Category: Class Action Weekly Wire

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and senior associate Hayley Ryan with their discussion of two major rulings issued by Illinois federal courts addressing privacy claims aimed at companies utilizing advertising technology (“adtech”) and education technology (“edtech”).

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 being here again for our next episode of our weekly podcast series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner with Duane Morris, and joining me today for the first time is our senior associate, Hayley Ryan. Thanks so much for being on the podcast today.

Hayley Ryan: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: Today, we’re diving into two major decisions out of the Northern and Central Districts of Illinois that are making waves in the adtech or internet-based technology litigation space. Let’s start with the basics. The two decisions came down on August 20 – Hannant v. Sarah D. Culbertson Memorial Hospital and Q.J. v. Powerschool Holdings. What’s the big picture here?

Hayley: These are both part of a much broader wave of class actions we’ve seen across the country involving adtech and edtech – things like the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and Heap Autocapture. These tools track user interactions on websites. The central claim in both actions is that these tools intercept users’ communications without consent and transmit them to third parties like Meta or Heap in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA.

Jerry: Right, and that ECPA claim carries some serious weight and is worth a considerable amount of money because the potential statutory damages are $10,000 per user per violation. That’s pretty significant when you add up what occurs in a class action.

Hayley: Exactly. When you’re talking about websites with hundreds of thousands of visitors, those numbers add up fast. And while most of these lawsuits have targeted healthcare providers, we’re now seeing claims against education platforms, retailers, and more.

Jerry: So, let’s break down the rulings, and let’s start with the Hannant case. What happened here?

Hayley: So, in Hannant, the plaintiff sued a hospital, claiming that by embedding the Meta Pixel on its site, the hospital sent Meta a duplicate of her web-browsing data without her consent. Judge Sara Darrow dismissed the ECPA claim, but importantly, she allowed the plaintiff to re-plead. The court said the plaintiff might be able to survive dismissal by adding details about how the alleged data sharing violated HIPAA, which would support a claim that the hospital acted with a criminal or tortious purpose, which is a key requirement under the ECPA exception.

Jerry: And what about the Powerschool decision in terms of the court going the other way?

Hayley: Yes. In that case, the plaintiff sued the Chicago school board and its edtech provider over their use of a third-party tool called Heap Autocapture. Judge Jorge Alonzo denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged violations of ISSRA, which stands for the Illinois School Student Records Act, and FERPA, which is the Federal education privacy statute. Both decisions leaned on plaintiff-friendly precedent from the Northern District of Illinois, but in Hannant, the court wanted more detail to support the theory of a criminal or tortious purpose. In Q.J., the court was satisfied that the allegations, as pleaded, crossed the threshold.

Jerry: Let’s talk about the implications of these two opinions. These are just two of hundreds of similar claims, but what are these rulings signaling to corporate counsel?

Hayley: We’re seeing a clear trend. Illinois federal courts are becoming outliers, more willing to let these ECPA claims proceed than courts in other jurisdictions. In most other states, courts are dismissing ECPA claims at the pleading stage, finding either no true interception or no criminal/tortious purpose when the use was for advertising or analytics.

Jerry: So, for companies operating in Illinois, is the big picture that pixels and cookies aren’t just marketing tools anymore, but can constitute legal landmines?

Hayley: Absolutely, Jerry. These decisions are making Illinois a hotbed for ECPA class actions. And while the Seventh Circuit hasn’t ruled on these issues yet, defendants need to preserve arguments now for a potential appeal later.

Jerry: So, if you’re a corporate counsel, what’s the big picture here in terms of things you should be doing to mitigate your risks?

Hayley: So there’s three key steps. Review your arbitration clauses, as making them airtight can help deter class actions or mitigate the risk of mass arbitration. Update your website privacy policies, terms of use, and vendor agreements. Audit your use of adtech and edtech tools – know what data is being collected, where it’s going, and whether it’s encrypted, anonymized, or otherwise protected.

Jerry: And I suppose the other issue is you’re dealing with a patchwork quilt of rulings, decisions going one way in Illinois and other ways in other jurisdictions. So, what’s a corporate counsel to do in the greater scheme of things?

Hayley: In other jurisdictions, defendants are still winning on motions to dismiss by arguing there’s no interception, or that there’s no criminal or tortious intent, when the purpose is legitimate business analytics.

Jerry: Seems to me the big takeaway, then, is that companies operating in Illinois need to be vigilant in compliance with these laws. So, Hayley, thanks so much for your thought leadership and for joining us for your maiden voyage on our podcast. Appreciate your expertise and your views of these two significant rulings. And for our listeners, please subscribe to our blog posts and sites, and listen in on our weekly podcasts. Thanks so much for being here.

Hayley: Thanks for having me on the podcast, and thanks to the listeners for being here.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and senior associate Daniel Selznick with their discussion of a key ruling issued by a Pennsylvania federal judge regarding intervenors to a $275 million settlement resolving pharmaceutical price-fixing claims.  

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 for being here again, loyal blog listeners and readers, for our weekly podcast series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is senior associate Dan Selznick. Thanks so much for being on the podcast, Dan.

Daniel Selznick: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: Today, our topic is discussing a ruling from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania called In Re Generic Pharmaceutical Pricing Antitrust Litigation. That’s a mouthful, but it involved a situation where 40 state attorneys general were blocked from intervening in a $275 million generic drug price-fixing antitrust settlement. Dan, what’s the hubbub about with respect to this case?

Dan: Yeah, so this is part of a massive multidistrict litigation involving allegations that Sandoz and other pharmaceutical companies conspired to fix prices on generic drugs. This $275 million settlement would resolve claims brought by consumers, insurers, and other so-called “end payers,” and it’s actually the largest settlement so far for any defendant in this MDL.

Jerry: Why was it that the state attorneys general were attempting to intervene in the settlement?

Dan: So, the states, which are collectively referred to as the “Movant States,” filed a motion to intervene because they were concerned the settlement might interfere with their own lawsuits against Sandoz that had been remanded to the District of Connecticut. They claimed they had a sovereign and statutory interest in ensuring a fair recovery for consumers in their states.

Jerry: So, the concern was the federal settlement approved by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania might impair or cut off their rights to pursue state-related claims?

Dan: Exactly, so they argued that the scope of the release in the federal settlement could overlap with or even undermine what they’re trying to recover in their own suits. But the states weren’t asserting any new claims in this case, they were just asking to intervene so they could protect what they saw as their interests.

Jerry: But the end result was the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said no – what was the reasoning behind that answer to the states’ request?

Dan: Sure, so the court was following a recommendation by the special master in the case, and ruled that the states did not have Article III standing to intervene. And essentially, the court agreed that the states’ interest here was nominal, and it didn’t rise to the level of a concrete, sovereign interest required for standing.

Jerry: When you say nominal, from a legal sense, what does that mean in terms of standing?

Dan: In legal terms, a nominal interest means the party, in this case the states, is not asserting a direct legal claim or injury. The court held that because the states weren’t asserting their own affirmative claims and were instead trying to weigh in on claims resolved between private plaintiffs and Sandoz, the states were more like bystanders. So, the court made it clear that the real parties in interest are the individual consumers, or the end payers, and the states weren’t acting in their sovereign authority, which is key when trying to establish standing under a parens patriae theory.

Jerry: But isn’t it true that states have that statutory authority to protect consumers and to recover damages on their behalf? Doesn’t that matter in terms of a standing analysis?

Dan: Right, so that’s a big part of the states’ argument, and they were pointing to their parens patriae authority under state law to say, “We’re not just speaking for private citizens – we, the states, have an independent role.” But the court said that was not enough, because the states weren’t bringing their own claims here, and all of their actions were pending elsewhere. In this MDL, they were just objecting to the settlement and trying to ensure it did not impact their separate litigation. The court concluded that this indirect interest was not sufficient to establish standing to intervene.

Jerry: So that’s no standing, no intervention under Rule 24(a). What about permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)? Did the states try that gambit?

Dan: Right, so that’s a good question. You know, under Rule 24(b), the court has more flexibility. But even there, the special master concluded, and the court agreed, that letting the states in at this stage would risk delaying or prejudicing the rights of existing parties. And notably, the states didn’t push back on that conclusion, so the court denied permissive intervention under 24(b) as well.

Jerry: I thought the ruling was interesting insofar as the states were not allowed to intervene, but were not totally silenced. The court still let them leave to file an amicus brief. Is that something that you see very often?

Dan: You know, it’s hard to say. I mean, in this case, the court said that the states’ objections could still be considered, but only as amici curiae. So, the court made a point to say it would give those objections the same weight it would have if the states had been permitted to intervene. But the key difference with this is that because the states don’t have formal party status, they can’t appeal the final ruling unless they can establish standing.

Jerry: I thought another interesting dynamic to the decision was the role of Florida, and what it did, in a unique way as compared to the other states. Could you explain that for our listeners?

Dan: Sure, and yeah, it is interesting. So, Florida actually was not part of the group trying to intervene, and instead it asked to file an amicus brief supporting the settlement. So, contrary to what the other states were doing, and the court granted that request. So, you know, you’ve got states on both sides of this issue, which highlights how divided even the public enforcers can be when it comes to evaluating the fairness of a settlement.

Jerry: In terms of the financial side of the equation, how are the costs for the intervention motions being split?

Dan: So, my understanding is that the court is treating this as a shared cost among the parties involved in the motion, and I think the special master fees for the motion will be 50% covered by the states, so the movants, and then the other 50% will be split between Sandoz and the end-payer plaintiffs, each having 25%.

Jerry: That’s quite interesting. Well, thanks, Dan, for lending your thought leadership here in this complicated arena in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. I think the big takeaway here seems to be, as it is in many federal-related class action situations, that real standing is the key to opening the courthouse door and being able to intervene and having a clear legal interest in an Article III sense trumps everything else. So, thanks so much for being here, Dan, and for your insights and for explaining this ruling to our readers. And thanks, listeners, for tuning in.

Dan: Of course, thanks, Jerry, for having me on the podcast, and again, thanks to the listeners for being here.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associates George Schaller and Ryan Garippo with their discussion of a significant ruling handed down by the Seventh Circuit in Richards v. Eli Lilly & Co setting a new standard for the conditional certification of collective actions.

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 for joining us for our next episode of our weekly wire podcast called the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Mammon, of Duane Morris, and joining me today are my associates and colleagues, Ryan, Garippo, and George. Thanks so much, gentlemen, for being on this week’s Podcast.

Ryan Garippo: Great to be here. Thanks for having me, Jerry.

George Schaller: Thanks, Jerry, always good to be on the podcast.

Jerry: Today we’re unpacking a bombshell of a decision by the Seventh Circuit earlier this week, entitled Richards v. Eli Lilly. Ryan, can you give us a high-level overview of what this case is all about, and the ruling and holding of the Seventh Circuit?

Ryan: Yeah, of course, Jerry. So, this case started back in 2022, when Monica Richards, a former employee of Eli Lilly, sued the company for age discrimination under the ADEA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The plaintiff brought the case as a collective action, which means that she wanted to send notice to potentially affected employees and give them a chance to join the lawsuit. The ADEA incorporates the FLSA’s enforcement provision, which allows for employees to band together in collective actions when suing an employer for either age discrimination or wage and hour violations. Richards, as a result, alleged that Eli Lilly promoted younger employees in violation of the Act.

Jerry: So, although this is about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it has application to wage and hour collective actions, and I’d say, for every one age discrimination lawsuit, there are probably 100 wage and hour cases being brought. So, what’s at issue is 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) – In other words, in what circumstances should a court conditionally certify a collective action and send notice to those who are at issue in the lawsuit. So, in terms of conditional certification, I think that’s where the rubber meets the road in this decision. George, how do you view that issue?

George: Well, here, Jerry, after the plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the collective action, the district court followed the widely-used approach called the Lusardi two-step process, which is from a district court of New Jersey opinion in 1987, called Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. Under this framework the courts hold that the employee has a light burden at the first stage, and thus may rely solely on the plaintiff’s allegations and courts do not consider competing evidence submitted by the employer. In recent years, the Fifth and Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals have found that the Lusardi two-step approach is inconsistent with the text of the FLSA. But in contrast, the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits continue to either follow or allow the district court to adopt the two-step framework outlined in Lusardi. Here, the district court followed the two-step framework, granting conditional certification of the collective action and allowing notice to be sent to all potential collective action members.

Jerry: I know to get up to the Seventh Circuit there was an interesting route, unlike a class action under Rule 23(f) where one may file a petition with a court of appeal to examine a class certification order. There’s no such right of appeal under the rules or under the statute under 216(b). And yet Eli Lilly filed a motion for interlocutory appeal, and the Seventh Circuit accepted it, hence its realization of how important this issue is. What exactly did the Seventh Circuit decide in construing the parameters of 216(b)?

Ryan: Well, Jerry, the Seventh Circuit agreed that Lusardi was too permissive, and reformed the approach under 216(b). As a result, it held that the standard allowed for abuse, mainly by encouraging settlements based on the pressure of having a massive case brought against an employer rather than their merit. But, interestingly, the Seventh Circuit also stopped short of adopting the stricter frameworks adopted by both the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, and adopted a standard that’s primarily focused on flexibility. The idea is that instead of a hard rule, the Seventh Circuit gave district courts more discretion. It observed that the notice process should be facilitated by three guiding principles, namely, the timing and accuracy of notice; judicial neutrality; and the prevention of abuses of joinder. And now, plaintiffs have to show that there’s a material factual dispute as to whether employers are similarly situated, and actually bring forward some evidence of a common unlawful policy, as opposed to just relying on the allegations in their complaint. Of course, employers can introduce rebuttal evidence in response to that, and the employee has to engage with it, and the court can consider it as a whole.

Jerry: Sure sounds like a big win, to me, for employers. Given that the devil is in the details when it comes to allowing district courts to exercise their discretion, how do you think this is going to work in practice in the future in the Seventh Circuit at the district court level?

George: All that’s the details, Jerry. It’s definitely a win for employers, because in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin employers can now challenge collective actions earlier and more effectively. But the Seventh Circuit left a lot of questions unanswered, including the level of scrutiny courts should apply when plaintiffs should get limited discovery to meet this new standard. What happens if plaintiffs want to submit supplemental evidence, all that’s left to the court’s discretion? It does remove the automatic green light plaintiffs used to get at the first step, but now it opens the door to new fights about process. How much is enough evidence? When is the case strong enough to notify other employees? Nobody really knows yet.

Ryan: That’s right, and the federal courts are deeply divided, and this is a hot debate amongst the courts of appeal. You’ve got the Fifth and Sixth Circuits rejecting this already, and the Seventh join that group, albeit taking a middle road. Meanwhile, the Second, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits still allow it. Add to that about a second disagreement about whether or not Bristol Myers Squibb, a seminal U.S. Supreme Court case from a few years ago, applies to collective actions, and you’ve got a lot of uncertainty.

Jerry: You know, it’s remarkable that this is a piece of new deal legislation passed in 1938, and yet here we are, 85 years or more later, in 2025, and there are now four different standards to determine when to conditionally certify a collective action under 216(b). And if you’re an employer operating throughout the United States, you could be litigating the same case in one of those jurisdictions in a completely different manner than another one, because the standards are different. So, it does seem to scream out for Supreme Court review eventually, so that there’s one national, unified standard. In the interim, what can employers do?

George: Well, first, if you’re facing a collective action in the Seventh Circuit, this ruling does give you a stronger basis to oppose conditional certification early, and employers should use that opportunity to gather rebuttal evidence and be prepared to challenge the similarly situated claims head on. Second, consult outside counsel early – this area is in flux and procedural missteps can have real consequences.

Jerry: Well, thanks for those insights, and I would commend our listeners and readers to the blog post you gentlemen did earlier this week in elucidating the Seventh Circuit’s opinion. And we’ll be following these issues throughout the year, culminating in publication of the 2026 Duane Morris Class Action Review. So, thanks so much for joining our podcast this week.

Ryan: Thanks for having me on the podcast and thanks to the listeners for being here.

George: Thanks everyone. Great to be here.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and special counsel Justin Donoho with their discussion of significant attorneys’ fee awards in class action litigation over the past 12 months.

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 listeners for joining us for this week’s installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is special counsel Justin Donoho. Thanks for being on the podcast, Justin.

Justin Donoho: Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: Today we have a little different topic. We’re going to be discussing significant attorneys’ fee awards in the class action space – sometimes known as mini litigation inside a class action. Justin, how are attorneys’ fees generally calculated to class counsel in a class action situation?

Justin: Sure. In federal courts, settlements are approved under Rule 23(h), which allows the court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs that are authorized by law or by the parties’ agreement. Courts typically use two methods: the percentage-of-the-fund method, common in “common fund” class actions, where attorneys receive a fraction – often 25 to 33% – of the settlement or judgment. There’s also the lodestar method, where fees are tied to hours worked times hourly rate, often with a multiplier for risk or complexity. Courts also use the lodestar as a reasonable cross-check. Courts must carefully assess fee requests to protect absent class members and weigh results, effort, risk assumed, and any class objections.

Jerry: Our Duane Morris Class Action Review surveys leading class action fee awards throughout the United States. What were some of the significant rulings in your mind over the past 12 months?

Justin: Well, in 2024 there were some record attorney paydays in high-stakes litigation.

In the In Re Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, a $1.51 billion settlement between Syngenta and corn farmers resulted in an attorney fee award of $503 million.

In environmental class actions against 3M resolving lawsuits related to PFAS contamination in public drinking water systems, a $10.3 billion settlement generated an attorneys’ fee award of $840 million, one of the largest ever.

In a securities fraud shareholder litigation – just one more example – firms representing Dell investors secured a $267 million fee award from the $1 billion class settlement, which was later upheld by Delaware’s highest court.

Jerry: Well, suffice to say, 2024 was a banner year for the plaintiffs’ class action bar in taking down large fee awards. I know there was also a noteworthy fee award in the past month or so in the In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation, where $515 million in attorneys’ fees were awarded in various consolidated antitrust class actions. The court also found it reasonable to allow class counsel to apply for future fee awards in administering the settlement involving student at student athlete-benefits, which will add even more to that number.

What do you see here, Justin, in what’s going on?

Justin: That one you just talked about from just last month reflects a broader trend class action settlements of over $40 billion dollars for the third straight year, with 2024 totaling around $42 billion dollars. The size of settlements tends to scale attorneys’ fees dramatically.

Jerry: Now, there are some lawyers that police these agreements. They’re known as objectors. There are some serial objectors, professional objectors, legitimate objectors – what do you make of that space in terms of objections that are filed to these sorts of fee awards?

Justin: The objections matter. Objectors often challenge disproportionate fees, especially in no-cash or low-claim situations. However, as we discussed recently on the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog, the Third Circuit in In Re Wawa Data Security Litigation approved a $3.2 million class fee award for class counsel finding that fees can be based on relief made available to the class and does not have to be capped by a percentage of the relief actually claimed in low-harm data breach security class actions where the claim rate is notoriously low. The Third Circuit also held that clear sailing agreements and fee reversions are not per se impermissible and, rather, there must be evidence of collusion or harm to class members to invalidate a fee award on that basis.

Jerry: In terms of sitting at the mediation table and trying to bring home a settlement for a company in the class action space, do you have any thoughts for companies in terms of negotiating out attorneys’ fee awards?

Justin: Certainly. It’s important to understand how percentage-of-fund and lodestar methods play out based on settlement type and jurisdiction. Parties negotiating settlements should prepare for objector scrutiny, especially around any clear sailing terms and reversions. And it’s necessary to recognize that record-breaking settlements are driving fee awards into the hundreds of millions or close to billions. These cases illustrate just how large and complex class attorneys’ fee awards can get.

Jerry: Well, great thoughts and analysis, Justin. Certainly true that these massive settlements are driving the cottage industry of huge attorneys’ fee awards that we’re probably going to see in 2025 and beyond. So, thanks so much listeners for joining us for this week’s Class Action Weekly Wire.

Justin: Thanks for having me on the podcast and thanks to the listeners.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and special counsel Rebecca Bjork with their discussion of key sanctions rulings in class action litigation over the past 12 months.

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 next episode of the Duane Morris Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner here at Duane Morris, and joining me today is special counsel Rebecca Bjork of our Washington, D.C. office. Thanks so much, Rebecca, for being on our podcast.

Rebecca Bjork: Jerry, it’s great to be here. Thanks for having me.

Jerry: Today we have a little bit of a different topic. We’re going to focus on significant issues considering motions for sanctions in class action litigation. Rebecca, describe for our listeners some of the reasons why a court might contemplate entering sanctions in class action litigation.

Rebecca: Sanctions are just simply thought of as penalties – in civil cases, they are typically in the form of a monetary fine usually issued in response to violating procedures or abusing the judicial process somehow. But the most extreme sanction that can be imposed in civil cases is dismissal with prejudice of the filing party or dismissal of the answer of the responding party, which means that the sanctioned party would have no further recourse available, and the case would be over with judgment entered against them.

Jerry: Well, thanks for that overview. Let’s jump right into it and talk about some of the most significant rulings over the past 12 months. What about the Ikea case – what happened there?

Rebecca: Sure. In Donofrio, Ikea was hit with sanctions in an age discrimination collective action. Plaintiffs had alleged that older workers were passed over for promotions in favor of younger employees based on so-called “future potential” and their willingness to relocate. The court had ordered Ikea to preserve and produce emails from certain managers, which is obviously common in such litigation, but instead, Ikea deleted four of those accounts in violation of the court’s order. The court said that this spoliation wasn’t intentional, but it still caused significant prejudice to the plaintiffs, and as a result Ikea had to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses related to their sanctions motion.

Jerry: Always viewed that case as a great example of how simple negligence and not intentional or bad faith conduct can trigger sanctions in the class action space. Let’s pivot to a sanctions ruling that made a lot of headlines in the consumer fraud class action space. The Dukas v. KLM Airlines case. What stood out for you there in that situation?

Rebecca: Well, that one centered on climate-related advertising. Plaintiffs, led by class action lawyer named Spencer Sheehan, claimed that KLM had misled customers about their environmental commitments. But the named plaintiff admitted that she never saw the ads in question – so she never had standing. Now the attorney Sheehan did not withdraw the suit or fix the issue even after KLM raised these points with the court, so the court hit him with a $1,000 fine and ordered him to pay KLM’s legal fees. The court also referenced this attorney’s history of filing questionable consumer class actions, so this is a clear signal – do your diligence before filing your lawsuit.

Jerry: Good admonition. But speaking of high costs, what about Durant v. Big Lots that involved over $140,000 in attorneys’ fees? What happened there?

Rebecca: Well, that case was about allegedly deceptive labeling of coffee, and the court found that the lawsuit was frivolous, especially since it mirrored previously dismissed case out of New York. The judge used the lodestar method to calculate fees, and rejected the plaintiff’s objections as vague. But importantly, while the defendant requested a multiplier for the work their attorneys did, the court said that standard fees were enough, but still this was a big hit for the plaintiff’s counsel, both financially and reputationally.

Jerry: Let’s continue and take a tour of the sanctions jurisprudence that developed over the last year. Tell us briefly about the cases of Hamm v. Acadia Healthcare and Plunkett v. FirstKey Key Homes.

Rebecca: Sure. In Hamm, the court partially granted sanctions against the plaintiff’s counsel in a wage and hour case, and it was all about discovery misconduct, which is often the case in these cases – missed depositions, failure to cooperate. The judge trimmed the fee award, though, for inefficiencies like block billing, but he still ordered reimbursement for time spent preparing the sanctions motion.

But in Plunkett v. FirstKey, the other case you mentioned, the tables were turned there. The plaintiffs were awarded sanctions because the defendant, FirstKey Homes, tried to settle directly with potential opt-in plaintiffs outside of court supervision. The court called this coercive, issued a protective order, and awarded fees and costs to the plaintiffs. So, there’s another cautionary tale – never sidestep judicial oversight in FLSA cases.

Jerry: Let’s talk about courts declining to order sanctions or appellate review of sanctions order. Let’s talk about the rare reversal in the In Re Sanford Law Firm case.

Rebecca: Yeah, in that case the Eighth Circuit concluded that the district court had not given the firm that was involved there, or its managing partner, sufficient notice before suspending them from handling FLSA cases for two years – that’s another type of sanction that courts have the authority to impose. It was about allegedly excessive billing, but the appeals court said that due process matters, even in sanctions proceedings.

Jerry: And then what about the word count – in a very interesting decision, called Larsen v. PTT?

Rebecca: Yeah, that case was funny. The plaintiffs accused the defense team of submitting overly long briefs in violation of local rules by falsely certifying compliance with word limits, and it turns out that the Microsoft Word settings excluded footnotes from the count. Now the court here wasn’t thrilled, but called it inadvertent, and actually denied sanctions in that case.

Jerry: Well, that’s a good reminder to double check your software settings. We have time for two quick ones – how about the Mazurek v. Metalcraft case and the Ortiz v. Sazerac case?

Rebecca: There, plaintiffs lost their FLSA claims after not being able to show unrecorded work hours. But the court said that their legal theories were not frivolous, so, even though they ultimately lost no sanctions were awarded.

And in the Ortiz case. the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit alleging Fireball’s malt labeling was misleading. The defendant sought fees under Rule 11, but because they withdrew the complaint within the safe harbor period. Under that rule, the court concluded that sanctions were not appropriate there either.

Jerry: As always, it’s been an interesting year in terms of sanctions decisions throughout the United States. I know that you focused a lot in your writings and thought leadership in this area – what would you share with our readers and listeners as the general takeaways in this space?

Rebecca: Oh, it’s definitely a fun area of the law to work in – very unique area of class action jurisprudence. I would say that the courts try to balance accountability of the parties to comply with the rules and fairness. and that’s probably reflective of what the rules require. Courts are willing to impose serious consequences, but only after very careful consideration, and I see the trend being judges increasingly scrutinizing discovery matters and professional conduct matters in complex litigation, and that both sides, plaintiffs and defendants, are being held to the same standards.

Jerry: Well, thanks so much for your insights, Rebecca, and I know our readers are looking forward to the launch of the 2026 Duane Morris Class Action Review and the Appendix II on sanctions orders throughout the United States over the past 12 months, which you’re the co-author of. Thanks so much for joining us today and sharing your thought leadership.

Rebecca: You’re very welcome. Thanks so much for having me on.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and special counsel Samson Huang with their discussion a key ruling from a California appeals court allowing a plaintiff to pursue PAGA claims solely on behalf of other aggrieved employees.

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: Hello everyone, and welcome to the Class Action Weekly Wire, the podcast where we explore critical class action legal developments. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today for the first time is Samson Huang, our newest member of our class action team, who is based in our Los Angeles office. Samson, thanks so much for being here today.

Samson Huang: Of course. Thanks, Jerry. I’m so glad to be here.

Jerry: Today we’re discussing the recent ruling coming out of the California Court of Appeal in CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court of Fresno County, which addresses the legality of something known as a “headless” PAGA action. Can you start by explaining for our listeners the central issue in the case?

Samson: Absolutely. The heart of the case was whether an employee can bring a so-called “headless” PAGA action, meaning a Private Attorneys General Act claim that seeks civil penalties for labor code violations suffered only by other employees and not by the plaintiff themselves. This came up after the plaintiff dismissed, or tried to dismiss, his individual claims to avoid arbitration.

Jerry: So, as I understand it, the Court of Appeal in California had to decide whether or not this sort of lawsuit is even viable under the PAGA?

Samson: That’s correct. The employer, CRST Expedited, argued that the statute’s language—specifically the phrase “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees”—meant that you must have, and bring, your own individual claim in order to piggyback off of, to have standing, for the nonindividual claims and they wanted the court to interpret the word “and” strictly in the conjunctive.

Jerry: And so how did that go for the employer in the Court of Appeal with respect to that particular argument?

Samson: Well unfortunately, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the employer, and found that the statutory language was ambiguous, holding that the word “and” could be actually interpreted as meaning either “and” or “or “—what we call an inclusive disjunctive—and the panel emphasized that PAGA is a remedial statute designed to empower private enforcement of labor laws. They reasoned that, allowing headless PAGA claims better served the statute’s purpose, especially in light of recent procedural hurdles around arbitration after Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

Jerry: Well, things weren’t complicated enough. I know that Viking River Cruises created new law and basically stood for the proposition that if you’re a worker, and you had signed an arbitration agreement with a class action waiver, you had to proceed in arbitration. And then, as I understand it, California courts have thereafter interpreted Viking River to allow, nonetheless, the employee, after arbitration, to go forward with a representative action on behalf of other representative employees. How did the Court of Appeal deal with Viking River Cruises in terms of whether that had an impact on headless PAGA actions?

Samson: Well, the issue of headless PAGA actions really wasn’t addressed. In Adolph v. Uber Technologies, the California Supreme Court simply held that merely the fact that a plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims compelled to arbitration pursuant to Viking River didn’t mean that the plaintiff lost standing to maintain the representative nonindividual PAGA claims in court, and strongly suggested that if a plaintiff gets compelled to arbitration on the individual claim, the nonindividual claims should be stayed pending resolution of the arbitration. In this recent CRST case, this is a strategy that the plaintiffs’ bar has developed in order to avoid arbitration.

Jerry: So, as I understand it, that was a gambit by the plaintiff’s lawyer, a conscious decision to dismiss their individual claim, to try and get around Viking River?

Samson: That’s right. And basically, the argument goes that if a plaintiff has no individual claim, there would be nothing left to compel into arbitration. Therefore, the court proceedings on the nonindividual claims can proceed. The employer in the case argued that by doing so, he lost standing and meaning by dismissing an individual PAGA claim, the plaintiff loses standing again. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and it held that even though the plaintiff wasn’t personally seeking penalties anymore, he still qualified as an aggrieved employee because he had been subjected to labor code violations, or at least had alleged that he had been subjected to labor code violations, and completed the required notice procedures under PAGA.

Jerry: Well, what would be your prognostication for our listeners about whether or not there’s a chance this could get reversed by the California Supreme Court?

Samson: Jerry, prior to this case there was another Court of Appeal in a case called Leeper v. Shipt which, while addressing the same issue, reached the opposite conclusion, and held that every PAGA claim necessarily includes both an individual and nonindividual component. And that case has actually been taken up to the California Supreme Court, which has granted review. So, CRST is definitely not the final word, and until the Supreme Court issues its opinion in Leeper, trial courts are free to choose between Leeper and CRST, in terms of which decision they want to follow. So, until then, employers and practitioners alike should be cautious.

Jerry: I know you do a lot of thought leadership in this particular space and help many employers with respect to PAGA compliance. What would be your quick advice for employers in dealing with this situation until there’s resolution at the California Supreme Court level?

Samson: Well, I think this ruling really reinforces California’s commitment to robust enforcement of labor laws through PAGA, and employers should revisit their arbitration agreements and attorneys should stay tuned to Leeper. The terrain is shifting quickly.

Jerry: Well, thanks so much for your thoughts and analysis in this very complex area, and welcome to the show and to your first podcast on behalf of Duane Morris. Thanks so much.

Samson: Thanks for having me, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and special counsel Kathryn Brown with their analysis of key developments in class action litigation involving the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act.

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: Hello everyone and welcome to the Class Action Weekly Wire, the podcast where we explore critical issues in class action litigation. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me today is Kathryn Brown, one of our class action lawyers based in Ohio. Great to see you, Kathryn. Welcome to the podcast.

Kathryn Brown: Thanks, Jerry. I’m so glad to be here.

Jerry: Today, we’re diving into a very complex area in the class action world – class actions under the WARN Act. Let’s start with some of the basics. Kathryn, can you describe for our listeners what WARN is all about?

Kathryn: Sure, the WARN Act, which stands for the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, is a federal law that requires large employers, those with 100 or more full-time employees, to give at least 60 days’ notice before conducting a mass layoff or plant closing. What’s made this area explode recently, especially post-COVID, is the sheer volume of layoffs that occurred with little or no notice that opened the door for a wave of class actions which are still weaving through the courts. Now, if employers fail to comply with the WARN Act, they may owe up to 60 days of wages and benefits to each impacted employee.

Jerry: COVID-19 certainly has been a tipping point in the courthouse in many areas of litigation. Specifically, how has it shaped WARN Act litigation?

Kathryn: It’s been a game-changer. Many employers tried to argue that the COVID-19 pandemic was a natural disaster or an unforeseeable business circumstance that excused the 60-day notice requirement under the WARN Act, but some courts rejected those defenses outright – especially where the employer failed to give any notice or gave only partial notice.

Jerry: Really interesting, both from a legal and societal perspective, in terms of, I take it, courts still expected companies, employers to abide by the prescriptions of WARN, despite all the challenges posed by COVID-19.

Kathryn: Yes, and some of the 2024 decisions confirm that courts looked closely at whether employers gave as much notice as possible as required, even under those exceptions, to WARN.

Jerry: Well, you’ve done a lot of writing in this area, and you were one of the authors of the Duane Morris Class Action Review. In your opinion, what are some of the standout decisions in this space in 2024?

Kathryn: There were several. One important case was Staley v. FSR International Hotel, which involved the Four Seasons Hotel in New York City. The court in Staley granted class certification of a class of hotel workers furloughed during the pandemic. The court found that common issues of law and fact predominated because the central issues in the case – whether the extended furlough qualified as a “mass layoff” or “plant closing” under the WARN Act, and whether the employees were entitled to severance pay – were common issues across all class members. The court opined that although there were some individual differences among the class members, such as the fact that some employees worked at other hotel properties after the hotel closed, the court determined that these variations did not override the predominance of common legal questions.

Jerry: So even in certain circumstances, extended furloughs rather than terminations can trigger WARN Act obligations?

Kathryn: They can, especially if they last over six months. Courts are treating those as employment losses under both federal and state WARN acts. Other important rulings under the WARN Act in 2024 addressed employers’ notice obligations when an anticipated date of termination is postponed, the need to provide a brief statement of the reason for a shortened notice period, employers’ greater risk of exposure to liability under state law versions of the WARN Act, and how back pay damages owed to affected employees are calculated following a determination of liability. This was the case in Messer v. Bristol Compressors, where the employer postponed the employees’ final termination date, but failed to issue additional notice. The court held that once a shutdown is delayed by 60 days or more, a new 60-day notice under warrant is required.

Jerry: I know if the compliance obligations weren’t tough enough, we also are dealing with a patchwork quilt of state law mini-WARN acts. Have there been decisions, in your mind, in terms of those state law provisions that also complicated this space?

Kathryn: Absolutely. The New York and New Jersey WARN Acts, for example, often require longer notice periods than the federal WARN Act. They require notice periods of up to 90 days and impose stricter requirements than under the federal WARN Act. States often have different definitions, different notice formats, and different exceptions than under the federal WARN Act. The plaintiffs’ bar knows this and uses it to their advantage.

Jerry: Well, the plaintiffs’ bar is nothing if not innovative, and certainly is always kind of chasing that money trail. What sorts of verdicts, damages, settlements did you see in the past year on the WARN front?

Kathryn: Right, so a core component of potential damages in a WARN Act lawsuit is back pay owed to affected employees for the period of the violation. Given the strict standards for notification under the WARN Act, it’s no surprise that the standards of calculation of damages owed to affected employees likewise heavily favor employees. So, one case is Chaney v. Vermont Bread Company. In that case, the court awarded millions of dollars in back pay, even rejecting attempts by the employer to offset damages based on help the employer provided after the layoffs or payments made by a receiver. The court provided guidelines as to acceptable forms of calculating damages in WARN Act cases, as well as made clear that employers cannot mitigate damages based on efforts to assist employees post-layoff or by suggesting that payments made by a receiver should offset their liability.

Jerry: One of the attributes of the Duane Morris Class Action Review is an analysis of major settlements in the class action world. What about in the WARN area – what were some of the major class action settlements over the past year?

Kathryn: Well, in the case of Nunn v. Bitwise, the court approved a $20 million settlement to resolve claims under both the federal WARN Act and the California WARN Act. WARN Act settlements often come through bankruptcy proceedings, which adds certain amount of complexity – but does not erase liability.

Jerry: At the end of the day, then, what would be your takeaways for employers in dealing with WARN Act issues in the class action space?

Kathryn: The key takeaway is to treat WARN notice obligations extremely seriously, and get counsel involved. If you’re downsizing or restructuring, you may be triggering WARN Act, and failing to comply can lead to massive liability.

Jerry: Well, that’s great succinct advice. Kathryn, thanks so much for joining us on the podcast today.

Kathryn: Thank you so much 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 report on trends analyzed in the class certification rulings issued through the first six months of 2025.

Read our detailed breakdown of 2025 class certification rulings here.

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: Hello everyone, and welcome to the next episode of our Class Action Weekly Wire series. I’m Jerry Maatman, and I’m joined today by my partner, Jennifer Riley, to talk about the mid-year review of class certification numbers. Jen, welcome to the podcast.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks so much, Jerry. It’s great to be here, especially with so much going on in the class action space.

Jerry: Well as of June 30, 2025, we’re six months into the new year. Let’s start with the big picture: courts ruled on approximately 207 class certification motions in the first half of the calendar year, and plaintiffs were successful in 69% of those motions. That’s quite a jump from 2024, isn’t it?

Jennifer: It is. So, last year the success rate was 63%. We’re seeing a notable uptick there, although it’s still a bit lower than what we saw in 2023, and even 2022, when certification success rates hit 72% and 74% respectively. The trajectory so far this year suggests that plaintiffs are regaining some of that ground.

Jerry: Sure sounds like it. I know that certification is a function of where the case is, the judges before it, and the subject matter area. So these are general numbers. What do you look when you peel back that number and look at the specific areas?

Jennifer: Well, I think the subject matter area has been particularly notable in terms of the numbers we’re seeing. The highest success rates in 2025 so far have come from WARN, antitrust, ERISA, and wage and hour. WARN has had a 100% certification rate so far, even though that was only two cases. Antitrust and ERISA are close behind at 92%. And then there’s wage and hour, which is always a hot topic. Wage and hour is showing us a strong 82% success rate in terms of courts granting certification.

Jerry: Let’s focus on wage and hour. Let’s talk about Fair Labor Standards Act conditional certification. That continues, it appears to be, a very, very hot area of the law, isn’t it?

Jennifer: Absolutely. From January through June of this year, courts issued 74 rulings in FLSA matters. 71 of those were first stage motions for conditional certification, and plaintiffs won 58 of them. That is an 82% success rate, up slightly from the 79% success rate we saw in 2024.

Jerry: I think it’s certainly obvious that there are epicenters of wage and hour FLSA litigation, particularly the Second and Third Circuits, in terms of the number of filings and the success rates there. What makes these places more favorable to the plaintiffs?

Jennifer: That’s absolutely right. So, we’re seeing those jurisdictions particularly show favorable results for the plaintiff at the decertification stage. Also, the usual trend where defendants succeed more often isn’t really playing out this year. We’ve only seen three decertification rulings so far, and plaintiffs have won two of those.

Jerry: I know location impacts certification numbers in terms of the standards in the various circuits. We’re seeing fewer rulings than in past years in the wage and hour space in both the Fifth and Sixth Circuits which are controlled by the Swales case and the Clark case. What’s your thoughts or takeaways on what we’re seeing in 2025?

Jennifer: That’s very important to know, Jerry. I completely agree. I think, what we’re seeing there in those circuits, it’s reflective of a strategic move by the plaintiffs. Both of those circuits have adopted stricter standards for conditional certification, which makes them arguably less appealing venues for plaintiffs. So plaintiffs, therefore, are shifting their filings and their motions toward those more lenient circuits which really boosts their odds of success.

Jerry: Think it’s ironic that [the FLSA] is a piece of new deal legislation signed in 1938. And here, in 2025, we still have three different standards around the country for the circumstances under which wage and hour cases will be certified. Do you see a shift in a geographical sense of where the plaintiffs’ bar hunts out these cases, files them, to maximize their chances for certification?

Jennifer: Absolutely. I think the mid-year numbers are showing us that things like venue selection, subject matter, and timing are all critical components in plaintiffs’ class certification strategy. So, with FLSA continuing to dominate, we’ll definitely be watching closely to see how courts respond in the second half of the year, and whether we see more shifting standards influencing where and when we’re seeing motions filed by the plaintiffs’ bar.

Jerry: Well, the scorecard is interesting through mid-year 2025. We’ll have the final numbers for our clients in the first week of January of 2026 upon publication of the Duane Morris Class Action Review. So, stay tuned and gain more insights in this area. Thanks Jen so much for your thought leadership as always in this particular space.

Jennifer: Thank you, Jerry, and thanks so much to our listeners for tuning in for this week’s edition.

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley with their report on class action settlement trends at the halfway mark of 2025.

Read our detailed breakdown of 2025 class action settlements here.

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: Hello, everyone, and welcome to the next episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, and with me today for our special mid-year review of class action settlements is my partner, Jen Riley. Jen, welcome back to the podcast.

Jennifer Riley: Thanks so much, Jerry.

Jerry: Well, we’re halfway through 2025. What sort of developments do we see on the settlement front?

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry. It’s been quite a ride. The data confirms what we’ve been tracking since 2022 – we’re in a new era of class action litigation, corporate defendants have been facing unprecedented settlement exposures. The total value of class action and government enforcement settlements hit $66 billion in 2022, $51.4 billion in 2023, and $42 billion in 2024. As of mid-2025, we have already reached $21.77 billion, keeping pace with those historic high numbers that I just mentioned.

Jerry: Those are enormous numbers, and obviously the snapshot for the first six months of 2025 only involved the top 5 settlements in each of these areas. So, we’re talking about over a $180 billion dollars in just three and a half years. That’s remarkable.

Jennifer: Exactly. It is the largest 3-year span of settlements in U.S. legal history. If the current trends hold, 2025 may end up right alongside those previous three years. It may not be a record breaker, but it’s definitely in that same upper tier.

Jerry: When you peel back the onion skin and dig down into the numbers, where are you seeing the highest settlement values so far in 2025?

Jennifer: That would probably be in the product liability and mass tort space. Those areas are leading by a long shot, $13.09 billion in just the first half of 2025. The next area is antitrust, which follows at $4.36 billion, and then, after that, securities fraud at $2.03 billion.

Jerry: I recall prior to Covid, one could count the number of $1 billion settlements on one or two fingers, sometimes in a 5-year period, although those are becoming more commonplace these days. Are there any standout billion-dollar settlements so far in 2025?

Jennifer: Great question. There are a few major ones, I would say the In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation – that one hit $2.78 billion. That’s the one that gave athletes retroactive compensation for missed name, image, and likeness opportunities. It’s really a historic shift. Also worth noting, Purdue Pharma’s $7.4 billion opioid-related settlement. Just last week, Purdue announced that it is preparing to send an updated bankruptcy plan and proposed settlement to a vote following a broad sign on by all U.S. states and territories.

Jerry: Way in and of themselves, those are landmark figures for those settlements. Are we seeing, as we did the last three years, increasing number of $1 billion settlements per case?

Jennifer: We are, there have been three billion-dollar settlements so far in 2025, that brings us to 37 total settlements over a $1 billion since 2022. It’s the most in any three-and-a-half-year period ever.

Jerry: Again, remarkable figures in terms of your analysis of that settlement activity. Are there particular sectors you would point out to our listeners that are worth looking at or to view as emerging areas of risk and exposure?

Jennifer: Data, breach and privacy settlements are increasingly prominent. For example, AT&T just agreed to pay $177 million dollars for a breach-related case. And Clearview AI settled for $51.75 million over biometric privacy violations. Also, discrimination and civil rights cases continue to generate large settlements, showing that the courts are still a viable forum for those systemic claims.

Jerry: Let’s talk about antitrust – that’s historically been an area where there have been very high settlements. What’s going on in that space thus far in 2025?

Jennifer: The antitrust sector is very active. The top 5 settlements in 2025 alone total more than $4 billion, with notable cases against the NCAA, CDK Global, and Perdue Farms. There’s a sustained focus on wage suppression and market manipulation. Those are key areas of concern for both the regulators and for the plaintiffs.

Jerry: The Duane Morris Class Action Review also tracks governmental enforcement settlement activity, insofar as those cases certainly have the feel look of a class action. What’s going on on that particular front with government enforcement litigation?

Jennifer: Even with the changes – still going strong. Government enforcement settlements reached over $77 million so far in 2025, covering everything from labor violations to deceptive marketing in the gaming industry. The DOJ, DOL, and state AGs have remained active, especially in sectors affecting workers and vulnerable consumers.

Jerry: If you take a holistic look at all the areas that are tracked that corporations are vulnerable to being sued over, are there any areas that are cooling down, or where the numbers are actually going down?

Jennifer: Great question, I would say securities fraud. Securities fraud is slightly down from the highs of 2023, and we’re also seeing some slowdown in TCPA-related cases, although Realogy Holdings $20 million robocall case is still making headlines over this past year, but overall, I would say most sectors are either holding steady or growing.

Jerry: Jen, I know you recently won an award and you were selected the number one most quoted and followed class action lawyer in the United States in terms of your thought leadership. Tell us about inside baseball in terms of your thoughts and insights in this particular space of what corporations can expect for the remainder of 2025.

Jennifer: Thanks, Jerry. I would say the bottom line is really that corporate defendants are operating in a legal environment where these large-scale class actions – whether driven by consumers, employees, investors, regulators – these are a constant and very costly risk. We’re really in a high-stakes phase of class action litigation right now, and there’s no indication that it’s going to slow down.

Jerry: Jen, thanks, as always, for those insights and thanks for our listeners for joining us for this week’s installment of the Class Action Weekly Wire. We’ll be sure to keep you updated on all the settlement numbers throughout the remainder of 2025, and when we debut the Duane Morris Class Action Review for 2026. I’m sure what we’re going to point out to are the enormous settlement numbers now for four years in a row. So thanks so much.

Jennifer: Absolutely. The 2026 version is going to be a must-read. Thank you, Jerry, and thank you to our listeners.