Category: Class Action Weekly Wire

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman, senior associate Zev Grumet-Morris, and associate Bernadette Coyle with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 edition of the Discrimination Class Action Review.   

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues Bernadette Coyle and Zev Grumet-Morris. Thanks so much for being here on our podcast.

Bernadette Coyle: Thank you, Jerry.

Zev Grumet-Morris: Thanks, Jerry, glad to be here.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re discussing our newest publication and desk reference, the Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Bernadette, can you tell our listeners about the publication?

Bernadette: Absolutely, Jerry. Class action litigation in the discrimination space remains an area of key focus for skilled class action litigators in the plaintiffs’ bar. And Duane Morris is pleased to present the Discrimination Class Action Review – 2026 edition. This publication analyzes the key discrimination-related rulings and developments in 2025, and significant legal decisions and trends impacting discrimination class action litigation for 2026. We hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: It’s very clear that the discrimination class actions are front-page news and big-ticket items for the plaintiff’s bar. Zev, could you share your thoughts with respect to the success rate of the plaintiffs in this space over the last 12 months?

Zev: Absolutely, Jerry. So, over the past year, we’ve seen plaintiffs succeed in certifying their cases at just a slightly lower rate than before. So, in 2025, courts granted class certification 50% of the time. Which was down slightly from 53% in 2024. And even though that’s a bit lower, plaintiffs are still having considerable success in achieving certification. And really, this is a reflection of courts being more inclined to allow these cases to proceed forward, particularly in discrimination cases where there’s broader societal awareness of issues like racial inequality and gender discrimination.

Jerry: Those certification analytics are certainly interesting, somewhat of a jump ball to the extent it’s 53% versus 47%. Bernadette, what are some of the key defenses and things that courts focus on in terms of motions in these particular types of class actions?

Bernadette: Well, it’s certainly become a much more rigorous process in terms of certifying these class actions, and particularly in the wake of the Walmart v. Dukes decision, courts have been much stricter about class certification. For a class to be certified, plaintiffs need to meet the requirements of Rule 23, especially around the issue of commonality. And in discrimination cases, that often means proving that the alleged discriminatory practices or policies apply uniformly across different departments, and sometimes even across state lines. It’s not enough just to claim that one person was discriminated against. Plaintiffs need to show that this discrimination is a broader systemic issue. And if they can’t do that, defense counsel will argue that the class should not be certified.

Jerry: I know the Walmart v. Dukes ruling in 2011 really shifted the ground and the battlefield for plaintiffs and defendants, and – at least for a few years – defendants did quite well. I think we’re entering kind of a zone of Walmart 2.0, and Zev, you had mentioned that the pendulum is tending to shift back towards the plaintiffs. In your opinion, what’s really fueling that swing of the pendulum?

Zev: It’s a combination of several factors. Public opinion is certainly becoming more critical of large corporations, and social movements like Black Lives Matter and MeToo have kept workplace inequality in the spotlight. Businesses are facing not only increasing employee-friendly legislation, but also a more aggressive plaintiffs’ bar. And courts, especially in the current climate, are more inclined to acknowledge these issues, and to allow these cases to move forward, especially in the discrimination context. The heightened awareness around issues of inequality has made it harder for employers to escape accountability, and we’re seeing more court rulings that favor plaintiffs in this space.

Bernadette: But it’s not all one-sided. While plaintiffs have gained some ground, courts are still very serious about ensuring that class actions meet the rigorous standards set by Walmart v. Dukes. And the bar is high. Plaintiffs can’t simply rely on generalized statements along the lines of ‘I was harmed, and others were likely too.’ They have to provide concrete evidence that the issues they face are systemic across the class.

Jerry: Those are great takeaways and insights in terms of what’s going on in this space. As we enter 2026. What do you view as the future of discrimination-based class action litigation, and where will the plaintiff’s bar be focusing in the coming months?

Bernadette: Employers can expect to see more class actions in 2026, particularly as discrimination remains a high-profile issue. As I’ve mentioned, the public’s growing interest in workplace equality and ongoing social justice movements will continue to provide momentum for plaintiffs. And even though there are challenges in securing class certification, the plaintiff’s bar is becoming more strategic and sophisticated in their approaches, and they will certainly continue to press forward. Businesses will have to remain vigilant in defending these claims, and it’s a constantly evolving landscape.

Jerry: Well, very important for clients to comply with just fundamental HR concepts and the like to root out discrimination and stop it from escalating into a class action. I know the review also analyzed the numbers on class action settlements in this space. How did the plaintiffs do in terms of monetizing their cases in 2025?

Zev: Plaintiffs did real well in securing high-dollar settlements in the past year,  2025, with the top 10 discrimination settlements totaling $507.1 million, which was significantly higher than the $356.8 million number that we saw in 2024.

Jerry: Well, here at the Duane Morris Class Action Review editorial desk, we’ll certainly be following those settlements throughout 2026 to see if the trend continues of higher and higher numbers of settlements in the discrimination class action space. Well, thank you, Bernadette, and thank you, Zev, for loaning your thought leadership in this space to us, and thank you for your contributions in this area to the Duane Morris Class Action Review.

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

Bernadette: Thanks so much, everyone.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partner Jennifer Riley and associate Olga Romadin with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 edition of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review.   

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

Episode Transcript

Jennifer Riley: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jennifer Riley, partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today for the first time on the podcast is Olga Romadin. Thank you for being on the podcast, Olga.

Olga: Thank you, Jen. Happy to be part of the podcast.

Jennifer: Today on the podcast, we are discussing the recent publication of the third edition of the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Olga, can you tell our listeners a bit about the publication?

Olga: Absolutely, Jen. So, class action litigation in the consumer fraud space remains an area of key focus of skilled class action litigators in a plaintiffs’ bar, and 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 at Duane Morris is pleased to present the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2026, which analyzes key consumer fraud-related rulings and developments in 2025, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action litigation in 2026. So we hope that companies will benefit from this resource in their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jennifer: Thanks, Olga. In 2025, courts across the country issued really a mixed bag of results, leading to major victories for both plaintiffs as well as defendants. What were some of the key takeaways from the publication with regard to litigation in this area?

Olga: So, obtaining class certification is one of the most effective procedural tools used to vindicate the rights of consumers. And in 2025, plaintiffs were successful in receiving class certification in 67% of the motions filed, which was up from the number in 2024, when courts granted 57% of the motions filed.

Jennifer: Wow, that higher number of overall class certification motions being granted is certainly interesting. What do you anticipate this will mean for companies in 2026?

Olga: Ultimately, as the class action landscape continues to evolve, so too are the playbook theories of the plaintiff and defense bars. Counsel on both sides are becoming more sophisticated and creative in their approaches to prosecuting and defending class actions. And there’s a wide variety of conduct that gives rise to consumer fraud claims, and every industry is susceptible. In 2025, consumer fraud class actions ran the gamut of false advertising and false labeling claims. The products at issue included everything from cannabis to nuts, and we anticipate that this will continue to be the case in 2026.

Jennifer: Thanks so much for that information, Olga. Very important for companies navigating compliance with consumer fraud statutes. The review also talks about the top consumer fraud settlements in 2025. How did the plaintiffs do in securing settlements last year?

Olga: So, plaintiffs did very well in securing high-dollar settlements in 2025. The top 10 consumer fraud settlements totaled a staggering $2.1 billion. However, although it’s a huge dollar amount, it’s still a decrease over 2024 when the top 10 consumer fraud class action settlements totaled about $2.437 billion. So, it just shows that the massive amount of money involved in some of these class actions where thousands to millions of consumers could potentially be involved.

Jennifer: Absolutely. We will continue to track those settlement numbers in 2026. Record-breaking settlement amounts have been a huge trend that we’ve been following for the past few years. Well, thank you, Olga, for being here today, and thank you to our loyal listeners for tuning in. Listeners, please stop by the blog for a free copy of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review.

Olga: Thanks so much, everyone, and thanks for having me, Jen.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Sean McConnell with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 edition of the Antitrust Class Action Review.   

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome 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 is my colleague and partner from Philadelphia, Sean McConnell, who is the chair of the Duane Morris Antitrust and Competition Department. Thanks for being on the podcast, Sean.

Sean McConnell: Thank you, Jerry. Happy to be part of the podcast.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we are discussing the recent publication of this year’s edition of the Duane Morris Antitrust Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Sean, can you tell our listeners a bit about this publication and desk reference?

Sean: Absolutely, Jerry. In 2025, class action litigation involving antitrust claims had several key developments. Most antitrust class actions are settled before trial, and one of the most critical phases is class certification. Thus, the order granting or denying a motion to certify a class in these cases is critical. To assist with understanding what this means for businesses facing antitrust claims, Duane Morris has released the Duane Morris Antitrust Class Action Review – 2026, which analyzes the key rulings and litigation developments in 2025, and the significant trends that are apt to impact these types of actions in 2026. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource and their compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, I know you’re a thought leader in this space, and one of the notable shifts that we saw in 2025 in the cases involve pricing algorithms, information sharing, and data management. And this trend seemingly mirrors the technological evolution within organizations. As businesses rely more heavily upon automated pricing and complex data systems. Plaintiffs’ lawyers are adapting their antitrust strategies to challenge those tools and technologies. What’s your take on this space in the courts over the past year, Sean?

Sean: Great question, Jerry. In In re Hard Disk Drive Suspension Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified two classes in a long-running price-fixing case. The plaintiffs alleged that two manufacturers of hard disk drive suspension assemblies conspired from 2003 to 2016 to fix prices, inflating the cost of hard drives and devices containing them. The court certified both a reseller class and an end-user class. Defendants argued that the named reseller plaintiffs weren’t typical of the class because some large buyers negotiated better deals, and that “pass-through” defenses made them atypical. The court disagreed, however, holding that in price-fixing cases, differences in purchasing arrangements don’t defeat typicality, as long as the central question of whether there was a conspiracy is common to everyone. As for the end-users, defendants claim there were conflicts between corporate buyers and illegal consumers. Again, the court found the core issue, an alleged price-fixing conspiracy, was shared across the class. Finding that common issues predominated, and that class treatment was appropriate, the court granted that certification.

Jerry: Well, that’s an interesting take on that space. I know in past years, labor wage suppression antitrust cases were in the main, but took a bit of a backseat, it seemed, this year to antitrust cases involving intercollegiate sports.

Sean: Yes, absolutely. One notable one was Brantmeier v. NCAA, where a federal court in North Carolina certified two classes in an antitrust challenge to the NCAA’s tennis prize money rules. Two current and former Division I tennis players allege the NCAA’s rules – limiting athletes’ ability to accept prize money – amount to price-fixing and a group boycott in violation of the Sherman Act. They claim the rules suppress the market of college tennis players’ labor. The NCAA argued most players weren’t good enough to earn meaningful prize money, and that lifting the rules could hurt lower-level athletes. The court rejected those arguments, emphasizing that rules apply uniformly to all Division I tennis players, making the core legal question of whether the rules violate antitrust law common to the entire class. The court granted class certification, finding that common issues predominated, and that a class action was the most efficient way to resolve the dispute.

Jerry: I know you mentioned that class certification is, in essence, the Holy Grail in these cases, and that antitrust class actions either shatter, vaporize, or end up getting monetized based on class certification. In terms of the scorecard over 2025, how did the plaintiffs’ bar do in converting their case filings into certified class actions?

Sean: Well, Jerry, since we’ve already highlighted two victories for plaintiffs, you’ll probably be unsurprised to hear that in 2025, class certifications were granted in 77% of antitrust class actions, or in 17 of 22 motions. That’s up from 68% in 2024, where 15 out of 22 motions for class certification are granted. So, last year, the plaintiffs’ bar was quite successful in getting motions for class certification granted.

Jerry: I know it’s somewhat of a simplification, but nonetheless apt in terms of an analogy that the business model of the plaintiffs’ bar is to find the client, file the lawsuit, certify it, and then monetize it. How did the plaintiffs’ bar do in terms of the top settlements in the antitrust class action space over the past year?

Sean: In 2025, we saw the biggest settlement numbers ever, and antitrust class actions led the charge. The top 10 antitrust class action settlements totaled $46 billion, a huge increase from the $8.42 billion in 2024, and the $11.74 billion in 2023, which was nearly a three-fold increase from the 2022 number.

Jerry: Those are phenomenal settlement numbers in this space. Here at Duane Morris in the Class Action Antitrust Group, we’re tracking 2026 settlements in this area, and we’ll be sure to keep our listeners and readers of our blog updated on those developments. Well, thanks, Sean, for being here today and lending your thought leadership in this space. Readers, listeners, please stop by the blog and pick up and download your free copy of the Duane Morris Antitrust Class Action Review for 2026.

Sean: Thank you, as always, Jerry, and thank you for the listeners.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley and associates Ryan Garippo and Elizabeth Underwood with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 edition of the TCPA Class Action Review.   

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome, loyal blog listeners and readers. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today on the podcast are my colleagues Jennifer Riley, Elizabeth Underwood, and Ryan Garippo. Thanks all for being here.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks, Jerry, it’s always good to be here.

Elizabeth Underwood: Thank you, Jerry. Happy to be part of the podcast.

Ryan Garippo: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re discussing a recent publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group called the TCPA Class Action Review – the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Listeners can find this e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Jen, can you tell our listeners a little bit about this desk reference?

Jennifer: Absolutely, Jerry. So, the TCPA has long been a focus of litigation, particularly for class actions. The class action team at Duane Morris released its third edition of the TCPA Class Action Review earlier this week. The publication analyzes the key TCPA-related filings and rulings and developments in 2025, as well as the significant legal decisions and trends impacting this type of class action litigation for 2026. We hope that companies will benefit from this resource in their efforts to comply with these evolving and ever-changing laws and standards.

Jerry: In 2025, I think it’s fair to say that courts issued a mixed bag of results and rulings on issues arising under the TCPA, sometimes for the defense, sometimes for the plaintiffs. Ryan, overall, how often were plaintiffs’ classes certified in TCPA lawsuits?

Ryan: Well, Jerry, I would say there were wins on both sides, but plaintiffs came way ahead in terms of having classes certified. Courts granted motions for class certification in 53% of cases and denied them in 47% of cases in 2025. However, that’s higher than in 2024, when courts granted certification in 37% of the time, however, much lower than in 2023, when the plaintiffs’ bar was much more successful in obtaining class certification, with courts granting such motions upwards of 70% of the time.

Jerry: Well, for those keeping a scorecard, those are certainly up and down results that swing from year to year. Elizabeth, in terms of your thought leadership in following this area, what, to you, were the most notable rulings in this space in 2025?

Elizabeth: Yes, Jerry, in Fischbein v. IQVIA Inc. A federal court in Pennsylvania denied class certification in a TCPA fax case – and the decision turned on old-school technology. The proposed class included more than 25,000 healthcare providers who allegedly received unsolicited fax advertisements. But the court closely examined the TCPA’s language and concluded that the statute only protects faxes received on traditional stand-alone fax machines and not modern online fax services. The key statutory phrase was “telephone facsimile machine,” which the law defines as equipment that transmits or receives documents over a “regular telephone line.” The court interpreted that to mean an analog telephone line, not internet-based fax platforms. The court thus found that the plaintiffs could not show through common evidence which recipients received the faxes on traditional machines versus online fax services. Without a reliable way to distinguish between the two, the court found the class was not ascertainable. And because determining the method of receipt would require individualized inquiries, common issues did not predominate.

For TCPA defendants, Fischbein underscores the importance of scrutinizing class definitions. If liability depends on the method of receipt – traditional fax machine versus online service – and that distinction can’t be determined through common proof, that’s a powerful argument against certification.

Jerry: Well, thanks so much, Elizabeth. I think another important TCPA ruling this past year emanated from the Third Circuit in Conner v. Fox Rehabilitation Services. In that case, the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of class certification in a TCPA case involving facsimiles. The key issue there was consent. Ryan, how do you read that Third Circuit decision?

Ryan: Sure, Jerry. I think it remains true to this day that consent is still the most powerful defense in response to a TCPA case. So, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox Rehabilitation sent more than 20,000 faxes to healthcare providers, promoting its therapy services, while also reassuring providers that it remained operational. The plaintiff alleged that the faxes were unsolicited advertisements in violation of the TCPA and sought to certify a class. The district court actually denied certification there, finding that individualized questions regarding whether each recipient had consented would overwhelm the common issues. Although the court later ruled for the plaintiff in his favor at a bench trial on the individual claim, but that said it did not allow the case to proceed as a class. On appeal, the Third Circuit clarified one important point: although the class was ascertainable, because it could be identified using the defendant’s own facts transmission logs, that wasn’t enough. The Third Circuit agreed that consent would require individualized inquiries regarding how and when each recipient provided their fax number, and when the faxes fell within the scope of that consent. Because these individualized issues predominated over the common ones, the Third Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification, reinforcing what has been traditionally known that consent is the most powerful barrier to a TCPA case.

Jerry: Thanks, Ryan. I agree that consent issue tends to be a very good weapon in the arsenal of defendants to try and block or fracture classes in this space. I suspect we’re going to see that issue playing out in other circuits in 2026. Jen, the review also, analyzes the top settlements in this space, and it seemed like plaintiffs did very well this year in monetizing their class action settlements and TCPA cases.

Jennifer: Agreed, Jerry. Plaintiffs did very well in securing high-dollar settlements in 2025 in the TCPA space. The top 10 TCPA class action settlements totaled $69.1 million. That’s down just slightly from what we saw in 2024, where the top 10 settlements totaled $84.73 million.

Jerry: As our loyal readers know, we track the settlements on a 24/7/365 basis, so we’ll be analyzing top TCPA class action settlements throughout the year. Well, thank you very much for being here on today’s podcast, and thank you for our loyal listeners and readers for tuning in.

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry, and thanks to all of our listeners. We hope you enjoy the TCPA Review. Please stop by the blog and download your free copy of the e-book.

Ryan: Thanks so much for the opportunity, Jerry.

Elizabeth: Thanks for having me, Jerry, and thank you to all the listeners.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman, special counsel Justin Donoho and Tyler Zmick, and senior associate Hayley Ryan with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the 2026 editions of the Privacy Class Action Review and the Data Breach Class Action Review.  

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers. Thank you for joining us again for our next episode of our podcast, The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me today are some of my favorite colleagues, Justin, Hayley, and Tyler. Thanks for joining us.

Justin Donoho: Thank you, Jerry, great to be here.

Tyler Zmick: Thanks, Jerry, it’s a pleasure to be here today.

Hayley Ryan: Thanks for inviting me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today’s a great day, and an exciting one, because we’re announcing the publication and launch of two new Duane Morris publications: the 2026 Data Breach Class Action Review, and the 2026 Privacy Class Action Review. We’ve got a lot to unpack, because 2025 was a huge area and a lot happened in the class action space, and especially both with respect to data breach and privacy class action litigation. Let’s start with data breach – what happened in 2025?

Justin: Yes, Jerry, huge is the right word. If anyone thought data breach class actions were slowing down, 2025 pretty much put that theory to rest.

Hayley: Completely, Justin. Data breach class actions continue to be one of the fastest growing areas in complex litigation. At this point, it’s almost predictable. A breach gets reported, the headlines follow, and then the class actions aren’t that far behind.

Tyler: And, interestingly, it’s not just the massive breaches anymore – even smaller data incidents are triggering lawsuits, which really tells you a lot about how aggressive and sophisticated this litigation space has become.

Jerry: Let’s start with the numbers, because, in my view, they’re eye-popping. In the first half of 2025 alone, there were 944 data breach class actions filed – nearly 158 per month.

Justin: That’s right, Jerry, and by the end of the year, that number ballooned to over 1,822 filings. That’s a staggering volume by any measure.

Hayley: Absolutely, and what’s especially striking is the breadth of industries impacted. Finance, healthcare, tech, retail, education, professional service – no sector was immune in 2025.

Tyler: And many of these data breaches involved hundreds of millions of employee and consumer records, and that scale really drives everything. Litigation risk, settlement exposure, and also a company’s reputational harm.

Jerry: When you peel back the onion skin, what, in essence, is driving, this mushroom cloud of class actions in the data breach space is a big part of this, the kind of ‘evolving threat’ landscape.

Justin: Yes, absolutely, Jerry. Cybercriminals today are more sophisticated than ever before. Ransomware attacks, in particular, surged in 2025, with criminals demanding payment not to publish stolen data.

Hayley: And even paying the ransom doesn’t solve the problem. There’s no guarantee the data gets deleted, and many believe those payments just encourage more attacks.

Tyler: Then when you layer that on top of remote work, cloud storage, and increasingly complex IT environments, you end up with a recipe for more large-scale breaches, and as a result, more lawsuits.

Jerry: I think the statistics that we gathered and analyzed for 2025 also tell a story of increasing settlement values in the class action space. What do you see in terms of settlement numbers?

Justin: Yeah, those settlements are going higher. That’s being pushed by larger classes, more sensitive data, and courts are increasingly sympathetic to plaintiffs as well.

Hayley: And in addition, legal fees are also climbing, as these cases become more complex and specialized.

Tyler: Which is why proactive cybersecurity and incident response planning are just so critical in today’s day and age. Companies with tested response playbooks tend to fare much better, both operationally and in litigation. The Data Breach Class Action Review is therefore a crucial resource for corporate counsel and companies to have in their toolbox to understand this area of class action litigation.

Jerry: Well, that’s absolutely true. Let’s pivot now to the Privacy Class Action Review, because this is an area that’s heating up and accelerating just as fast, if not faster, with the law struggling to keep up with technological advancements.

Justin: Yes, data privacy, another one of my favorite topics. Companies are adopting technologies that allegedly collect web browsing, biometric, genetic, and other personal data, and plaintiffs are challenging nearly all of it, a lot nationwide – everywhere.

Hayley: Yes, adtech litigation exploded again in 2025, with aggressive theories under statutes like the VPPA, or the Video Privacy Protection Act, the ECPA, or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and CIPA, which is the California Invasion of Privacy Act, with widely inconsistent rulings on standing and consent.

Tyler: I would absolutely echo the inconsistent ruling point and the complexity that raises for companies. I would also note that we saw a divergence at the appellate level in 2025, specifically we had the Ninth Circuit narrowing the VPPA exposure when it comes to movie theaters, while the Seventh Circuit expanded consumer status when it comes to free online services.

Jerry: It also seemed from the case law and the rulings that Illinois remains ground zero for businesses, especially with respect to litigation over biometrics and genetic privacy with the BIPA statute continuing to generate massive filings, and the GIPA now just following closely behind. When you put all this in the mix, what are your prognostications for 2026 in terms of what this means for companies on the privacy front?

Justin: Jerry, based on the trends we’re seeing, I think we can expect continued growth in both data breach class actions and privacy class actions. We’re seeing lots of divergent rulings in a lot of these different areas. We’ll continue to see some forum shopping as a result as well, but generally continued growth.

Tyler: And settlement values will likely keep rising as well, especially where courts grant class certification. We will be on the lookout to see how plaintiffs in 2026 fare in obtaining class certification, given the low rate from 2025.

Jerry: Well, that underscores why we put these two new publications together for clients in terms of corporate toolkits for getting their arms around data breach and privacy risks in the class action space. It’s certainly turning into an increasingly high-stakes terrain. So, for anyone who wants to dig a little deeper, the reviews are available — at the right price: for free – on our blog and website. For the remainder of the year, we’ll certainly be continuing to cover and dig deep into data breach and privacy class action litigation developments, both on our blog and in the Class Action Weekly Wire. So, stay tuned! And thanks so much, Justin, Hayley, and Tyler, for joining us on this episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Justin: Thank you, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.

Tyler: Glad to be a part of the podcast, and thank you all, listeners. Be sure to download your copy of the review.

Hayley: Thanks, Jerry. Thanks, everyone.

Duane Morris Takeaway: The Class Action Weekly Wire is back on the air in 2026 and our first episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their discussion of the key trends and developments analyzed in the new editions of the Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review – 2026 and the Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2026. Our virtual desk references are 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, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers, for our first podcast of 2026. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today on the Class Action Weekly Wire podcast series is my colleague and partner, Jennifer. Thanks so much for being here, Jen.

Jennifer Riley: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me, and Happy New Year to you and to all of our listeners.

Jerry: Thanks so much. Our topic on today’s podcast are two desk references for employers that we put together, one on wage and hour issues, and the other on the California PAGA statute. It’s apropos that we talk about those mini-books, because after the publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Review on Tuesday, January 6, within a period of 10 days the Review and its analysis of wage and hour issues was cited in pleadings filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, so we’re very honored with the notion that the High Court received our analysis within less than 10 days after publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Review.

So, we wanted to talk, Jen, about some of the areas covered by the wage and hour and PAGA books, because I think these are our hottest mini-books and bestsellers.

Jennifer: That’s exactly right, I agree. These reports really capture how active and fast-moving these spaces continue to be. Starting with wage and hour, once again, in 2025, as we’ve seen for several years now, we saw litigation alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state wage and hour laws remain hot. That area remained an intense area of focus for the plaintiffs’ bar. In fact, plaintiffs filed more wage and hour class and collective actions in 2025 than any other type of complex litigation. That continues to give this area in particular outsized importance for employers.

Jerry: One of the core issues that we track is the ability of plaintiffs’ lawyers to certify their cases. In the class action space, obviously, certification is the holy grail. Cases rise and fall on it, and those certification rates are highest in several areas, including wage and hour. But at the same time, what we’re seeing is there are a myriad of standards now that have replaced the original standard articulated by a court called Lusardi in 1987 in the District Court of New Jersey. What’s going on, and what did 2025 represent in this space, Jen?

Jennifer: So, great question. So, there is a first stage and a second stage to these cases, traditionally, as you know. In the first stage, to conditionally certify a collective action per the Lusardi standard you mentioned, Jerry, plaintiffs need to make what the courts call this modest factual showing that they’re similarly situated to the members of their proposed collective action. That’s a fairly low threshold, and plaintiffs usually rely on declarations, from themselves, or maybe from a few other employees as well, sometimes some time in payroll records, and that’s pretty much it to meet that standard. If they succeed, courts typically allow, then, the plaintiffs to send notice of the action to these potential collective action members, who then have the opportunity to opt in and join the case.

So that’s the first stage. And then in the second stage, after opt-ins join the case, and after some discovery, courts conduct a much more searching analysis of whether the plaintiffs and the opt-ins are actually similarly situated. Courts then, and only then usually, dig into things like job duties, nature of the claims, the proof, and whether the case realistically can be managed through trial on a representative basis. That usually happens when the employer moves to decertify, although sometimes the plaintiffs seek a final certification order.

So that two-step approach, until recently, was almost universally applied. And frankly, it’s still the dominant approach in most federal courts today. But that uniformity is really starting to fracture.

Jerry: It really is. It all started in 2021 with the Fifth Circuit and its decision in Swales v. KLM Transport Services, where the two-step process was abandoned entirely and collapsed into one hearing and one motion. And then two years later, in 2023, the Sixth Circuit opined and waded in to this area in a case called Clark v. A&L Home Care, which also collapsed the two-step process into one step, but with a different procedural and evidentiary standard. And then if things weren’t complicated enough, the Seventh Circuit weighed in on August 5, 2025, in a case called Richards v. Eli Lilly, to give district courts discretion to fashion a single up or down certification hearing on these areas.

Jennifer: Agreed. That Eli Lilly decision really laid out another new framework. To obtain notice under that standard, the plaintiffs need to make that threshold showing that there’s a material factual dispute as to whether the proposed collective action members are similarly situated. The defendants, though, are then expressly allowed to submit rebuttal evidence, and courts need to weigh that evidence before deciding the issue, in terms of whether to send notice. The Seventh Circuit also recognized that there’s some flexibility there. If the key evidence, for instance, is in the hands of employees who haven’t yet received notice, the court can authorize notice while deferring that final similarity determination. And some courts may allow limited expedited discovery to resolve the similarly situated questions before the court makes a determination.

Jerry: Well, the bottom line is, today we now have four different approaches, which is a head-scratcher, given that this is a piece of New Deal legislation enacted in 1938. And now it’s 2026, and parties are still arguing over how a court should approach a certification issue and a wage and hour collective action. And this is why I think that we were so honored to be cited in Supreme Court briefs that were submitted last week in Washington, in yet another case, this one from the Fifth Circuit, called Cracker Barrel, where, the losing party is, again, getting before the Supreme Court and saying, ‘you need to provide some direction here, because having four different standards makes no sense.’ What we see from a practical standpoint is the same employer can be sued in different jurisdictions, and because of these different standards, there could be different outcomes based on the same facts. So, it’s something we’ll be watching closely in 2026 to see if there’s some uniformity or change in the direction of federal courts in dealing with these certification issues in the wage and hour space.

Jennifer: That’s good, absolutely. Let’s pivot now to our second publication, the Private Attorneys General Act Review – 2026. So, as a refresher, the California Private Attorneys General Act, or PAGA, allows employees to step into the shoes of the labor commissioner and seek civil penalties for labor code violations. So, for more than a decade, PAGA claims have been among the most frequently filed in California. Plaintiffs historically have favored PAGA over class actions for several reasons, including because of the relaxed requirements, to maintain that case on a representative basis. For instance, in PAGA, there’s no requirement to go through a class certification process. According to data from the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed with the state LWDA reached an all-time high in 2025, continuing that trend that’s really been building for decades.

Jerry: Well, I know, Jen, you have a nationwide defense practice in class actions, but as a member of the California Bar and resident in both our Los Angeles and San Francisco offices, you spend a considerable amount of time defending employers in the state of California. Seemed to me there was a kind of an earthquake out there with a major decision in 2025 in the Lyft case. Why, in your opinion, was that case so significant to employers, sued under the PAGA statute in California?

Jennifer: Great question, Jerry. So that case you’re referring to is Turrieta v. Lyft. In that case, the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in separate PAGA actions cannot intervene in, object to, or seek to vacate a settlement reached in another PAGA case. The California Supreme Court there emphasized that the state is the real party in interest, that PAGA only requires notice and oversight by the LWDA and the trial court. The California Supreme Court noted that permitting intervention would result in a PAGA claim involving multiple sets of lawyers all purporting to advocate for the same client and fighting over who could control the litigation and the settlement process, and who could recover the attorneys’ fees. So, not only does PAGA not itself address such complexities, but such a messy situation would thwart the pursuit of PAGA claims contrary to the state’s purpose.

Jerry: My sense is the factual backdrop here is very important insofar as multiple Lyft drivers filed overlapping PAGA actions. One plaintiff had settled for $15 million – one of the more substantial pocket settlements of the year – and the other plaintiffs tried to derail that settlement. And I think sometimes, conceptually, it’s good to analyze decisions as door openers or door closers, and certainly the California Supreme Court, closed the door and shut down those efforts to intervene. Which is somewhat contrary to the general notion out there that the California Supreme Court always rules in favor of workers and against employers.

Jennifer: Exactly, I agree. That ruling gives employers much more certainty. It means they can resolve one PAGA case without fear that other plaintiffs will come in, disrupt the settlement – provided, of course, that the court approves it. Taken together, I think these developments show just how dynamic wage and hour and PAGA litigation continues to be.

Jerry: Well, that underscores the rationale for our creation and publication of these two books on wage and hour and PAGA developments to help employers understanding this patchwork quilt of laws and standards, where things stand, where they’re headed, and how to navigate these risks. So, we encourage our readers to take a look at those 2026 editions of the wage and hour and PAGA handbooks. The price is right: they’re for free. And you can download them, and they’re searchable – you could even look at them on your phone.

Well, thanks for joining me today, Jen, and thank you to all our listeners, and we’re glad you tuned in for this, first of the year installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry, and thank you, listeners. It was a pleasure to be here today.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Sean McConnell with their discussion a certification ruling issued in an antitrust class action brought by consumers alleging ticket seller Live Nation monopolized the live entertainment market following its merger with Ticketmaster.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers, for joining us for our next episode of our podcast series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me today is my partner, Sean McConnell, of our Philadelphia office, who is the chair of our antitrust practice group.

Sean McConnell: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: Today, we’re here to discuss a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in which a federal judge certified a nationwide consumer class in antitrust litigation against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster. This past week, U.S. District Court Judge George Wu certified a class of consumers who had purchased primary concert tickets through Ticketmaster or other Live Nation platforms dating back to 2010. The ruling adopted a tentative decision the court had issued earlier this month. Sean, can you tell us a little bit of the context of the antitrust implications of this ruling?

Sean: Sure, Jerry. The plaintiffs allege that Live Nation used its market power following the transaction with Ticketmaster and that acquisition to suppress competition and inflate ticket prices for concertgoers. The court concluded that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, including predominance. Live Nation’s opposition focused primarily on the absence of a nationwide market. The company argued that ticket purchasing is inherently local, and that consumers do not seek alternatives outside their geographic area in response to price increases. Judge Wu rejected that framing. He reasoned that the case centers on ticketing services rather than individual tickets for individual concerts. From the court’s perspective, those services operate at a national scale, supporting certification on a nationwide basis.

Jerry: I know that expert opinions are at the heart of class certification efforts by the plaintiff’s bar and antitrust cases, and here, the court rejected the defendant’s critiques of the plaintiff’s expert report. Stating that the plaintiffs had adequately addressed those challenges, and that Rule 23 does not require the court to resolve competing expert opinions or models at the class certification stage. In this instance, who’s actually included, then, in the certified class?

Sean: Great question, Jerry. The certified class includes only primary ticket sales and excludes secondary market resales. The case has been pending since 2022, and proceeds alongside enforcement actions brought by the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general, which have alleged similar anti-competitive conduct and violations of a prior consent decree when Live Nation and Ticketmaster first merged back in 2010.

Jerry: At a 100,000-foot level, what exactly are the implications of this decision? I know that class certification is the holy grail in these sorts of cases. Is this ruling significant for companies?

Sean: Yes, from a corporate perspective, the decision underscores the litigation risk associated with vertically integrated platforms that operate at a nationwide scale. Courts may look beyond localized consumer behavior and focus instead on centralized pricing, contracting, and service models. The ruling also illustrates the relatively modest evidentiary burden plaintiffs face at the class certification stage in complex antitrust cases. Companies should not assume that disputes over market definition or expert methodology will prevent certification.

Jerry: Well, that’s a great overview, Sean, of those implications. I know that when antitrust cases are certified as viable class action, exposure increases incrementally, if not significantly, and shifts the leverage to the plaintiffs, which in turn increases the pressure to settle and expands both the scope and the cost of discovery.

Sean: Exactly right, Jerry. For companies in highly concentrated or regulated markets, this case reinforces the importance of proactive antitrust risk assessment, careful compliance with merger-related obligations, and early litigation strategy focused on class certification.

Jerry: Well, thanks, Sean, for your detailed analysis of the implications of this ruling, and thanks so much for being here today. Happy holidays to all of our listeners, and we’re glad you were able to tune in to this final 2025 edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire.

Sean: Thank you, Jerry, and thank you, listeners. As always, it was a pleasure to be here, and happy holidays, everyone.

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 2025-2026 edition of the American Tort Reform Association’s (“ATRA”) “Judicial Hellholes Report,” which details the eight 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, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Thank you for being here, loyal blog listeners and readers, for the next episode of our ongoing series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Bernadette Coyle. Welcome, and thanks for being on the podcast.

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

Jerry: Today, we’re discussing the annual report prepared by the American Tort Reform Association, known by the acronym ATRA, which is called the “Judicial Hellholes Report.” It focuses on litigation issues and identification of jurisdictions likely to have unfair or biased administration of justice that, in essence, are very difficult places in which corporate defendants are sued. This is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation, because it identifies the who, what, when, where, and how of what jurisdictions are most difficult in which to defend class action litigation.

Bernadette: That’s right, Jerry. The report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, which generally is to the disadvantage of defendants.

Jerry: This year’s report identified eight total jurisdictions in its list, down from 10 that were identified last year. I’m sure our loyal blog listeners are anxious to hear what jurisdiction came out on top of the list as the most unfavorable jurisdiction in which to be sued.

Bernadette: Jerry, topping the list this year is Los Angeles. Although California has long been considered a plaintiff-friendly state, this year in particular, lawsuit abuse and judicial bias in Los Angeles have set it apart and pushed it to the top of the list. The report points to a $1 billion nuclear verdict, allegations of litigation abuse, and courts leaning into novel liability theories that broaden exposure for defendants. And small businesses are targeted in particular, being hit with ADA and no injury suits, while arbitration continues to face judicial resistance in California.

Jerry: Well, speaking from my own personal experience, I would agree it’s a very difficult place to practice law and defend cases, and its inclusion and placement at the top of the list comes as no surprise. Moving to number two is New York Metro, New York City. What’s happening there on the list?

Bernadette: New York City remained at number two this year, and the ATRF calls it a “fraudemic.” The city continues to produce nuclear verdicts, courts are expanding product liability theories, especially against tech companies, and both no-injury filings and asbestos cases remain heavy in New York City.

Jerry: Number three came in with South Carolina. It’s been on the radar for years of the American Tort Reform Association.

Bernadette: Exactly. The ATRF criticizes the relaxed causation standard, frequent sanctions, and even notes instances where courts increased jury awards because it believed that the jury did not go far enough.

Jerry: Let’s hit the rest of the list of eight. Louisiana, I believe, comes in fourth.

Bernadette: Yes, the first coastal litigation case finally went to trial, and it ended in a nine-figure verdict. Interestingly, the ATRF also points to political connections between plaintiffs’ lawyers and state leadership.

Jerry: Fifth is Philadelphia jurisdiction, where we’re handling many class actions.

Bernadette: Right, and also last year’s defending champion. A RICO lawsuit has raised allegations of fraud in the court system, and the complex litigation Center continues to attract mass tort filings, and historic nuclear verdicts are becoming more common.

Jerry: Sixth is Missouri in general, and St. Louis in particular. What are you seeing there?

Bernadette: Yes, the ATRF says courts there continue to allow junk science, and out-of-state plaintiffs are targeting St. Louis small businesses with ADA lawsuits. Judges have even overturned jury verdicts that they disagreed with.

Jerry: Seventh is a familiar Illinois trio, the counties of Cook, Madison, and St. Clair, the latter two of which were the motivating factors for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 that President Bush signed into law to allow for easier removal from state court to federal court. What’s happening on the Illinois front?

Bernadette: They are described as ground zero for baby formula litigation supported by questionable science. Also, litigation tourism persists, asbestos filings are high, and nuclear verdicts continue.

Jerry: And rounding out the list, at number eight is the state of Washington in general, and King County, in particular, where we’re seeing a rise of many employment-related class actions.

Bernadette: Correct. The report highlights the reinstatement of a nuclear verdict, expanded asbestos liability, and King County’s role in pioneering climate change litigation against energy companies. And as we’ve seen, there’s also been a sharp increase in class actions brought under the EPOA this year in Washington.

Jerry: Let’s shift now to the ATRA’s watch list. It highlights six jurisdictions that are not full judicial hellholes, but have been trending in that direction. What should our listeners know about the watchlist?

Bernadette: Three Georgia counties, Gwinnett, Fulton, and Cobb, are under scrutiny despite statewide reforms. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did have a quieter year this year, but remains influential, especially in forum shopping and arbitration filings. Texas is seeing a rise in pro-plaintiff leanings and state-sponsored lawsuits. Michigan has major decisions pending, Louisiana still faces fallout from fraud schemes, and Kentucky continues to produce nuclear verdicts.

Jerry: The report also calls out what it calls dishonorable mentions. What stands out to you in terms of that list?

Bernadette: There are three main concerns noted in the report. First, the Fourth Circuit’s broad approach to public nuisance, a Colorado evidentiary ruling that the ATRF finds troubling, and Ohio appellate courts that are permitting unlimited non-economic damages.

Jerry: Well, it’s not all doom and gloom. There is a little bit of positive light. What does the report, refer to in terms of what it characterizes as “points of light”?

Bernadette: Yes, and there are some significant ones. Colorado rejected medical monitoring damages, Delaware and Maine pushed back on junk science and public nuisance expansion, North Carolina reaffirmed caps on non-economic damages, and the Utah Supreme Court eliminated phantom damages.

Jerry: Well, Bernadette, thanks so much for guiding us through the tour of the 2025-2026 Judicial Hellholes Report. It’s essential reading for corporate counsel, and certainly any company involved in high-stakes litigation or defending class action litigation. The report certainly manifests what we see on a daily basis in terms of the epicenters of class action litigation, and where the plaintiffs’ bar tends to file their cases in terms of trying to gain an advantage over corporate defenses.

Well, thanks so much for being here, Bernadette, and providing us with your thought leadership in this space.

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