Duane Morris Takeaways: Since its inception in September of 2022, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense blog has now recorded its 100th post!!!!
Since our kick-off post, our data analytics show there have been over 20,000 views to blog posts, with thousands of our loyal subscribers reading about class action litigation developments. There are many highlights from the last 100 posts, but we wanted to provide just a few for you here. Click on the links below to see all the hot trends in class action litigation, and tune in below for a special thank you announcement from the blog’s editor, Jerry Maatman.
Overview Of The Last 100 Posts
We launched the first edition of the Duane Morris Class Action Review, which is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America. The Review has been prominently featured in the media and is a must-have for all human resources professionals, business leaders, and corporate counsel.
We also published five mini-books focused on specialized areas of law in class action litigation and on EEOC-Initiated litigation. Here are the links to our blog posts announcing the EEOC-Initiated Litigation Review, the Privacy Class Action Review, the Wage & Hour Class And Collective Action Review, the Private Attorneys General Act Review, and the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review.
The blog also kicked-off the Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast, where experts in the field discuss trends and hot developments. Tune in every Friday for a new episode!
Click here to read our most viewed blog post entitled Massachusetts State
Court Rules In Class Action That A Multiple-Choice Promotional Test Discriminated Against Minority Police Officers. Over 2,000 people read this post!
Click here to watch our most viewed Class Action Weekly Wire Podcast, regarding ChatGPT and artificial intelligence and the impact on class action litigation.
Thank you loyal followers for making the Class Action Defense blog your pick for class action litigation related information, trends, and analysis. We truly appreciate it! See below for a special message from the blog’s editor, Jerry Maatman. And please keep coming back, we promise to keep the content fresh!
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Sharon L. Caffrey
Duane Morris Takeaways: Class action litigation in the consumer fraud area has exponentially increased over the past several years, leaving corporations extremely vulnerable. Additionally, most consumer fraud class actions come with the possibility of excessive payouts for corporations. To that end, the class action team at Duane Morris is pleased to present the inaugural edition of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2023. We hope it will demystify some of the complexities of consumer fraud litigation and keep corporate counsel updated on the ever-evolving nuances in this area of law. We hope this book, which manifests the experience and expertise of the Duane Morris class action defense group, will assist clients by identifying trends in the case law and offering practical approaches in handing consumer fraud class action litigation.
Click here to download a copy of the Duane Morris Consumer Fraud Class Action Review – 2023 ebook.
Tune in on Fridays to our weekly podcast The Class Action Weekly Wire for more class action analysis and discussion of important trends!
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley
Duane Morris Takeaways: We were honored to present the keynote address today to open the 7th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference in New York City sponsored by Beard Group, Citi Financial, Simpluris, and Pacer Monitor. With over 100 attendees, the program focused on the current state of class action litigation and “white hot” litigation topics for 2023. The discussion points provide an excellent roadmap on what is likely coming down the road for Corporate America for the remainder of 2023.
Class Action Dynamics
The themes of our keystone address focused on the extraordinary developments in class action litigation over the past 12 months.
The plaintiffs’ bar certified class actions at unprecedented levels throughout the country and monetized their cases with the highest settlement values seen in over 25 years. Many of these settlements arose from opioid litigation against manufactures, distributors, and retailers in the pharmaceutical industry. On an aggregate basis, class actions and government enforcement lawsuits garnered more than $71 billion in settlements, with 15 class action cases settling for more than $1 billion. Suffice to say, 2022 was unlike any other year on the class action settlement front. As success often begets copy-cats, corporations can expect the plaintiffs’ class action bar will be equally if not more aggressive in their case filings and settlement positions in 2023.
In 2022, the plaintiffs’ class action bar succeeded in certifying class actions at an exceedingly high rate. Across all major types of class actions, courts issued rulings on over 360 motions to grant or to deny class certification in 2022. Of these, plaintiffs succeed in obtaining or maintaining certification in 268 rulings, with an overall success rate of nearly 75%. The plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained the highest rates of success in securities fraud, ERISA, WARN, and FLSA actions. In cases alleging securities fraud, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying classes in 23 of the 24 rulings issues during 2022, a success rate of 96%. In ERISA litigation, plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining orders certifying class in 18 of 23 rulings issued during 2022, a success rate of 78%. In cases alleging WARN violations, plaintiffs managed to certify classes in 100% of the suits that resulted in decisions this year.
In terms of predictions, we opined that as the volume of class action filings has increased each year for the past decade, and 2023 is likely to follow that trend. As a result, a company’s programs designed to ensure compliance with existing laws and strategies to mitigate class action litigation risks are corporate imperatives. The plaintiffs’ bar is nothing if not innovative and resourceful. Given the massive class action settlement figures in 2022, coupled with the ever-developing case law under Rule 23, corporations can expect more lawsuits, expansive class theories, and an aggressive plaintiffs’ bar in 2023. These conditions necessitate planning, preparation, and decision-making to position corporations to withstand and defend class action exposures. These crucial issues are inevitably posed by any class action litigation. By their very nature, class actions involve decisions on strategy at every turn. The positions of the parties are constantly changing and corporate defendants must always be looking ahead and anticipating issues during every phase of the litigation.
Hot Class Action Topics
Among the topics addressed at the Conference were ESG class actions, PFAS “forever chemicals” litigation, Camp LeJeune mass tort litigation, Talc liability class actions, crypto class actions, and gender discrimination and pay equity class action litigation.
Litigating ESG Consumer Class Actions
Baldassare Vinti, Jeff Warshafsky, and Jennifer Yang of Proskauer Rose LLP led a discussion of class action litigation focusing on ESG environmental marketing claims, which they noted have been an increasing in number in the consumer class action space. These putative class actions challenge “green” claims that products or services are “carbon neutral,” “recyclable,” “non-toxic,” or otherwise beneficial for the environment.
PFAS “Forever Chemical” Class Actions
Michael J. Bisceglia, Brian M. Ledger, Paul T. Nyffeler, and Thomas R. Waskom of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP presented on PFAS “forever chemical” litigation. Despite stringent regulation, PFAS has been linked to harmful health effects, including cancer. They predicted that after opioid litigation, many in the plaintiffs’ class action bar view this area as the next “big thing” for widespread mass tort and class actions.
Camp LeJeune Litigation & New Theories Of Liability
Mark A. DiCello of DiCello Levitt discussed the state of mass tort litigation with water contamination lawsuits filed against the U.S. Government alleging adverse health effects for affecting nearly 175,000 marines, sailors, their families and civilians at the camp between 1950 and 1985. Those cases were consolidated into MDL No. 2218 and the government successfully obtained dismissal of all of those cases in 2016. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have continued to litigate based on new theories of liability. The amount of advertising about the litigation is also continuing to mount (estimated at a cost of $500,000 to date), as more than 2,000 lawsuits are pending.
Talc Liability Class Actions
Gina Passarella, the editor in chief of American Lawyer, moderated a roundtable discussion with Melanie L. Cyganowski of Otterbourg P.C., Mohsin Meghji of M3 Partners, Robert J. Stark or Brown Rudnick, and Joshua A. Sussberg of Kirkland & Ellis regarding resolution of talc liability. The census of the roundtable was that this remains a hot topic in the class action and corporate restructuring communities, and that 2023 is expected to see various bankruptcy rulings in this sector.
After FTX, Crypto Lawyers And Class Actions
Michael P. Canty of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Graham Newman Chappell, Chappell & Newman provided their insights on crypto class action issues. They agreed that with the collapse of FTX, the crypto industry has endured more scrutiny. In this respect, decades-old laws are apt to provide fertile ground for assertion of class action theories.
Gender Based Discrimination & Pay Inequality
Matthew L. Berman of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP and Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP led a discussion on gender discrimination and pay equity class-based litigation.
With recent large equal pay cases, such as last year’s Google gender discrimination class action settlement of $118 million, and recent laws regarding pay equity and requiring pay transparency, a spotlight is shining on compensation in the workplace.
Mass Torts & Cases To Watch In 2023
Christopher Ege of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Mark Eveland of Verus LLC, Bridie Farrell of Milestone, Neil Kornswiet of Optium Captial LLC, and Edward E. Neiger of Ask LLP closed the Conference with a roundtable discussion of the state of mass tort litigation. They discussed several cases with some of the biggest brands making their way through court MDL proceedings, including Roundup, Tylenol Autism, and Elmiron. Based on key settlements from 2022, they predicted a robust litigation landscape for 2023.
Implications For Corporate America
If 2022 is any indication, 2023 is shaping up to be a signal year of developments in class action litigation.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, Alex W. Karasik, and Shaina Wolfe
Duane Morris Takeaways: The United States currently has no comprehensive data privacy law. Rather, a patchwork quilt of various privacy laws cover different types of data, such as information in credit reports (the Fair Credit Reporting Act), student records (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), and consumer financial products (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act). In an attempt to fill the void of federal legislation, Indiana recently joined six other states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Utah, and Virginia – in enacting a comprehensive privacy statute, the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (“ICDPA”). At least nineteen states have introduced similar privacy bills this legislative session. Montana and Tennessee have comprehensive consumer privacy statutes pending signature by their governors. Businesses in Indiana should start immediately reviewing their policies and implementing processes for complying with ICDPA to avoid enforcement litigation by the Indiana Attorney General.
Indiana Legislation
On May 1, 2023, Indiana Governor Holcomb signed Senate Bill 5, known as the ICDPA. This new law will take effect on January 1, 2026.
The ICDPA applies to companies that conduct business in Indiana or produce products or services that are targeted to residents of Indiana and during a calendar year: (1) control or process the personal data of 100,000 consumers (who are Indiana residents) or (2) control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers (who are Indiana residents) and more than 50% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data. Significantly, the ICDPA does not apply to data processed or maintained in the course of applying to or being employed by a business. Moreover, the ICDPA does not apply to government entities, non-profit organizations or higher education institutions.
The ICDPA provides consumers with rights to their personal data, including:
– opt-out rights related to the sale of personal data, targeted marketing and profiling (automated decision making that could have significant legal effects, such as those related to employment and benefits);
– access rights, including a right to confirm whether a company is processing any data at all;
– deletion rights;
– correction rights, limited to data the consumer previously provided;
– appeal rights; and
– data portability rights (summary of the personal data sent to the consumer must be in a portable and readily usable format).
“Personal data” is broadly defined as information that is “linked or reasonably linkable to an identified or identifiable individual.” Personal data does not include de-identified data, publicly available information, or data related to a group or category of customers that is not linked or reasonably linked to an individual customer. The ICDPA also provides consumers the right to opt-out of the collection and processing of their sensitive personal data. “Sensitive personal data” includes: (1) personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, religious beliefs, a mental or physical health diagnosis made by a healthcare provider, sexual orientation, or citizenship or immigration status; (2) genetic or biometric data that is processed for the purpose of uniquely identifying a specific individual; (3) personal data collected from a known child; and (4) precise geolocation data. Certain personal data that is covered by other statutes like the Fair Credit Reporting Act or Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act is exempt.
Once the ICDPA takes effect, companies must respond to a consumer personal data request within 45 days of receipt of the request. Companies may also seek a 45-day extension to respond. If a consumer appeals a company’s decision to deny the consumer’s request, the appeal response must be delivered within 60 days. If the appeal is denied, the company must provide the consumer with a method for contacting the state attorney general.
Importantly, the ICDPA does not provide individuals with a private right of action against businesses that violate the Indiana Law. Rather, the Indiana Attorney General will have exclusive enforcement authority. Prior to any enforcement action, the business will be allowed 30 days to cure the alleged violation. Only after the thirty days pass will the Indiana Attorney General be permitted to bring an enforcement action for the alleged violation. If the Indiana Attorney General decides to bring an enforcement action, the business may be fined up to $7,500 per violation.
Implications for Businesses
The ICDPA does not take effect until January 1, 2026. Covered businesses should start reviewing their policies and implementing processes for complying with the ICDPA to avoid enforcement by the Indiana Attorney General.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Tyler Z. Zmick
Duane Morris Takeaways: On May 1, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued one of only a handful of decisions that have been released regarding the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (“GIPA”). In Bridges v. Blackstone, Inc., No. 22-2486, 2023 WL 3165218 (7th Cir. May 1, 2023), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ GIPA claims based on Plaintiffs’ failure to allege that Defendant “disclosed” or was “compelled to disclose” their statutorily-protected genetic information. Similar to its more well-known counterpart – the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) – liability under the GIPA could potentially result in “astronomical” damages awards and may represent an increasingly important Illinois law in the privacy space.
GIPA Background
Enacted in 1998, the GIPA was designed to prevent employers and insurers from using genetic testing data as a means to discriminate for employment or insurance underwriting purposes.
To further that goal, the statute places restrictions on the ability to release “genetic testing and information derived from genetic testing.” Specifically, the GIPA provides that “genetic testing and information derived from genetic testing is confidential and privileged and may be released only to the individual tested and to persons specifically authorized, in writing in accordance with Section 30, by that individual.” 410 ILCS 513/15(a). Section 30, in turn, states that subject to certain exceptions, “[n]o person may disclose or be compelled to disclose the identity of any person upon whom a genetic test is performed or the results of a genetic test in a manner that permits identification of the subject of the test, except to . . . the subject of the test.” 410 ILCS 513/30(a).
Like the BIPA, the more widely-known privacy statute, the GIPA allows “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation” of the statute to collect liquidated damages “for each violation” in the following amounts: (1) for negligent violations, $2,500 or actual damages, whichever is greater; or (2) for intentional or reckless violations, $15,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater. 410 ILCS 513/40. Like the BIPA, prevailing GIPA plaintiffs can also recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Case Background
In Bridges, the Plaintiffs sent their DNA samples (obtained through at-home test kits) to Ancestry.com, a genealogy company. Years later, Defendant Blackstone, Inc. purchased Ancestry.com for $4.7 billion in an all-stock acquisition. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a putative class action against Blackstone in July 2021, alleging that its acquisition of Ancestry.com resulted in a violation of the GIPA.
After removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Blackstone moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a claim for relief under the GIPA.
The District Court agreed, holding that Plaintiffs failed to state a GIPA claim because they did not adequately allege that Blackstone “compelled” Ancestry.com to disclose Plaintiffs’ genetic data under Section 30 of the GIPA. The District Court agreed with Blackstone that “compel[ing]” the disclosure of genetic information necessarily requires something more than receipt or obtainment, yet Plaintiffs alleged only that Blackstone “may have been entitled to request or receive information from Ancestry in connection with the[] acquisition.” Bridges v. Blackstone Grp., Inc., No. 21-CV-1091, 2022 WL 2643968, at *4 (S.D. Ill. July 8, 2022).
The Seventh Circuit’s Decision
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ GIPA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Regarding the District Court’s reason for granting Blackstone’s motion to dismiss, the Seventh Circuit held that it need not answer the question “over whether GIPA liability can attach to a company like Blackstone that allegedly receives protected information, rather than discloses that information,” because Plaintiffs “have failed to state a claim regardless.” Id. at *2.
The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that it is not plausible to infer that “a run-of-the-mill corporate acquisition, without more alleged about that transaction, results in a compulsory disclosure within the meaning of Section 30.” Bridges v. Blackstone Grp., Inc., No. 22-2486, Order at 4 (7th Cir. May 1, 2023) (“All we can say with certainty about Blackstone’s all-stock acquisition of Ancestry is that a change in ownership occurred – nothing more.”).
Implications for Employers
One of only a few cases to have interpreted the statute, the Bridges decision indicates that a company is not subject to liability under the GIPA based solely on its acquisition of another company that may be in possession of genetic data.
Nonetheless, Bridges serves as a reminder to Illinois employers that collect genetic information, medical histories, and/or conduct “health screenings” as part of their application processes about the importance of complying with the GIPA.
The GIPA’s statutory text mirrors the BIPA’s text in important (and potentially concerning) ways, including that (i) a plaintiff can likely sue under the GIPA regardless of whether an actual injury is alleged; and (ii) following the Illinois Supreme Court’s logic as applied to the BIPA in Cothron v. White Castle, 2023 IL 128004 (Ill. Feb. 17, 2023) (see here), statutory damages may accrue under the GIPA each separate time a company “disclose[s] or [is] compelled to disclose” genetic data protected by the GIPA. Thus, it is possible that plaintiffs will file increased numbers of GIPA class actions in Illinois courts in the coming months and years.
By Eden Anderson and Rebecca Bjork
Duane Morris Takeaways: The scope of claims that can permissibly be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) may narrow once again. Last year saw the enactment of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which amended the FAA to preclude a pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate claims involving allegations of sexual harassment or sexual assault. With that amendment, plaintiffs who file claims — either individual claims or putative class action claims — that relate to a sexual harassment or sexual assault dispute may now, at their option, pursue such claims in court and cannot be compelled to submit those claims to arbitration. Now Congress may soon consider that sort on ban for claims involving race discrimination.
Proposed Legislation
Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Hank Johnson announced plans this week to introduce a bill — the Ending Forced Arbitration of Race Discrimination Act of 2023 — to further amend the FAA to preclude arbitration of race discrimination claims. While the parameters of the proposed bill are as yet unclear, presumptively it will seek to preclude arbitration of both individual and class action race discrimination claims, and possibly more.
The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act was initially drafted to cover all claims alleging “sex discrimination disputes,” but was then narrowed to only apply to sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. If Congress was not willing to ban arbitration of sex discrimination claims, it may not be willing to ban arbitration of race discrimination claims.
Implications For Employers
As states and Congress continue to take steps to limit the use of arbitration, it remains critical for businesses and employers to regularly review their arbitration agreements to ensure compliance with an often-changing landscape of laws.
As the FAA approaches its 100-year anniversary, its impact will be less profound if Congress continues to enact claim-specific carve outs.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Shaina Wolfe
Duane Morris Takeaways: In Restaurant Law Center, et al. v. United States Department of Labor, et al., No. 22-50145 (Apr. 28, 2023), a decision of significant importance to all employers in general and the service and hospitality industry in particular, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a Texas federal district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new tip credit rule of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and remanded for further proceedings. In Restaurant Law Center, the plaintiffs seek a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the DOL Final Rule regarding tip credit and dual jobs (the “Final Rule”). Importantly, the Final Rule reinstated the “80/20 Rule” by providing that employers can utilize the tip credit so long as 80 percent or more of the work is tip-generating, and not more than 20 percent is directly supporting work. However, the Final Rule also provides that employers cannot utilize the tip credit when an employee performs non-tipped work for more than 30 consecutive minutes. Plaintiffs claim that the DOL impermissibly created a new definition of “tipped occupation” that lacks support in the FLSA, and that enforcement of the Final Rule will impose substantial, ongoing costs on businesses. The district court had denied Plaintiff’s preliminary injunction solely because they failed to establish irreparable harm from complying with the Final Rule. The Fifth Circuit found that Plaintiffs submitted sufficient evidence that the Final Rule necessarily imposes a recordkeeping requirement and that employers who want to continue claiming the tip credit will “incur ongoing management costs” to ensure compliance. This decision is of signal importance as the Fifth Circuit’s decision indicates that the Final Rule may be on shaky ground.
Case Background
In late 2021, the DOL revived and revised the 80/20 Rule by providing that employers can utilize the tip credit only so long as 80 percent or more of the work is tip-producing, and not more than 20 percent is “directly supporting work.” See 29 C.F.R. § 531.56. Under the Final Rule, no tip credit can be taken for any non-tipped work. “Tip-producing work” is defined as work the employee performs directly providing services to customers for which the employee receives tips (i.e. taking orders and serving food). “Directly supporting work” is defined as work that is performed by a tipped employee in preparation of or to otherwise assist tip-producing customer service work (i.e., rolling silverware and setting tables). Non-tipped work includes preparing food or cleaning the kitchen, dining room, or bathrooms.
The Final Rule also includes a new requirement that an employer cannot utilize the tip credit when an employee performs more than 30 consecutive minutes performing “directly supporting work.” Directly supporting work done in intervals of less than 30 minutes scattered throughout the workday would not invalidate the tip credit, subject to the 80/20 Rule. However, employers must pay minimum wages for “directly supporting work” performed after the lapse of the first 30 continuous minutes.
In December 2021, Plaintiffs challenged the Final Rule in federal district court in Texas on the grounds, among other things, that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Restaurant Law Center, No. 22-50145 at 3. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and after holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the preliminary injunction. Id. The district court did not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. Rather, the district court assumed Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, but concluded they had failed to show they were irreparably harmed by the costs of complying with the new rule. Id. at 3-4. The district court noted that the compliance costs had already been incurred since the Final Rule was in place for more than one month, and any other costs were speculative at best. Id. at 4. Further, the district court found that the new Final Rule, which is similar to the 80/20 rule, does not require employers to monitor their employees’ time. Id.
The Fifth Circuit’s Ruling Reversing The Denial Of The Preliminary Injunction
The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings with the expectation that the district court “will proceed expeditiously” to reconsider the preliminary injunction motion with the benefit of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. Id. at 11.
In reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit found that employers who want to continue claiming the tip credit will “incur ongoing management costs” to ensure employees do not spend more than 30 minutes continuously performing directly supporting work. Id. at 9. Significantly, the Fifth Circuit commented that compliance with the Final Rule requires employers to record their employees’ time. The Fifth Circuit explained that it “cannot fathom how an employer could honor these specific constraints without recording employee time. What if an employer is investigated by the Department or sued by an employee for wrongly claiming the tip credit? Without time records, how could an employer defend itself?” Id. at 7.
The Fifth Circuit also disagreed with the DOL’s assertion that “employers need not engage in ‘minute to minute’ tracking of an employee’s time in order to ensure that they qualify for the tip credit.” Id. The Fifth Circuit opined that “[n]o explanation is given (nor can we imagine one) why an employer would not have to track employee minutes to comply with a rule premised on the exact number of consecutive minutes an employee works” and that an employer will need to account for blocks of employee time, “especially if an employer is accused of violating the rule.” Id. (emphasis in original).
Circuit Judge Higginbotham dissented from the majority opinion. He explained that “the majority yields to the temptation to insert its own logic to fill the void,” insinuating that the majority substituted its own reasoning (and potentially desire for a particular outcome) for Plaintiffs’ lack of a “clear showing they were harmed.” Id. at 17.
The Texas district court now has two important rulings to make. First, according to the Fifth Circuit, it will need to analyze the other preliminary injunction factors and issue another ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction. Second, the district court will need to analyze and issue its opinion on the parties’ fully-briefed motion for summary judgment. It is likely that the district court will issue one ruling tackling both motions. Regardless of the outcome, this case will likely be heavily litigated in the Fifth Circuit.
Implications For The Service & Hospitality Industry
The Fifth Circuit’s decision indicates that a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the Final Rule may be on the horizon. The Fifth Circuit’s decision showcases the unreasonable and costly task of complying with the Final Rule. The service and hospitality industry should stay tuned for the Texas federal district court’s imminent rulings on Restaurant Law Center’s motion for preliminary injunction and motion for summary judgment.
Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Alex Karasik, and special counsel Brandon Spurlock with their analysis of significant trends and developments in artificial intelligence and Chat GPT and how it will impact class action litigation. We hope you enjoy it!
