submission of our analysis to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are humbled and proud to be cited as the authoritative source in the class action space. The Review is also relied on by some of the world’s largest plaintiffs’ firms and federal judges, see, e.g., Laverenz v. Pioneer Metal Finishing, LLC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 602, 614 (E.D. Wis. 2024).  The Duane Morris Class Action Review is the “one stop shop” and authoritative source on collective action certification rates, collective action trends and analysis, and the implications, pressures, and contours that parties face when engaged in FLSA collective action litigation.

We look forward to providing the 2026 edition of the Review to all our loyal readers in early January. Stay tuned and Happy Holidays!

California Court Of Appeal Affirms Dismissal Of Standalone PAGA Action Because A Prior Global Settlement Precluded Overlapping Claims

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On November 19, 2025, in Brown v. Dave & Buster’s of Cal., Inc., Case No. B339729, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750 (Cal. App. Nov. 19, 2025), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District affirmed a trial court’s decision granting judgment on the pleadings that barred a standalone PAGA plaintiff’s claims for lack of standing and due to a prior global settlement with overlapping claims.

In an important decision for all employers in California, the Court of Appeal recognized a prior PAGA settlement fully encompassed and released the standalone plaintiff’s claims as to all defendant entities.  Accordingly, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court order finding that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue and her claims were barred by claim preclusion. 

Case Background

Lauren Brown worked for Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc. and Dave & Buster’s Inc. (collectively “Buster’s”) in its Westchester restaurant location from November 2016 to April 2018.  Id. at *1-2. 

In June 2019, Brown filed a standalone representative action under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) against Buster’s and alleged Buster’s “failed to provide meal periods, rest periods, vacation pay, and wage statements . . . and routinely required employees to work off-the-clock.”  Id. at *2.

Buster’s filed a demurrer to abate/stay, or in the alternative, a motion for discretionary stay, and argued that Brown’s action “was between the same parties on the same cause of action in at least two previously-filed actions” in Espinoza v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC710345, and Lopez v. Dave & Buster’s of California, Inc., et al.,San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2018-00054080-CU-OE-CTL.  See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *2. In October 2019, the trial court found Brown’s case was “‘substantially identical’ to the Espinoza action” and sustained Buster’s demurrer and stayed the case.  Id. 

Buster’s, in February 2020, filed a statement with the trial court concerning additional information on earlier-filed PAGA actions.  Buster’s statement included “when each case was filed, when the other plaintiffs submitted their requisite notices to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (Agency), and which claims overlapped with Brown’s.”  See id. at *3.  Buster’s disclosed Rocha v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 19CV348961, and Andrade v. Dave & Buster’s Management Corporation, Inc., San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 37-2019-00019561-CU-OE-CTL (“Andrade”).  See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *3.

On April 1, 2022, the Andrade parties entered into a long-form settlement agreement with all three Buster’s entities, including those that Brown sued.  Included in the released claims was “failure to pay accrued vacation pay at the end of employment, including but not limited to claims under the California Labor Code.”  The released claims specifically cited § 227.3 of the California Labor Code regarding vacation pay.  Id. at *4-5.

The plaintiff in Andrade moved for settlement approval, showing she notified the Agency of her motion and settlement agreement.  The Agency accepted the settlement and did not oppose it.  On November 4, 2022, the San Diego Superior Court granted approval of the Andrade settlement.  Id.

In April 2023, the parties in Brown’s action notified the court that the Andrade action had settled.  Brown alleged there “might not be complete overlap with Andrade as to her unpaid vacation claim, but she was still checking on this issue.”  Id. at *4.

Thereafter, in June 2023, Buster’s moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued the Andrade settlement released all of Brown’s claims and that claim preclusion barred Brown’s lawsuit.  Id.  Buster’s supported its motion with various documents from the Andrade action, including the pre-filing notice to the Agency on May 13, 2019, the Andrade complaint filed on November 14, 2019 (which omitted a vacation pay violation), the amended notice letter to the Agency on February 3, 2022, and the corresponding amended complaint filed in Andrade on March 10, 2022.  The amended notice to the Agency added a vacation pay claim, under § 227.3, and added the named defendants in Brown’s case.  Id. at *4. 

Brown opposed Buster’s motion and asserted she had standing to bring all claims in her PAGA letter because Buster’s violated her rights under the Labor Code.  Citing LaCour v. Marshalls of Cal., LLC, 94 Cal. App. 5th 1172 (2023), Brown maintained because the Andrade plaintiff failed to exhaust her claims before the Agency, “she was therefore not deputized to pursue and settle the Labor Code violations in [Andrade’s] amended complaint.”  See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *5.  Brown also noted the plaintiff in Andrade waited 35 days between sending her amended pre-filing notice and filing her complaint in court, and therefore, the Andrade settlement did not apply to Brown’s §227.3 vacation pay claims against the Buster’s entities Brown sued.  Id.

The trial court granted Buster’s motion without written comment, dismissed Brown’s complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of Buster’s.  Thereafter, Brown appealed.  Id. at *5-6.

The California Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appealaffirmed the trial court’s decision, finding Brown lacked standing, claim preclusion barred Brown’s PAGA claims, and the Andrade plaintiff’s failure to wait 65 days to file her amended complaint was a “harmless defect” where the Agency had an opportunity to object to the Andrade global settlement and did not do so.

At the outset, the Court of Appealopined Brown identified no error from the trial court decision and determined Brown “effectively concede[d]” the Andrade settlement resulted in a final judgment on the merits and did not bar her non-vacation pay claims.  Id. at *6. The Court of Appealsimilarly rejected Brown’s argument that she had standing to pursue Labor Code violations after November 4, 2022, the date after court approval of the Andrade settlement, because her employment with Buster’s ended in 2018.  Id. at *6-7.

The Court of Appealconsidered the sole issue as — “did Andrade’s failure to adhere strictly to the 65-day waiting period for her amended claims defeat Buster’s claim preclusion argument?”  Id. at *7.  In determining this question, the Court of Appealexplained § 2699.3 of the Labor Code provides “if the Agency does not respond within 65 calendar days of an aggrieved employee providing it with written notice, ‘the aggrieved employee may commence a civil action.’”  The crux of the Court of Appeal’sdecision centered on Andrade’s amended complaint which was filed “fewer than 65 days after her amended notice to the Agency.”  Id.

The Court of Appealreasoned claim preclusion “bars a new lawsuit if the first case had (1) the same cause of action; (2) between the same parties, or parties in privity; and (3) a final judgment on the merits” and noted the doctrine “promotes judicial economy by requiring all claims based on the same cause of action that were or could have been raised to be decided in a single suit.”  Id. 

Brown argued LaCour, 94 Cal.App.5th 1172 (2023), controls and suggested the Court of Appealfind the Andrade settlement “does not bar her vacation pay or reach the Buster’s defendants in [Brown’s] case because [the] Andrade [plaintiff] filed her second amended complaint only 35 days after submitting her amended presuit notice to the agency.”  See Brown, 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 750at *7-9.  The Court of Appeal interpreted Brown’s reliance on LaCour to suggest the plaintiff in Andrade “was never authorized to pursue the additional vacation pay claim and new defendants in her amended complaint” which would necessarily encompass Brown.  Id. at *9.

Buster’s contended LaCour is “‘completely inapposite’ and factually distinguishable” given “Andrade’s initial notice letter, initial complaint, amended notice letter, and amended complaint ‘expressly include all of Brown’s alleged Labor Code violations such that they encompass Brown’s entire PAGA claim.’”  Buster’s additionally contended “Andrade’s failure to abide by the 65-day waiting period is a technicality” and “not dispositive as to the issue of administrative exhaustion under PAGA.”  Id.

The Court of Appealdetermined on the “administrative exhaustion issue, LaCour does not apply” and California’s Supreme Court has described “PAGA’s statutory pre-filing notice requirement as a ‘condition of suit.’”  Similarly, the Court of Appealreasoned the purpose of PAGA’s pre-filing notice requirement is to afford “the Agency ‘the opportunity to decide whether to allocate scare resources to an investigation…’” Id. at *11. It explained “[n]othing in the statute’s language or any published case law suggests the 65-day waiting period also applies to amended notices and complaints.”  Id.  Accordingly, the Court of Appealfound “Andrade’s failure to wait 65 days was a harmless defect” and the “Agency accepted Andrade’s global settlement with Buster’s after it had an opportunity to object.”  Id.  at *12.  

In sum, the Court of Appeal held “Andrade’s settlement fully encompassed and released Brown’s claims as to all Buster’s entities, thus satisfying all elements of claim preclusion” and affirmed the trial court’s decision. 

Implications For Employers

Employers facing PAGA litigation can rely on Brown for support that prior settlements have a preclusive effect where, as here, the prior settlement and second lawsuit have overlapping claims. 

Brown also supports the proposition that PAGA’s 65-day notice waiting period requirement for filing suit may not apply to amended PAGA notices.  In another win for employers, the Court of Appeal found the plaintiff in Brown could not recover for periods after she left the company in 2018 – thereby limiting the scope of PAGA penalties further.

Given the myriad issues employers defend against in PAGA litigation, this decision signals an important strategic consideration in defending overlapping PAGA actions.  Employers when faced with multiple PAGA actions must consider the sequencing of PAGA settlements and whether an already settled PAGA action can create a preclusive effect barring a separate PAGA action.

Duane Morris Class Action Review Cited In Three U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Ryan T. Garippo, and George J. Schaller

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On October 15, 2025, in Eli Lilly & Co., et. al. v. Richards, et al., No. 25-476 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2025), Eli Lilly & Co. filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari after a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit which created a four-way circuit split as to the proper interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).  This petition drew briefing from several amici curiae, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CHRO Association.

Similarly, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision widened that circuit split to include five different methodical approaches in Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Andrew Harrington, et al., No. 25-559 (U.S. Nov. 5, 2025), Cracker Barrel also filed a Petition For A Writ of Certiorari.

Significant for readers of this blog, both petitioners and amici also cited the Duane Morris Class Action Review as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.

In its review of our practice group’s resource, Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular.

With the submission of our analysis to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are humbled and proud to be cited as the authoritative source in the class action space.

The Briefing In Richards And Harrington

Both Cracker Barrel and Eli Lilly correctly argued in their petitions that “the circuits are split five ways in how to interpret” Section 216(b) and the case law in this area “is in total disarray.”  Both petitions ask the U.S. Supreme Court to help organize this “disarray.”  As such, a brief guide through these disjointed methodological approaches is included below.

First, there is the familiar and lenient two-step standard in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), which was expressly adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 954 F.3d 502, 515 (2d Cir. 2020), and “acquiesced to . . . without express adoption” by the First, Third, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits.  Kwoka v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Boston, LLC, 141 F.4th 10, 22 (1st. Cir. 2025); Zavala v. Wal Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 534 (3d Cir. 2012); Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 267 F.3d 1095, 1105 (10th Cir. 2001); Hipp v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001)

Under the Lusardi approach, at step one, a plaintiff moves for conditional certification, relying solely on his or her allegations, and not competing evidence submitted by the employer. If the employee’s motion is granted, would-be plaintiffs receive notice of the lawsuit and then have the ability to opt-in as party plaintiffs to the case and participate in discovery.  At the close of discovery, the employer can then move to decertify the conditionally certified collective action, and prove the employees are not similarly situated with the benefit of discovery and evidence.

Second, in Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1114 (9th Cir. 2018),the Ninth Circuit adopted a variation of the Lusardi two-step approach but also required the plaintiff to show he or she is similarly situated to his or her fellow employees in “some material aspect of their litigation” and not just similar in some sort of irrelevant way, but the plaintiff may rely on mere allegations to make that showing.

Third, the Fifth Circuit in Swales v. KLLM Transp. Servs., LLC, 985 F.3d 430, 443 (5th Cir. 2021), rejected Lusardi’s two-step approach outright, and required its district courts to “rigorously enforce” the FLSA’s similarity requirement at the outset of the litigation in a one-step approach.  “[T]he district court needs to consider all of the available evidence” at the time the motion is filed and decide whether the plaintiff has “met [his or her] burden of establishing similarity.”  Id. at 442-43.

Fourth, the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023), adopted a comparable standard to Swales requiring the employee to show a “strong likelihood” that others are similarly situated to him or her before the district court can send notice, but leaving open the possibility of the employer filing a motion for decertification down the line. Clark, 68 F.4th at 1011.

Fifth, the Seventh Circuit in Richards, et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co, et al., 149 F.4th 901 (7th Cir. 2025), rejected the Lusardi framework but declined to go as far as Clark or Swales.  Instead, the Seventh Circuit approach requires “a plaintiff must first make a threshold showing that there is a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective is similarly situated” to secure notice and an employer “must be permitted to submit rebuttal evidence” for the court to consider.  Richards, 149 F.4th at 913.  But, there is not a bright line rule as to whether the court should decide the similarly situated question in a one or two step approach as the analysis is not an “all-or-nothing determination.”  Id. at 913-914.

Sixth, as correctly noted by counsel for Cracker Barrel, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the D.C., Fourth, and Eighth Circuits have not yet opined on the proper interpretive method, leaving their district courts free to choose among the available options.

Duane Morris Class Action Review Citations

It should go without saying that these issues are complicated, and employers are looking to experienced practitioners to help them navigate this procedural morass.  For that reason, both petitioners and the amici curiae turned to the Duane Morris Class Action Review, and its authors, as the authoritative source in support of their petitions.

The first citation is found in Eli Lilly’s petition for writ of certiorari, which cites Avalon Zoppo, Circuit Split Widens on Judicial Approach to Sending FLSA Collective Action Notices, Nat. L. J. (Aug. 11, 2025), regarding the proper interpretation of Richards, following the Seventh Circuit’s decision in that case.  In that article, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Chair of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group, stated “[t]he [Seventh Circuit’s] holding is going to reverberate and have a huge impact on wage and hour litigation throughout the United States.”

The second citation can be found in Cracker Barrel’s petition, following the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Harrington, which cites directly to the Duane Morris Class Action Review for varying conditional certification rates under this patchwork quilt of legal standards. Indeed, in the 2024 and 2025 editions of the Duane Morris Class Action Review, our analysis showed that:  (1) the federal circuit courts that follow or acquiesce to Lusardi grant conditional certification at rates of 84%; (2) the Ninth Circuit grants conditional certification at rates of approximately 71% under the lenient-plus approach; and (3) the remaining Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, with varied stricter standards, granted certification at rates approximating 67%.  The petition further noted our finding that only approximately 10% of conditionally certified FLSA collective actions reach the decertification stage.

The third citation is found in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the CHRO Association’s amicus brief which relies on the Duane Morris Class Action Review for the proposition that “motions for conditional certification . . . are granted in a large majority of [FLSA] cases.”  Looking at the statistics, the amici highlight “[i]n 2024, district courts granted 80% of motions seeking court-ordered notice” with “Plaintiffs enjoy[ing] similar success in past years”

These U.S. Supreme Court practitioners and defense counsel are not alone as others refer to the Duane Morris Class Action Review as “the Bible” on class action litigation.  It is also relied on by some of the world’s largest plaintiffs’ firms and federal judges, see, e.g., Laverenz v. Pioneer Metal Finishing, LLC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 602, 614 (E.D. Wis. 2024).  The Duane Morris Class Action Review is the “one stop shop” and authoritative source on collective action certification rates, collective action trends and analysis, and the implications, pressures, and contours that parties face when engaged in FLSA collective action litigation.

Implications For Employers

Although the petitioners are still briefing their petitions, it is clear that the myriad approaches adopted by the federal circuit courts are ripe for some clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court, which would hopefully provide a roadmap for district courts to assess collective actions uniformly.

Further, the framework for when and how to send notice under Section 216(b) are not the only issues presented by these petitions.  Eli Lilly expressly invited the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) and plaintiff-appellee in Harrington would also have the high court decide whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S. 255 (2017) applies to collective actions, which we blogged about here.

Because these questions, and many others, remain in flux and unanswered, employers should monitor this blog for updates as it is a trusted source for companies, defense counsel, plaintiffs’ firms, federal judges, and U.S. Supreme Court practitioners alike.  We will be following these petitions as they unfold.

Ohio Federal Court Applies Sixth Circuit’s Heightened Standard To Deny Certification Of Overtime Claims For Alleged Unpaid Pre-Shift Work

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: In Arble v. East Ohio Gas Company, et al., No. 5:24-CV-747 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 3, 2025), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio denied the plaintiffs’ motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs based on application of the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard for FLSA certification. As a result of the court’s ruling, the lawsuit will proceed based on the claims of only three plaintiffs. The decision is essential reading for defendants in the Sixth Circuit seeking to defeat a motion for certification of FLSA claims.

Case Background

Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 26, 2024, on behalf of a putative class and collective action of call center employees against an energy company that provides services throughout Ohio and the United States.

Plaintiff contended that the defendant had an unlawful practice of failing to pay wages to call center employees for time spent logging on and booting up their computer systems. She alleged that as a result of “off the clock” work prior to the start time of the shift, she and other call center workers worked in excess of 40 per workweek without receiving overtime pay. Plaintiff asserted claims of unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

Two other call center employees filed consent forms to become opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs for purposes of their collective action per the FLSA.  Defendants responded in opposition on April 22, 2025. The Court denied the motion as moot after granting Plaintiff’s separate motion to amend the complaint to add a party.  

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for court-facilitated notice to a putative nationwide collective action of call center workers. Defendants responded in opposition on August 1, 2025. Plaintiffs did not file a reply in further support of the motion.

As Ohio law no longer permits plaintiffs to pursue class action (opt-out) claims for unpaid overtime under Ohio state law, the Plaintiffs’ motion addressed only the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs. See Ohio Rev. Code 4111.10(C).

The Court’s Ruling

The Court explained the standard for court-facilitated notice of FLSA claims under the pivotal decision of the Sixth Circuit in Clark v. A&L Homecare & Training Ctr., LLC, 68 F.4th 1003 (6th Cir. 2023). In Clark, the Sixth Circuit abandoned the familiar two-step framework for conditional certification under the FLSA. In its place, the Sixth Circuit announced a new standard for facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the FLSA. Under the new standard, plaintiffs must demonstrate a “strong likelihood” that they are similarly situated to others with a showing “greater than the one necessary to create a genuine issue of material fact, but less than the one necessary to show a preponderance.” See Clark, 68 F.4th at 1010.

Upon application of the Clark standard, the Court concluded Plaintiffs fell far short of meeting their evidentiary burden to receive court-facilitated notice of their claims to others. The Court highlighted three primary deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ motion.

First, the Court found the Plaintiffs’ sworn declarations insufficient to show similarity to any other call center workers.  The declarations failed to identify any other call center workers by name, failed to state any dates when Plaintiffs allegedly saw others performing pre-shift work, failed to explain how Plaintiffs knew that others experienced violations of the FLSA, and failed to connect Plaintiffs’ observations to any broader set of call center workers employed by Defendants inside or outside Ohio.  

Next, the Court roundly rejected Plaintiffs’ reading of an employee handbook policy applicable to call center workers. Plaintiffs contended that a policy stating that workers must be on time and available to start work at the beginning of their shift supported their claims of widespread “off the clock” work in violation of the FLSA. The Court reasoned that a mere requirement for employees to be on time for work did not run afoul of the FLSA. Therefore, nothing on the face of the policy warranted court-supervised notice, nor did Plaintiffs explain how the policy proves a violation as to all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Finally, the Court found no basis in the record to send notice to the membership of a nationwide collective action. Plaintiffs, who each worked in Ohio, presented no evidence of how Defendants staffed or managed any call center outside of Ohio.

The Court reasoned that absent evidence linking Plaintiffs’ allegations to other call center workers, facilitating notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs “would amount to claim solicitation that the Court declines to undertake.” Id. at 6.

Having concluded that no basis existed to expand the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims to potential opt-in plaintiffs under the Clark standard, the Court ordered that the case would proceed based on the claims of three Plaintiffs alone.

Implications For Defendants

In FLSA collective action litigation, the disposition of a motion for notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs is a central inflection point. The Court’s ruling in Arble illustrates the opportunity afforded to defendants in the wake of Clark to shrink the scope of an FLSA lawsuit by dissecting the purported evidence of similarity between the named plaintiff and other employees. Where plaintiffs rely on vague and conclusory allegations of widespread unlawful pay practices, defendants have an opportunity to defeat the plaintiffs’ efforts to expand the universe of party plaintiffs in the case, and thereby gain significant leverage in the lawsuit. Corporate counsel defending similar FLSA claims of unpaid overtime on behalf of a putative collective action ought to take note of the Court’s reasoning in Arble when preparing their defense strategy.

As the Northern District of Ohio’s ruling in Arble reflects, the Sixth Circuit’s “strong likelihood” standard under Clark poses a formidable hurdle for plaintiffs to overcome to obtain court-sanctioned notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

Webinar Replay: Year-End Review Of EEOC Enforcement Litigation & Strategy

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaway: Thank you to all the loyal blog readers and followers who joined us for our Year-End EEOC Strategy And Litigation Review webinar! In this 30-minute program, Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.Jennifer A. RileyAlex W. Karasik and Gregory Tsonis analyzed the latest impact of the dramatic changes at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its new strategic priorities and the EEOC lawsuits filed throughout fiscal year 2025, and discussed how heading into FY 2026 with significant changes implemented by the Trump administration, employers’ compliance with federal workplace laws and agency guidance remains a corporate imperative.

If you were unable to attend the webinar, it is now available on our podcast channel. Click to watch below and stay tuned for important EEOC trends and developments throughout the year.

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up The Transportation Worker Exemption Again

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

Duane Morris Takeaways:  On October 20, 2025, in Flower Foods, et al. v. Brock, No. 23-0936 (U.S.), the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to decide whether last-mile delivery drivers are considered transportation workers, and thus exempt under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), when the driver’s route is purely intrastate. 

The decision will have sweeping implications for logistics companies and any business employing delivery drivers across the country.

Case Background

Flower Foods, Inc. (“Flower Foods”) operates one of the largest bakery companies in the United States.  Under Flower Foods’ business model, the company contracts with independent distributors who purchase the rights to distribute products in specific territories.  The delivery-driver distributors “stock shelves, maintain special displays, and develop and preserve positive customer relations.”  Brock v. Flower Foods, Inc., 121 F. 4th 753, 757 (10th Cir. 2024).  Flower Foods “produces and markets the baked goods.”  Id.

Flower Foods delivers the products it produces, via these delivery-driver distributors, who are classified as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”).  These products are usually produced in out-of-state bakeries, but then shipped to a local warehouse, where the local delivery driver picks them up to sell retail stores.  This process is more commonly known as “last-mile delivery.”  Plaintiff Angelo Brock (“Plaintiff or “Brock”), through his company Brock, Inc., was one of those delivery drivers.  When Brock started delivering Flower Foods’ products, he entered into a Distributor Agreement that contained a “Mandatory and Binding Arbitration” clause, which required nearly all disputes to be arbitrated under the FAA.  Id. at 758.

Nonetheless, Brock filed a putative collective and class action under the FLSA, and Colorado labor law, claiming that Flower Foods misclassified him and other delivery-driver distributors as independent contractors.  As a result, Flower Foods moved to compel arbitration, but the U.S. District Court for Colorado denied its request.  The District Court concluded that Brock fell within the ‘‘transportation workers exemption” of the FAA, which exempts transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce from arbitration.  The District Court reasoned that, although Brock did not cross state lines, he ‘‘actively engaged in the transportation of [the company’s] products across state lines into Colorado” and thus was covered by the exemption.  Id. at 759.  Flower Foods appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The Lower Court Opinion

On appeal, and on November 12, 2024, Judge Gregory Phillips, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, affirmed the District Court’s decision that delivery-driver distributors were exempt from the FAA.  Judge Phillips explained that, although Brock’s routes were entirely within Colorado, a transportation worker need not cross state lines to qualify for the exemption.  Instead, individuals qualify as transportation workers if they play a direct and necessary role in the interstate flow of goods.

Relying on decisions from the First and Ninth Circuits, which also concluded “that last-mile delivery drivers . . . who make the last intrastate leg of an interstate delivery route . . . are directly engaged in interstate commerce,” the Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion.  Id. at 762.  The Tenth Circuit explained that “[b]oth [other] circuits focused on whether the goods moved in a continuous interstate journey or as part of multiple independent transactions.”  Id.  Thus, the flow of interstate commerce did not stop when “Brock start[ed] the interstate delivery process by placing orders for products produced in out-of-state bakeries” and Flower Foods “deliver[ed] the products to the agreed-upon warehouse,” only for Brock to “load the products at the warehouse onto his vehicle and deliver[] the goods to retail stores on his intrastate delivery route” within one day.  Therefore, Brock and other delivery-driver distributors were exempt under the FAA even though they did not cross state lines.  But, Flower Foods decided to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take a third look at the issue.

On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, without a making any other comment, in its two-word order holding “certiorari granted.” 

In some ways, this decision is not surprising as the U.S. Supreme Court has decided two recent cases under the transportation worker exemption:  Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), and Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024).  The decision in Brock, however, is poised to be the most impactful of all three of the cases.

Implications For Employers

The importance of the ultimate decision in Brock cannot be overstated.  In both Saxon and Bissonnette, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded the reach of the transportation worker exemption making it increasingly difficult for employers to move to compel arbitration in class and collective actions brought by workers in logistics-adjacent positions

If workers who engage in wholly intrastate commerce fall within the exemption’s reach, it may require a fundamental re-structuring of many employers’ arbitration programs.  In contrast, if these workers and independent contractors are not exempt from the requirements of the FAA, then employers may finally be able to rest easy knowing that their arbitration defenses remain viable for at least a portion of their workforce.

Although only time will tell what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide, corporate counsel should follow this blog for updates because the authors will be watching this case closely.   Oral arguments are likely to occur during Fall 2025 and a decision will follow in Spring 2026.

© 2009- Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress