Category: Class Action Weekly Wire

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Katelynn Gray and associate Ryan Garippo with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the TCPA Class Action Review, including notable rulings in the Eleventh and Second Circuits shaping related litigation in 2025.

Bookmark or download the TCPA Class Action Review – 2025, which is fully searchable and viewable from any device.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung 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 Katelynn Gray and Ryan Garippo. Welcome to the podcast.

Katelynn Gray: Thanks, Jerry, happy to be a part of the podcast.

Ryan Garippo: Thanks for having me, Jerry

Jerry: Today on the podcast we’re discussing the desk reference and publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group that was launched on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, known as the TCPA. It’s a guide for corporate counsel on the ins and outs of the statute and what’s happened over the past year, and what we see coming in the future. Katelynn, can you tell our listeners about this publication?

Katelynn: Absolutely, Jerry. So, the TCPA has been a long focus of litigation, particularly for class actions. The class action team of Duane Morris released the second edition of the TCPA Class Action Review earlier this week. This publication analyzes the key TCPA-related rulings and developments in 2024, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class actions for 2025. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these ever-evolving laws and standards. As someone that’s worked on this chapter for the last couple of years, I can tell you there’s been a lot of updates.

Jerry: Interestingly, in 2024 I would characterize what occurred as a mixed bag – victories for plaintiffs, victories for defendants. Ryan, how are the classes treated by federal courts in terms of certification rulings over the past year?

Ryan: There are wins on both sides, Jerry, but defendants came out way ahead in terms of getting classes certified – courts granted motions for class certification only 37% of the time, they denied class certification motions 63% of the time. So that’s way lower that last year when plaintiffs’ bar was much more successful in obtaining class certification, with courts granting 70% of certifications, so we saw a big swing from last year to this.

Jerry: That’s quite an interesting turn of events from 2023 to 2024. Katelynn, were there any notable appellate court rulings that deciphered the contours of TCPA claims?

Katelynn: There was, actually. So, the Eleventh Circuit issued 123-page opinion that offered a treasure trove of insights regarding the need for constant vigilance when it comes to TCPA compliance – particularly for employers involved in these types of class actions. This was in a case that had been ongoing and that we discussed last year within the framework of Article III standing in the TCPA class actions. The case was called Drazen, et al. v. Pinto. In the most recent ruling, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court’s final approval of a settlement of a class action alleging GoDaddy.com, Inc. violated the TCPA by sending unwanted marketing texts and phone calls through a prohibited automatic telephone dialing system. The Eleventh Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by approving the class-wide settlement, which would have provided up to $35 million to pay in class members’ claims and up to $10.5 million to class counsel and attorneys’ fees. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court inappropriately certified the class and shouldn’t have approved the proposed settlement agreement and granted class counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court overlooked evidence of collusion between class counsel and GoDaddy’s attorneys, treated the settlement as a common fund instead of a claims-made resolution, and improperly calculated attorneys’ fees after erroneously concluding it was not a coupon settlement. In this instance, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

Jerry: Gosh, at 123 pages that’s a virtual war and peace novel for a federal appellate court, and certainly a key takeaway for corporate counsel to realize that even multimillion-dollar TCPA class action settlements can be vaporized on appeal if the i’s are not dotted and the t’s are not crossed in the appropriate way as required by Rule 23. Ryan, I know there was another significant ruling by the Second Circuit in this space last year in the Soliman case. Can you tell our listeners about that decision?

Ryan: Yeah, the ruling was a win for companies that have pre-existing lists of numbers that they use to make calls. In Soliman, the plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the defendant violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages, using an ATDS and an artificial or pre-recorded voice. The plaintiff asserted the defendant had sent several automated marketing text messages to her cell phone using a system that employed a pre-existing list of telephone numbers. Although the plaintiff had previously consented to receive such messages from the defendant, she opted out by texting “STOP.” The plaintiff then contended that she subsequently received another automated message. So, the district court ruled that the defendant’s system did not violate the TCPA because it used a pre-existing list of numbers rather than generating the numbers randomly or sequentially, as the Supreme Court found in Duguid. So, the district court also found that the TCPA’s prohibition against artificial or pre-recorded voice messages does not apply to text messages. The Second Circuit agreed with the District Court. It held that the defendant’s text messaging system did not violate the TCPA and explained that the TCPA prohibits systems that generate random numbers, not those that use pre-existing lists, and that these text messages are not covered by the prohibition on artificial or pre-reported voices. The Second Circuit therefore affirmed the dismissal of the claims.

Jerry: I know this is a hotly contested issue in the circuit, so I would predict in 2025 we’re going to see more rulings on this issue from the other circuits. Maybe even a circuit split that finds its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I’ve always thought the mantra of the plaintiffs’ bar is file the case, certify the case, monetize the case, and to knock down significant settlements. How did the plaintiffs’ bar do in 2024 when it came to this space in terms of monetizing their cases and pulling down class action settlements?

Katelynn: They did very well in securing high-dollar settlements. In 2024, the top 10 TCPA class actions totaled $84.73 million, which was actually down from the 2023 total of $103 million.

Jerry: That’s a lot of money for a few errant phone calls, and certainly we’ll be tracking these settlements in the coming year in our Duane Morris Class Action Review. Well, thank you both for joining us today and lending your expertise and describing our new desk reference, the TCPA Class Action Review. Thanks so much for being here.

Ryan: Thanks so much for the opportunity, Jerry. Appreciate it.

Katelynn: Thanks for having us, Jerry. Thank you to all the listeners, we appreciate your time.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and senior associates Anne Gruner and Betty Luu with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review, including notable developments in the areas of opioid and PFAS litigation in the products liability and mass tort context.

Bookmark or download the Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025, which is fully searchable and viewable from any device.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung 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, Anne and Betty – and Betty, in this instance who is joining us for the first time – thanks for being here in our podcast. This is Episode 94 of the Class Action Weekly Wire, and we’re excited to have you here while we deliver noteworthy class action content to our loyal blog listeners.

Anne Gruner: Thank you, Jerry, happy to be here and happy to be a part of this podcast.

Betty Luu: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: So, today we’re discussing the publication of the Duane Morris Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review, which we published recently on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Anne, can you tell our listeners a bit about this desk reference?

Anne: Yes, absolutely, Jerry. Thanks. So, the Duane Morris Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review for 2025 analyzes the key rulings and developments in these areas for 2024, and then also the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action litigation looking forward for 2025. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource in their compliance with the evolving laws and standards in this area.

Jerry: So, as a general rule, products liability litigation, I think, can be categorized into two types of principal claims. First are products liability class actions alleging that a product itself causes injuries to an individual or group of people in the class, and these are typically physical injury claims, like someone being harmed by an allegedly defective product. The second category involves mass tort claims that are typically an aggregation of many individual lawsuits that are managed by a judge in an MDL that feels very much like a class action. Betty, in 2024, how did the plaintiffs’ bar do in certifying products liability and mass tort class actions?

Betty: In 2024, plaintiffs had a mixed record with class certification in product liability and mass tort actions. Of the motions for class certification, 50% were granted and 50% were denied. It’s always a balancing act in these types of cases. The unique facts of each case really influence the outcome. For example, labeling-related cases might fare better for certification, because everyone involved often has the same injury – say, a health condition caused by undisclosed ingredients in a product. However, even in these cases, the individual’s medical history can play a role.

Jerry: That’s interesting. And that’s a really big change from the year before, because both in 2022 and in 2023, courts were granting motions for class certification at a rate close to 70%. And I’ve always thought the mantra of the plaintiffs’ bar is file the case, certify it, and then monetize it. So, a diminished class certification conversion rate for plaintiffs is very telling for defendants in these sorts of cases.

Let’s shift gears a little bit – one of the biggest examples of mass tort litigation in recent years has been opioid litigation. What happened in that space over the last 12 months?

Anne: Well, sure, Jerry, this is a very interesting area, as you pointed out. So, the opioid litigation is massive, and it really is an ongoing saga. It’s been consolidated since 2017, and it involves thousands of lawsuits filed by governments and individuals against manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies. The central issue is the manufacturers allegedly downplaying the addictive nature of the opioids contributing to a public health crisis. They’ve led to billions of dollars in settlements, though some of those are still being contested. The Sixth Circuit currently, for example, is deciding whether to enforce a $650 million judgment against the pharmacies in two different Ohio counties, and has asked Ohio Supreme Court to weigh in and determine whether state law permits the public nuisance claim – a type of claim that’s asserted to address public problems such as chemical spills.

Betty: And of course, the bankruptcy proceedings for Purdue Pharma have also been a major part of ongoing opioid litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that Purdue’s bankruptcy plan couldn’t shield the Sackler family, the owners of Purdue, from future litigation. The Sacklers were accused of personally profiting from Purdue’s aggressive marketing strategies that helped fuel the opioid epidemic. However, as part of the bankruptcy settlement, the Sacklers were seeking protection from further litigation, which would shield them from being held personally liable for the company’s role in the opioid crisis. The Supreme Court concluded that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release or injunction as part of a Chapter 11 reorganization plan that seeks to discharge claims against a non-debtor, such as the Sacklers, without the consent of the affected claimants.

Jerry: That’s a huge, significant decision, and certainly shows the complexity of mass torts superimposed in the class action space, and how they intersect with many issues involving bankruptcy, public health issues, and settlements. As I understand it, our clients are also facing PFAS litigation, which is another huge, growing area of potential risk and liability.

Anne: Yes, absolutely. So, PFAS, or “forever chemicals” as they’re more commonly known, have become a major issue due to their environmental impact. These chemicals, which are found in products like firefighting foam, have contaminated water supplies leading to health concerns. Over 300 different lawsuits have been filed, with many consolidated into an MDL in South Carolina.

Betty: The EPA has started setting limits on PFAS in drinking water, and several states have enacted new regulations. In April 2024, the EPA finalized the ruling setting the first-ever limits for PFAS in drinking water, and is already subject to multiple legal challenges. In October of 2024, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy said in a report that it will continue to look for new technologies to remove so-called forever chemicals from the environment in five s  tates and find safe alternatives for the substances.

Jerry: Well, certainly the plaintiffs’ bar on the class action side is attracted by the potential money in these areas and our Review appropriately focuses on the leading class action settlements in this space over the past 12 months. How did plaintiffs do in terms of a scorecard of garnering large settlements in this area over the past 12 months?

Anne: Well, Jerry, plaintiffs did very well in securing high dollar settlements in 2024 – the top 10 totaled $23.396 billion. That was just a slight drop from 2023, when the top 10 settlements in the space totaled $25.83 billion. One of the top settlements of the year was for $10.3 billion to resolve claims with 3M by utilities that maintain it is liable for damage they have, and will incur, due to its signature PFAS that were used for decades in specialized fire suppressants and that were sprayed directly into the environment and reached drinking water.

Jerry: Wow, well, I guess that’s a sign of the times. We used to talk about $1 million settlements being large, and in this space, now we’re talking about $1 billion settlements. Well, thanks, Anne, and thanks, Betty, for being here today and for lending your thought leadership for our loyal listeners who tuned in to hear about our Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review. Thanks so much for being here.

Anne: Absolutely. Thank you, Jerry, and thank you to all the listeners.

Betty: Thank you, Jerry, and thanks to all for tuning in to the Weekly Wire.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman, senior associate Alessandra Mungioli, and associate Ryan Garippo with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review.

Bookmark or download the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review e-book here, which is fully searchable and accessible from any device.

Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Samsung 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 joining me today are my colleagues, Ryan and Alessandra. Thanks so much for being on the podcast today.

Alessandra Mungioli: Thank you, Jerry, happy to be part of the podcast.

Ryan Garippo: Thanks, Jerry. Glad to be here.

Jerry: So, today we are discussing the recent publication of the second edition of the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review. Listeners can find that book in e-book form on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Alessandra, can you tell our listeners a little bit about the publication and desk reference?

Alessandra: Absolutely, Jerry. Class action litigation in the consumer fraud space remains an area of key focus for skilled class action litigators in the plaintiffs’ bar. As a result, compliance with consumer fraud laws and the myriad of ways that companies, customers, and third parties interact is a corporate imperative. To that end, the class action team here at Duane Morris is pleased to present the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review for 2025. This publication analyzes the key consumer fraud-related rulings and developments from 2024, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action litigation for 2025. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these ever-evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: For those using a scorecard, in 2024 there was a mixed bag of results which led to major victories for both plaintiffs and defendants in this space. Ryan, what were some of the key takeaways from the publication in regard to litigation in this particular area?

Ryan: Well, Jerry, like many areas, obtaining class certification is still one of the most effective procedural tools to vindicate the rights of consumers. In 2024, plaintiffs were successful in receiving class certification in 57% of the motions that were filed, which was down from the number in 2023 when courts granted 66% of those motions.

Jerry: Well, that overall number and the tracking of the statistics is certainly telling and interesting. What would you anticipate 2025 will bring for companies that are facing consumer fraud class actions?

Ryan: Well, as the class action landscape continues to develop so, too, are the playbooks for the plaintiffs and defense bars. Counsel on both sides are becoming more sophisticated and creative in their approaches to prosecuting and defending class actions. There’s a wide variety of conducts that gives rise to consumer fraud class actions in every industry susceptible, so at least in 2024, consumer fraud class actions ran the gamut of false advertising and false labeling claims from everything to cannabis to nuts. So, we anticipate this is continue going to continue to be the case in 2025.

Jerry: Well, the plaintiffs’ bar is nothing if not innovative. I had a data breach incident that came across my desk last night that involved allegations under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. So, the plaintiffs’ bar is pushing the envelope for sure in this particular space. In terms of companies that are trying to comply with consumer fraud statutes, the Review also talks about the top consumer fraud settlements in 2024. How did plaintiffs do in securing settlement funds this past year?

Alessandra: They did very well in securing high dollar settlements. In 2024, the top 10 consumer fraud settlements totaled a staggering $2.4 billion. However, although this is a huge dollar amount, it was a significant difference since 2023, when the top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled $3.29 billion dollars. But really, this just shows the massive amount of money involved in some of these class actions where thousands to millions of consumers could potentially be involved.

Jerry: Well, gosh, the stakes are quite high then, and we’ll continue to track those settlement numbers in 2025. If you just look at your iPhone and scroll through things like Twitter, you see plaintiffs’ bar advertising and then publicizing these big settlements. So, it may well be this year is another record-breaking year when it comes to settlement amounts. Well, thanks so much for being here today, and thank you to our loyal listeners for tuning in. Please stop by our blog and download a free copy of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review e-book.

Ryan: Thanks, Jerry, for having me, and thanks to all the listeners.

Alessandra: Thanks, so much, everyone.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman, special counsel Justin Donoho, and senior associate Tyler Zmick with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review, including the major settlements and cutting-edge litigation theories percolating in a variety of privacy-related class actions, including the Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), advertising technologies (“adtech”), and artificial intelligence tools.

Bookmark or download the Privacy Class Action Review e-book here, which is fully searchable and accessible from any device.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome, loyal listeners, to the next installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire. My name is Jerry Maatman, I’m a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues, Justin and Tyler.

Justin Donoho: Thank you, Jerry, happy to be part of the podcast.

Tyler Zmick: Thanks, Jerry. I’m glad to be here.

Jerry: Today on our podcast we’re discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Privacy Class Action Review. Our loyal listeners can download the desk reference from our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Justin, can you tell our listeners a little bit about our desk reference?

Justin: Yes, and thank you. Last year saw a continued explosion in privacy class action litigation. As a result, it is imperative that companies beef up their efforts to comply with privacy laws in the many ways that companies interact with employees, customers, and others. To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the Privacy Class Action Review – 2025. This publication analyzes the key privacy-related rulings and developments in 2024, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting privacy class action litigation for 2025 in a variety of different privacy-related subject areas. We hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, just on this podcast I know the assembled speakers have over 60 years of experience in dealing with these issues. But I’d have to say 2024 was a year of incredible change and flux. Tyler, what are some of the key guideposts out there in the case law over the past 12 months?

Tyler: So, there’s been an explosion of class action lawsuits in recent years, including 2024, involving adtech technologies. And of course, biometric data. I think the biggest driver is the fact that we are operating in a legal environment that is evolving so quickly that said technology has far outpaced the law, especially when it comes to new tools like Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and other adtech technologies. While these tools are innovative in many ways that benefit businesses, they’re also collecting massive amounts of sensitive data – data that consumers may have never explicitly agreed to share. The courts are now grappling with outdated statutes, such as old wiretapping and eavesdropping laws, and trying to apply them to modern technologies.

Justin: Absolutely. Businesses that rely on these technologies have often done so without thinking through a variety of ways that they can mitigate the risk of noncompliance or mitigate the risk of facing any class action lawsuit in the first place, by modernizing their terms of service and data privacy policies. The rise in class actions is directly related to an increased public awareness about data privacy, and of course, the increased aggressiveness of plaintiffs’ attorneys trying to expand the application of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, for example, with high-profile cases alleging violations of various AI technologies that perform functions other than facial recognition or any kind of person recognition.

Jerry: Speaking of BIPA – 2024 certainly saw a mixed bag of rulings related to biometric data collection, particularly on the issue of facial analysis technologies. So, how does one make sense, if you’re a corporate decision-maker, of what businesses are facing and the risks that are out there, given these murky waters with the case law developments?

Tyler: That’s a great question. The mixed rulings obviously create an atmosphere of uncertainty. And that’s what I think is driving so much of the litigation companies are basically being forced to decide whether to settle or to litigate these cases and risk very high damage awards, because often there are substantial penalties for violations when courts release decisions on issues where there’s no clear-cut answer, and when the decisions are often conflicting, such as on the issue you mentioned about whether certain types of data count as biologically unique. It leaves businesses with many gray areas to navigate, and this is only compounded by the reality that these technologies evolve faster than courts can keep up.

Justin: Yes, and from the business side, companies are being forced to take a much more cautious approach when it comes to how they collect and process biometric data. For example, they’re revisiting their privacy policies in terms of service and taking a closer look at the technologies they use, too. Some companies, especially larger ones, like Google, Meta, and Oracle, have already settled for significant amounts, which sends a clear signal to others that ignoring these issues is just simply too costly.

Jerry: Let’s talk about settlements. So, the plaintiffs’ mantra is file the case, certify the case, then monetize the case. Certainly, in the last 12 months we saw some eye-popping settlements, particularly the $1.4 billion deal between Meta and the State of Texas. What does this tell us about the broader implications of these settlements and what it means for companies operating in this sort of environment?

Justin: Yeah, the size of these settlements is indicative of the stakes involved for sure. As you mentioned, the Meta settlement alone was huge, and it’s reflective of the kind of high-dollar cases we are now seeing across the board. Privacy class action litigation has outpaced other areas of law in terms of growth. And as companies continue to allegedly violate privacy laws, there’s real financial risk involved statutory damages in some of these privacy laws can reach up to $5,000 per violation, which to a plaintiff means per website visit of millions of visitors. And with class actions these violations multiply quickly. This creates significant potential liability for companies.

Tyler: I think that’s exactly right. and it’s not just the monetary cost. These cases also damage a company’s reputation in the world we live in. Consumers are more aware than ever of how their data is used. And if you’re a company in a settlement like that, it’s not just about paying a fine – you’ve also potentially lost consumer trust, and that can have long term business implications.

Jerry: Well, we’ve certainly seen a rise in filings of privacy-related class actions, but we’re also seeing an increase in the skill and ability of the plaintiffs’ bar to secure certification in these class actions. Do you expect this trend to continue during 2025?

Justin: Well, at least the rise in privacy class actions I expect to continue. I mean, it’s been going like this, and it’s going to keep going. We’ll see about the certification decisions as more consumers become aware of their rights, and as data privacy laws continue to evolve. I think we’ll continue to see an uptick in class action filings for sure. Privacy law is still in its infancy in many respects. and many of the current legal frameworks just don’t fully cover the realities of all the new technologies, and how data is being used today, and how data science is evolving the ambiguity is creating fertile grounds for litigation, and I expect that to keep growing.

Tyler: And from a litigation standpoint – yes, we’ll likely continue to see class actions. However, I do think that courts will eventually have to provide more clarity on some of these unsettled issues. We’ve got one of the first federal appeals brewing soon, for example, regarding whether online advertising technology violates the Federal Wiretap Act. As things currently stand, though, the litigation landscape in this area and many other areas of privacy law remain in flux, and there’s still a lot of uncertainty about certain privacy laws, and how they will be applied.

Jerry: Well, I guess the bottom line is we’ve reached a pivot point, certainly a pivotal moment in the intersection of technology and privacy law. Well, thank you, Justin and Tyler, for being here today, and thank you to our loyal listeners for participating in this week’s Class Action Weekly Wire. Please stop by and visit our blog for a free copy that you can download of the Privacy Class Action Review e-book.

Tyler: Thank you for having me, Jerry, and thank you, Listeners.

Justin: Thank you so much, everybody.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley, special counsel Justin Donoho, and associate Ryan Garippo with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the 2025 edition of the Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review, including the contributing factors in the exponential growth of data breach class action filings, the sophistication of the plaintiffs’ bar litigation theories, and the chart-topping settlements in this area.  

Bookmark or download the Data Breach Class Action Review e-book here, which is fully searchable and accessible from any device.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome all our loyal listeners and blog readers. Thank you for being here on our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m, Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues, Jen, Justin, and Ryan. Thanks so much for being on this particular podcast.

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

Justin Donoho: Thanks, Jerry. Glad to be here.

Ryan Garippo: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today in the podcast we’re discussing the publication of this year’s Duane Morris Data Breach Class Action Review and desk reference designed for our clients to give them the latest, greatest information on the cutting-edge issues in the world of data breach class action. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense blog. Jen, can you share with our listeners a bit about this desk reference and publication?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. The volume of data breach class actions exploded in 2024. Data breach has emerged as one of the fastest growing areas of class action litigation. The Review contains an overview of these filing numbers as well as settlements as well as some of the key decisions in this area. So, in sum, courts continue to reach inconsistent outcomes on issues such as standing and uninjured class members, those issues that are uniquely challenging in the data breach space. The Review has dozens of contributors, and it reflects really the collective experience and expertise of our class action defense group.

Jerry: I think it used to be, people thought whenever there was a drop in the stock following a company announcement, as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west every day, there’d be a securities fraud class action lawsuit being filed. That seems to be the case now, when there’s a data breach incident, a data breach class action follows in its wake. Justin, can you shed some light on why this particular cause of action in this particular space has been growing incrementally over the last 36 months?

Justin: Absolutely. I mean, the frequency of the data breaches have been increasing, which is a huge part, and of course, with that comes heightened attention from both consumers and the plaintiffs’ bar. High profile cases, such as that multidistrict litigation arising from the Marriott International breach that affected over 133 million people, for example. There’s the MOVEIt MDL, which is another big one that got going last year. These have all put companies on notice that failure to secure personal data can lead to costly litigation. Cost lawsuits are not just about the breach itself, it’s also about the aftermath. So, consumers are now more aware of the risks and more inclined to seek legal recourse when their data is compromised.

Jerry: I think this is a great area where the notion that the law is trailing behind technology and can’t keep up with it – may well explain some of the developments in this particular space from a cybersecurity perspective. How do you think the increasing frequency of these sorts of events, and the sophistication of cyber criminals, is playing out in the class action space?

Ryan: Well, the rise in cyberattacks is definitely a huge factor. We’re seeing more sophisticated tactics from cybercriminals. Ransomware is at least one prime example – hackers demand payments in exchange for not publishing or further exploiting stolen data. The issue is that paying the ransom doesn’t necessarily guarantee the safe return or the deletion of the data, which makes these incidents devastating for companies. Additionally, I think we’ve seen as there’s been a shift to remote work and cloud-based infrastructure, that more vulnerabilities are exposed which ultimately increases the frequency of breaches. As a result, I think we’re seeing more lawsuits following these incidents and plaintiffs’ attorneys are more eager to capitalize on the growing number of affected individuals.

Jerry: In the last two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case for review on the issue of uninjured class members, and whether or not their presence is something that can be used by a defendant to stop class certification. And one of the things we’ve seen in the last few years in the data breach area is the lack of injury or no injury-in-fact, as the Supreme Court has articulated that in TransUnion v. Ramirez. Jen, what do you see in terms of what plaintiffs are doing to try and come up with theories, at least from a financial damage or injury standpoint, that companies are now facing in what I would call data breach litigation 2.0?

Jennifer: Well, Jerry, I think several factors are really contributing to the rise of the popularity of these lawsuits. First, I think the sheer volume of people affected by these breaches has ballooned. Especially with breaches impacting millions of consumers or employees. As the size of these cases increases, I think it naturally leads to higher settlement amounts which in turn are attracting more plaintiffs’ lawyers to this area. Additionally, I think the type of data being compromised is becoming more sensitive – financial and healthcare information, for example – are leading to additional claims and higher potential damages and are leading plaintiffs’ attorneys to become more creative in looking for ways to monetize, capitalize on these breaches in terms of converting them into settlement dollars.

Justin: Yes, absolutely. And some courts are also becoming more sympathetic to plaintiffs in these cases, and to the potential long-term consequences of data breaches to plaintiffs, even where immediate harm is not apparent. So, it’ll be interesting to see where that Supreme Court case plays out. And let’s not forget about the legal fees and the expert fees also contributing to some of these large settlement dollars. As these cases become more complex with issues like class certification and determining damages, and the reasonableness of the cybersecurity, the costs involved in litigating these lawsuits are skyrocketing.

Jerry: You mentioned class certification – certainly the plaintiffs’ bar their theory is file the case, certify the case, then monetize the case, and the statistical study within the desk reference talks about the rise in class certification to 40%. Still a low number, but significantly up from 16% in calendar year 2023. What do you attribute to the trend that’s showing an upward number and a more of a chance for the plaintiffs’ bar to certify their data breach class actions?

Ryan: Well, like we mentioned before, I think it’s reflective of the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel has gotten more sophisticated in this space, and courts are getting more sympathetic to the plaintiffs at issue. But that said, class certification is still a major hurdle in any class action. And it’s particularly challenging in data breach cases. The increased success rate for class certification in the data breach space is 40% in 2024, reflecting that evolving legal precedent. Courts are now more inclined to accept the argument that consumers have suffered harm, even if their data hasn’t been directly misused, and that the mere recognition of an indirect harm, such as the increased risk of identity, theft, or emotional dispute or emotional distress, is enough to allow plaintiffs to get into court and overcome this clear obstacle.

Jerry: Jen, what were some of the major data breach litigation markers in the federal courts this year, by your way of thinking?

Jennifer: Well, Jerry, great question. We discuss in the Review some of the largest ones. Certainly, one of the prime examples is the ongoing MOVEIt Customer Data Breach Litigation. That litigation that began back in 2023 continued throughout 2024, and is ongoing. In that one, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated more than 200 class action lawsuits. Those lawsuits resulted from a Russian cybergang hacking the file transfer software MOVEIt. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred those proceedings after consolidating them to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs in that case, as I mentioned, alleged that this vulnerability in the Massachusetts-based company MOVEIt, a transfer file software, was exploited. That data breach is considered to be the largest hack of 2023. According to the Panel’s initial transfer order, it exposed personally identifiable information of more than 55 million people. So, as I mentioned, that proceeding is ongoing. In July 2024, the Transferee Court issued an order adopting a modified bellwether structure in which it ordered the plaintiffs to file up to six consolidated amended complaints, and it ordered the parties to meet confer on the defendants to be named in each of those. The plaintiffs are going to file their motions for class certification, according to the schedule at least, in the summer of 2025. So, lots to be done in those cases yet.

Jerry: Well, it seems to me that data breach litigation, especially in the class action arena, is a problem or a fear that keeps corporate counsel up at night, and some of the top settlements in this space in 2024 maybe fuel that fear. What were some of the key and highest class action settlements in the data breach case, despite the fact that certification hovered around 40%?

Justin: Yes, Jerry. Plaintiffs did very well in securing high dollar settlements last year, with the top 10 settlements totaling $593.2 million dollars. This was a significant increase over 2023 when the top 10 totaled $515 million – so they keep going up, too.

Jerry: Well, my prognostication is the 2025 numbers are going to go up and even exceed those chart-toppers in the next 12 months. In terms of final parting thoughts for our loyal listeners, what are some of the takeaways and key points that our listeners and readers should keep in mind for data breach issues in 2025?

Ryan: Invest in strong cybersecurity measures – it’s essential to stay out of the game in this space and constantly involve your cybersecurity infrastructure against these emerging threats. But beyond that, companies should also have a well-designated incident response plan in place and make sure that it’s regularly tested. This helps ensure not only quicker recovery, but also a stronger defense in court if a breach ever occurs. This legal landscape is evolving, and data breaches are no longer niche; they’re becoming an expected part of the litigation landscape, and so, having a proactive and comprehensive approach can help mitigate the immediate and long-term costs, and help keep you out of those $500 million numbers that Jerry and Justin mentioned before.

Jerry: Well, thanks, Jen, Justin, and Ryan, for your thought leadership and your analysis of this particular area. Loyal listeners, please stop by our blog and website to download for free our e-book, Data Breach Class Action Review – 2025. Thanks so much everyone for lending your expertise today on our Class Action Weekly Wire podcast.

Ryan: Thanks, Jerry.

Justin: Thanks for having me and thank you, listeners.

Jennifer: Thanks so much, everyone. See you next week.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Greg Tsonis with their discussion of the key trends analyzed in the third edition of the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review, including courts’ interpretation of the conditional certification process, a circuit-by-circuit scorecard, and best practices for employers in 2025.

Bookmark or download the Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review e-book here, which is fully searchable and accessible from any device.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome back, podcast listeners, to our first session of the Class Action Weekly Wire for calendar year 2025. Thank you for being here. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are my partners, Jen Riley and Greg Tsonis. Welcome back.

Jennifer Riley: Thank you, Jerry, happy to be on the first week of Weekly Wire podcast of 2025.

Greg Tsonis: Thanks, Jerry. Glad to be here.

Jerry: Today on our podcast we’re going to be discussing the most recent publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense group regarding the 2025 Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book version of this publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Jen, can you share with our listeners some of the ins and outs of this executive summary and e-book?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. In the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class and Collective Action Review, we provide an overview of the trends, the key decisions, and the key settlements impacting the wage and hour space over the past year. The purpose of the Review is really multifaceted. First, we hope that it will demystify some of the complexities of class and collective action litigation in the wage and hour space. Second, we really hope the book will keep corporate counsel updated on the ever-evolving landscape of Rule 23 and FLSA collective actions and enable them to really make informed decisions in dealing with these complex litigation risks.

Jerry: Well, I know that wage and hour litigation is one of the hallmarks of our practice with our team collectively having over 225 years of experience in defending these sorts of cases. The review was edited by the three of us on this podcast and we have dozens of additional contributors that analyzed all of the wage and hour class and collective action certification rulings and settlements over the past 12 months. Greg, from your standpoint in terms of dealing with general counsel, what do you think are some of the benefits of this resource?

Greg: Great question, Jerry. So, wage and hour litigation has long been a focus of the plaintiffs’ class action bar. Part of our purpose in putting this together is really to assist our clients by helping them identify developing trends in the case law and offering practical approaches and dealing with these types of cases and class and collective action litigation.

Jerry: As you had mentioned – in 2024, this was a very active space for the plaintiffs’ class action bar, and I think one of the things that clients have remarked to me about is the statistical analysis contained in the Review in terms of looking at circuits’ success rates for both the plaintiff side and the defense side. I know in calendar year 2024, there were approximately 160 motions that were decided and actually plaintiffs had a high degree of success at close to 80%. Jen, what’s your take on why the plaintiffs’ bar is able to certify in essence 4 out of 5 cases?

Jennifer: Great question, Jerry. So, the threshold for conditional certification tends to be very low. In many cases, plaintiffs are submitting declarations – sometimes only one or two declarations, sometimes with payroll or time records – and courts are routinely accepting this minimal showing. It’s really not about proving the case, at this stage just about showing there’s a plausible basis for contending that the same allegations apply across a defined group. So, given that the plaintiffs’ bar knows this process so well, it’s really no surprise that they are continuing to have a high rate of success here.

Greg: Exactly, and plaintiffs are often able to leverage the conditional certification process and the subsequent notice that issues to bring in more employees to build their case. The fact that it’s relatively easy to get certified gives them a significant advantage right from the start.

Jerry: At least in all circuits except two, both the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, there’s a standard two-part test. A first stage called the lenient stage of conditional certification, and then a second stage called decertification. What occurred in 2024 in terms of how decertification motions came down, especially with respect to the changes or flux in the case law based on what’s coming out of the Fifth and Sixth Circuits?

Greg: That’s right, Jerry. So, after conditional certification, there’s a decertification phase where the court looks closer at the actual claims, the actual evidence that the plaintiffs have been able to marshal, and determine whether those employees are actually similarly situated. Now, historically, federal courts were almost universally following a two-stage process, but as of 2021, the Fifth Circuit threw a wrench in that with its decision in Swales v. KLLM Transport Services. There, the Fifth Circuit essentially abandoned the two-stage process and instituted a more rigorous approach where they required plaintiffs to present stronger evidence upfront. The Sixth Circuit followed suit in a case in 2023, but took a different approach by imposing even stricter standards.

Jerry: It’s very interesting to me that a piece of New Deal legislation passed in 1938, even close to 100 years later, has three different standards – a virtual patchwork quilt of case law depending on where an employer is sued, and what particular circuit’s law is applicable to the certification motion. What’s that like, Jen, in terms of what employers face in trying to defend themselves in these sorts of cases?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. In a word, it’s creating inconsistency. And that inconsistency could be problematic because it makes predicting outcomes more difficult. And with these now 3 distinct standards, there is a growing chance that the Supreme Court eventually will step in to provide some clarity here.

Jerry: I think it also has something to do with case architecture and venue selection. In 2023, we saw two dozen rulings in the Sixth Circuit. Yet last year, only a dozen, basically a 50% drop in the number of cases filed and then went to certification there. What do you think are the long-term implications in terms of FLSA litigation and venue selection?

Jennifer: Well, Jerry, it’s hard to say for sure. On the one hand, the stricter certification process could deter some plaintiffs from filing in the Sixth Circuit. That certainly seems to have been the case over the past year. On the other hand, employers could face a tougher time getting cases decertified after they’ve been conditionally certified which could lead to larger settlements, or more cases being litigated in other jurisdictions. So, we may see a shift in how and where the cases are filed going forward.

Jerry: Well, certainly anyone who is awake and watching TV on January 20th saw that change is inevitable, and change is now upon us, at least at the governmental sector. Greg, what do you think 2025 bodes for employers in terms of the types of things that the private plaintiffs’ bar will do, especially in the context of FLSA class and collective action litigation?

Greg: The overall trend is clear, Jerry. Employers should be aware that wage and hour litigation isn’t going away anytime soon. Given the plaintiffs’ bar’s ongoing success in these types of cases, and the ease with which they’re able to secure conditional certification, employers really need to be proactive. That means making sure that their pay practices are fully compliant, making sure that they’re reviewing employee classifications, and being ready to respond quickly to potential lawsuits. If they don’t, they might face costly litigation even in those jurisdictions where the plaintiffs’ bar is seeing more pushback.

Jennifer: And to add to that, employers also should be mindful of jurisdictions that are considered plaintiff-friendly, such as the Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Ninth Circuit. These are areas where a lot of FLSA litigation is concentrated and they tend to have even higher success rates for the plaintiffs.

Jerry: Success is all about filing the lawsuit, certifying it, and monetizing it. The Review spends a lot of pages delving into key settlements in the wage and hour space – what were the results in 2024 and what does it tell us for 2025?

Greg: Well, Jerry, plaintiffs did very well in securing high-dollar settlements in 2024 in this space, although not quite as well as they did in 2023. In 2024, the top 10 wage and hour settlements totaled just shy of $615 million. That was a decrease from 2023, when the top 10 wage and hour settlements totaled $742.5 million, but relatively in line with recent years.

Jerry: Well, my prognostications are the numbers in 2025 are going to go through the roof, and I think we’re apt to see even higher numbers than we’ve seen ever before. But obviously the jury’s still out on that. Well, thank you, Jen, and thank you, Greg, for your thought leadership and analysis in this area, and thank you to our loyal blog readers for tuning in to our first podcast of 2025. Please order your free copy of the Duane Morris Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review e-book right off of our blog.

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

Jennifer: Thanks so much, everyone.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their discussion of a U.S. Supreme Court decision vacating a D.C. Circuit ruling in an NLRB dispute over an employer’s liability for withdrawing recognition from a union under the agency’s successor bar standard. This ruling marks a notable development in the wake of the high court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando opinion overturning the Chevron doctrine.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you loyal blog readers and listeners for joining our next episode of the weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me is Jen Riley, the vice chair of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group. Thanks for being on the podcast, Jen.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks so much, Jerry. Great to be here.

Jerry: Today we’ll be breaking down the Supreme Court’s acceptance of a case for review involving the National Labor Relations Board and Hospital Menonita de Guayama from Puerto Rico. The case is crucial, especially after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case, which reshapes how courts review agencies interpretations of the law. I think this is a fascinating case, and a great opportunity to talk about how the Supreme Court’s shift in its approach is going to affect labor law and employment relations. It’s an interplay between agency discretion, and judicial review. And it’s really at the heart of class action litigation. Jen, can you recap the main points of this case for our viewers and listeners?

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry, absolutely. The case involves a dispute where a hospital in Puerto Rico withdrew recognition from a union; the National Labor Relations Board ruled that this violated the National Labor Relations Act, citing the successor bar doctrine. That doctrine prevents an employer from withdrawing recognition from a union for at least six months after taking over a bargaining unit. After the hospital filed suit, the D.C. Circuit upheld the NLRB’s decision, and eventually the Supreme Court granted review and agreed to hear the case.

Jerry: Thanks, Jen. The core issue here is whether the successor bar doctrine, which the NLRB has applied for year, is legally valid – especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Loper Bright case. The Supreme Court’s ruling overruled the longstanding Chevron doctrine which had instructed lower federal courts to defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes. That ruling has profound implications for federal courts, which will now review decisions made by agencies like the NLRB in this particular case.

Jennifer: Exactly, Jerry. That is why the Hospital Menonita case is so important. The Chevron doctrine is rooted in the idea that in certain circumstances, agencies with expertise in certain areas are better positioned to interpret ambiguous statutes than courts. If the statute is ambiguous, the court must assess whether the agency’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable. The court will generally uphold the agency’s interpretation, if it is a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous statute, even if the court itself might have interpreted the statute differently. Courts generally give significant deference to agencies’ expertise and experience in interpreting laws within their jurisdiction.

This is now up for scrutiny, of course, after Loper Bright. Essentially, the hospital argued that the court should independently review whether the NLRB’s interpretation of the law, particularly the successor bar doctrine, was correct under the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB defended its position, claiming that the D.C. Circuit wasn’t relying solely on Chevron and upholding the decision. The NLRB argued that the circuit actually used pre-Chevron case law that recognized agency discretion in interpreting the National Labor Relations Act. However, the hospital countered that under Loper Bright, any deference to the NLRB’s interpretation would need to be reconsidered.

Jerry: Interesting. I think this is somewhat of a blueprint or a test case for how employers or corporations sued, based on interpretations of agency regulations, can turn the table, so to speak, and argue that federal district court judges should interpret the laws as enacted, and not based on somewhat liberal interpretations of those laws by agencies. That’s exactly what the hospital, as I understand it, argued in terms of the Loper Bright decision requires the court to critically assess an agency’s interpretation, and not simply defer carte blanche to them. In the past, courts would have applied Chevron, and given the agency a wide berth in terms of all benefits, or the jump ball, going to the agency in terms of its interpretation. But now, with Loper Bright we have a new playing field, and the Supreme Court has signaled that agency interpretations will be scrutinized, particularly when the statute in question is ambiguous.

Jennifer: Exactly. The Supreme Court ultimately vacated the D.C. Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case here, sending it back to the D.C. Circuit for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright.

Jerry: It’s interesting, insofar as now the argument is ‘this is the essential reading of the statute, and how the court should interpret it, and the agency’s interpretation is just one data point.’ And now defendants have significant precedent to say agencies’ interpretations have been rejected and basically maybe not even a data point, but shouldn’t even be considered. So, the balance of power has shifted and the litmus test, so to speak, or the playing field on which defendants are operating has completely shifted, based on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Jennifer: Great point, Jerry. The successor bar doctrine itself is already controversial. Some people argue that it’s necessary to protect workers’ rights during employer transitions, while others think it goes too far in restricting employers’ ability to challenge unions.

Jerry: Well, now the case is back with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the D.C. Circuit, and it’s that time of the year when people make New Year’s resolutions and predict what’s going to happen in 2025. What is the Jen Riley prognostication as to the ultimate outcome of this particular case?

Jennifer: Well, this one is hard to say. The D.C. Circuit will have to reconsider its ruling with the Loper Bright framework in mind, which means it will have to engage in a more detailed analysis of whether the NLRB’s interpretation of the law is the best reading of the National Labor Relations Act. If the court decides that the successor bar doctrine doesn’t align with the statute, we could see a major shift in labor law, particularly in how unions and employers navigate these types of transitions.

Jerry: Well, that’s a very succinct summary of the significant implications of this case. Stay tuned, readers and listeners. 2025 – put on your seatbelts. This is going to be a heck of a ruling. Well, thank you so much, Jen, for your thought leadership and your contributions and giving us an inside baseball look at what’s going on in terms of the future interpretations of the Loper Bright doctrine, and how that will impact corporations and their defense of both labor and employment matters and class actions in general.

Jennifer: Thanks so much, Jerry. Thanks for having me, and happy holidays to all of our listeners!

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Bernadette Coyle with their discussion of the 2024-2025 edition of the American Tort Reform Association’s (“ATRA”) “Judicial Hellholes” report, which details the 10 least favorable venues for corporate defendants across the country.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog readers and listeners for joining us for our weekly podcast series. My name is Jerry Maatman, and I’m a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Bernadette Coyle. Thanks so much for being on the podcast.

Bernadette Coyle: Thanks, Jerry. I’m very happy to be here.

Jerry: Today, our podcast covers one of my most favorite topics, and that is the annual report issued by the American Tort Reform Association, which goes by the acronym of ATRA, in terms of its annual report called the “Judicial Hellholes” report. It focuses on litigation issues and does a comparative study of litigation in all 50 states, and then ranks those states with respect to fairness or unfairness of the judicial system and bias, or lack of bias, in the administration of justice. So, it’s an important read for corporate counsel, those facing class action litigation, because it identifies what are suboptimal jurisdictions, what are challenging jurisdictions. And as a result, obviously in terms of our annual study of class action litigation, settlements, and rulings, many of the jurisdictions on that watch list happen to be epicenters for class action litigation. So, Bernadette, in this year’s report there were 10 specific jurisdictions listed as the top Judicial Hellholes, and I’m sure our loyal blog readers and listeners are anxious to hear – so what jurisdiction came out as on top of that infamous list of the worst jurisdictions in which to be sued in 2024?

Bernadette: This year, #1 was a defending champion from 2023; it was the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ranked as the most challenging venue for defendants. And over the past few years, the courts there have been issuing nuclear verdicts. We’re talking about eye-popping nine figure damage awards that seem to be handed out with very little consideration for fairness. And additionally, a recent decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has led to a flood of medical liability lawsuits by removing an important legal requirement for entry. In fact, I think they even allowed for duplicative damages in certain cases which only encourages more litigation. So, it’s definitely becoming a very plaintiff-friendly environment.

Jerry: So, kind of the watchwords are: it’s a petri dish or a hotbed for growing certain types of lawsuits. Moving on to #2, which I understand to be New York City. The report highlights it as one of the other really tough places to be sued. What’s your take on the ranking of New York City on the report?

Bernadette: Yeah, I think in New York City they noted a rise in fraudulent lawsuits, particularly with RICO lawsuits being filed against plaintiff firms and the city’s laws, including the Scaffold Law and the consumer protection act, are definitely ripe for abuse. And we’re seeing plaintiffs’ lawyers that are really cashing in on these opportunities, and it’s led to what the report is calling a “fraudemic.” It’s a growing problem in the city’s civil justice system, and unfortunately, leadership seems to be looking the other way.

Jerry: That’s certainly a very concerning trend for corporations that are sued in those jurisdictions. I know that #3 on the list is South Carolina in particular, its treatment of mass torts and the asbestos litigation. What are the problems identified there?

Bernadette: South Carolina’s asbestos judge has become infamous for being highly biased against corporate defendants. The judge often imposes unwarranted sanctions, modifies jury verdicts in favor of plaintiffs, and is becoming known for appointing a receiver to maximize insurance recoveries. All of that creates a legal environment where defendants don’t stand a fair chance, and plaintiffs are given an unfair advantage. This is really a textbook example of how judicial bias can distort the civil justice system.

Jerry: Sounds like that issue systemic to South Carolina in general, and mass tort litigation in particular. Moving on to #4, Georgia, where I litigate the defense of many class actions – what did the report have to say about the state of litigation in the Peach State?

Bernadette: Last year, Georgia was tied for #1 with Pennsylvania, and this year the report notes that Georgia is facing a rise in nuclear verdicts, huge excessive damage awards. And additionally, there’s a trend of inflated medical costs and laws that seem to set defendants up for failure. For example, Georgia still has an archaic seatbelt gag rule, meaning juries can’t even consider whether an occupant was wearing a seatbelt during a crash. It’s part of a broader trend in Georgia’s civil justice system that seems to favor plaintiffs and puts defendants at a severe disadvantage.

Jerry: Thanks. Well, next up is California, and I think that for the 42 years I’ve been a lawyer and dealing with corporate counsel, that seems to be the biggest litigation headache that they face in terms of doing business and getting sued in the state of California. What’s driving the inclusion of California this year in the Judicial Hellholes report?

Bernadette: California continues to be a major destination for plaintiffs’ lawyers looking to expand liability. The state’s legal landscape is very favorable for certain types of lawsuits. I mean, first off, California has the highest number of nuclear verdicts in the nation, and then you’ve got cases like Lemon Law claims and no injury lawsuits under the Private Attorneys General Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. These are bogging down businesses and creating endless litigation that’s both costly and inefficient.

Jerry: What about Cook County, Illinois, where I was born and raised and sitting today? That deserves special mention this year – what was your take on Cook County’s inclusion?

Bernadette: Yes, Cook County is obviously very near and dear to us, and it’s also become infamous for its disproportionate share of lawsuits, especially no injury litigation and asbestos cases. One of the biggest issues here, though, is the Biometric Information Privacy Act, which has been abused to the point where lawsuits are filed over the very smallest technicalities.

Jerry: Well, those are the major geographic tours of the Hellholes. What about a brief overview of the remainder of the top 10 list?

Bernadette: Absolutely. Next is St. Louis, Missouri, which is also a hotbed for asbestos lawsuits, and for plaintiff-friendly rulings; the Michigan Supreme Court, which seems to allow reliance on junk science; followed by King County, Washington, which made it onto the list for the first time because of judges’ tendency to allow unfair group trials and junk science into court; and finally, Louisiana, with its nuclear verdicts that distort the fairness of its civil justice system.

Jerry: Well, that’s quite a tour of judicial highlights. The ATRA report, though, also has positive developments. What were some of those in terms of the legal landscape in 2024?

Bernadette: Yes, there are bright spots. For example, several states have strengthened their expert evidence rules to prevent junk science from entering court. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against lawsuits claiming insufficient product warnings when those warnings had been federally approved. And in Kentucky and Utah, we’ve seen courts make decisions that uphold fairness in the legal system.

Jerry: Well, that is good news in terms of judges being umpires and calling balls and strikes rather than being biased in favor of plaintiffs. I do believe that the report is essential, if not required reading, for our corporate counsel, and one can learn a lot looking at these reports from year to year and transposing them against litigation statistics that basically show the epicenters or hotspots of class action litigation tend to be clustered in these states that are identified by the report in terms of constituting a judicial hellhole. Well, thank you so much, Bernadette, for joining us on your very first podcast we really appreciate your contributions and thought leadership today, and thanks so very much.

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their discussion of how the Trump’s second term in the White House could transform the class action arena heading into 2025.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog readers and listeners, for joining us for this episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m joined for this episode by my partner, Jen Riley, the vice chair of Duane Morris’ Class Action Defense Group. Welcome, Jen.

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

Jerry: Today, we’re going to be discussing the potential impact of the second Trump presidency. Obviously, the last week has been dramatic in terms of the political world in America, and many people uppermost in their mind are what are going to be the new policies, the new procedures, the goals of the Trump administration, and how that’s going to play out in the class action litigation space. Jen, do you have some immediate thoughts in terms of what we’re going to see starting in 2025?

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry. Well, since the time of Trump’s first administration, and really, over the past decade, American life and culture have really dramatically transformed. We’ve gone through a global pandemic, which drastically changed how we work and how employers manage their workplaces. The focus during the next Trump administration could reflect an even more pro-business approach with an emphasis on reducing class actions by supporting arbitration and limiting the opportunities for these large-scale lawsuits, especially in the employment space and in the consumer protection area. We also likely will see a few areas of particular focus, namely, immigration reform and easing of enforcement activity by federal agencies like the EEOC and the DOL, and a decrease in support potentially for initiatives, focusing on things like diversity in the workplace.

Jerry: I agree with those points. In living through the changeovers, from red to blue or blue to red, of the White House over the past several decades, I think this changeover may well be one of the most dramatic in memory. I’m looking for the impact on the federal judiciary and the differences between the types of individuals President Biden has nominated for appointments in the federal court compared to those that Donald Trump is apt to put forward, starting in 2025. I think that more conservative, measured federal judiciary may have a big impact in terms of class action litigation, and narrowing the circumstances where classes may well be certified. As far as immigration reform, I know that a lot of clients have been calling us about what is that to happen, and what sort of enforcement mechanisms will be in place. So, I think that America and its business leaders certainly are looking at some change in the offing, and some flux coming down the road.

Jennifer: Another area that I think we likely will see some change is in the artificial intelligence arena. The Trump administration could likely reverse some of the current administration’s regulatory efforts on AI, especially if they’re seen as having an anti-Big Business agenda. President Biden issued several executive orders that provided directives to federal agencies regarding AI, and President Trump could very well end those orders. Additionally, rather than focusing on regulations, the Trump administration could be more inclined to collaborate directly with tech companies – for instance, in crafting AI policies. One roadblock President Trump could have with any AI policy changes is the continued Democratic control of agencies, though, like the EEOC and the NLRB.

Jerry: Those are great points, and speaking about AI, obviously Corporate America is facing a patchwork quilt of laws and regulations without any overarching federal law, and the existence of various pockets of laws and regulations at the state level. So, a very difficult compliance challenge for companies. I think that the two Republican leaders on the commission at the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, and then Marvin Kaplan at the NLRB, may well be tapped to lead those organizations, but that might not take effect until mid-2025, and so maybe the trumpeted demise of government enforcement action at the Department of Labor or at the EEOC may well be overblown in a certain respect.

Jennifer: Oh, I absolutely agree. There have been several new regulations from the NLRB, the EEOC, and the Department of Labor over the past years, from changes to overtime rules, non-compete agreements, independent contractor classifications, and the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Besides the activity slowing down from all agencies, whether it be ordered or due to lack of funding, though, there’s a chance that some of the regulations are rolled back with Trump’s new administration. The Trump administration also likely will reduce the focus on workplace diversity initiatives, including rolling back policies promoting affirmative action, or expanding definitions of workplace harassment. The EEOC might also take a more narrow approach to enforcing discrimination laws, for instance, things like LGBTQ rights or protections for other nontraditional segments of the workforce.

Jerry: Thanks, Jen. It’s certain change is inevitable and get used to it because it’s coming down the pike. We’ve seen it before, but it’s certainly underscored here in the circumstances of the shift from the Biden administration to the Trump administration. If you heard what he said on the campaign trail, change is in the offing. I know we’ll be addressing this in the forthcoming publication of the annual Duane Morris Class Action Review – that comes out in the first week of January of 2025. So, thanks very much for your thought leadership, Jen, and your analysis of what Corporate America is apt to face in the next few months under the new White House.

Jennifer: Absolutely thanks for having me, Jerry, and thank you to our listeners for joining us today.