Class Action Defense

May 4, 2026May 4, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The Disorganization Defense: North Carolina Federal Judge Finds That Litigation Practices Of Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Sufficient Grounds To Deny Class And Collective Certification

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

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 22, 2026, in Ayers, v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc., No. 23-CV-00581, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89819 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 2026), Chief Judge Catherine Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied several motions to certify various claims as class and collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) and the North Carolina Wage And Hour Act (the “NCWHA”). This decision underscores the responsibility of plaintiffs’ counsel to manage a case and present the court with a viable plan to bring their clients’ claims through trial. Otherwise, plaintiffs’ counsel runs the risk that the court will not certify these claims at all.

Case Background

This decision emerges in the context of a series of seven-year-long lawsuits against GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (“GKN”), the supplier of all-wheel-drive and other automotive components, for several major automotive manufactures. Plaintiffs James Ayers, John Carson, and Tameka Ferges (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought three separate wage-and-hour lawsuits, asserting claims under the FLSA and the NCWHA. Plaintiffs alleged that GKN required them to perform work off the clock, including before and after shifts, and during unpaid meal breaks.

In 2018, Plaintiffs filed an earlier case against GKN. In that case, Plaintiffs alleged GKN had two policies that resulted in underpayment of their wages: (1) a “time rounding” policy; and (2) an “automatic deduction” policy for meal breaks. The Court originally conditionally certified an FLSA collective action and a Rule 23 class action under both of those theories. But the court ultimately decertified both the FLSA collective and the Rule 23 class, finding that “individual issues would swamp any attempt to resolve the claims on the class or collective basis.” Id. at *5

After that decision, Plaintiffs – represented by the same counsel – refiled three similar lawsuits, which split the claims based on GKN’s plant locations, but otherwise left the theories mostly intact. Plaintiffs then filed renewed motions for class and collective certification in each of the three actions and again asked the Court to allow them to proceed on a representative basis. The Court’s opinion, for all three cases, followed.

The Court’s Decision

In her 28-page opinion, Chief Judge Eagles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Plaintiffs’ motions based largely on manageability grounds.

Chief Judge Eagles explained that “manageability principles are explicit in the requirements for a proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class” and that “wider case management concerns remain relevant in the collective context.” Id. at 13. Thus, it is generally a plaintiff’s attorney’s responsibility to present the court with an “organized presentation of claims, organized discovery and motions practice, and organized submission of evidence.” Id. But here, Plaintiff’s counsel failed to present a manageable class or collective in at least four different ways.

First, and perhaps most fundamentally, Chief Judge Eagles found that “plaintiffs propose no efficient method of resolving class-wide liability and individual damages across three different subclasses.” Id. at *18. Although Plaintiffs’ theory was premised on the notion that GKN had a “de facto off-the-clock” policy, Plaintiffs did not explain how they planned to “efficiently prove that each and every nonexempt employee was subject to that de facto policy and, even more crucially, how each class member was injured by this policy.” Id. at *18-19. Chief Judge Eagles found this omission troubling given that “plaintiffs have had years to think about these problems” and could not present the court with a manageable solution. Id. at *19. But Chief Judge Eagles did not stop there.

Second, having dispensed with the omissions in Plaintiffs’ theory of case manageability, Chief Judge Eagles turned to Plaintiffs’ counsel who she reasoned has “not demonstrated the organization, diligence, and mindset required to prosecute a complex case.” Id. at *21. Chief Judge Eagles explained that because she often had to prompt Plaintiffs’ counsel to prosecute the case, via supplemental briefing and discovery, she had lost confidence in their ability to manage the docket. This problem was compounded by Plaintiffs’ counsel’s filing of “several ‘emergency’ motions and amended ‘emergency motions’” which underscored their inability to “handle ordinary litigation problems.” Id. at *21-22.

Third, Chief Judge Eagles characterized Plaintiffs’ counsel’s Rule 23 analysis as the product of an unreliable “narrator of the record.” Id. at *22-23. She described Plaintiffs’ counsel’s submissions as “inaccurate at best and misrepresentations at worst.” Id. at *23. Similarly, for the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles held that the “factual representations about the evidence in the plaintiffs’ briefing on an FLSA collective do not always hold up to scrutiny.” Id. at *31-32. These inaccuracies did not give her confidence that Plaintiffs’ counsel would be able to present a manageable case through trial.

Fourth, as to the FLSA claims, Chief Judge Eagles concluded by finding that “the plaintiffs have not proposed any plan, much less a workable plan, for the aggregation of all these claims.” Id. at *31. For example, Chief Judge Eagles highlighted that plaintiffs “have not explained how they will manage presenting evidence on all the different work activities at issue and [across] three different plants.” Id. She noted that – although it is often possible for plaintiffs’ counsel to create such theories — “[i]f they are unable to make the required showing after over seven years of litigation, there is no reason to think they will be able to do so by the time these cases are called for trial.” Id. at *33.

In short, Chief Judge Eagles explained that she “has certified several dozen class actions over the past fifteen years and is familiar with how to deal with disagreements between parties about managing and trying common and individual issues.” Id. at *26. “The problem here is not that management might be hard” but rather “that the plaintiffs proffer no plan for management . . . [a]nd the Court has no confidence that counsel will devise a workable plan.” Id. Thus, the motions were denied in their entirety.

Implications For Employers

Ayers presents two key lessons for corporate counsel grappling with how to manage these complex cases.

The first lesson is that the value of class and collective claims often can hinge on the identity and competency of opposing counsel. Where plaintiffs’ counsel is savvy, competent, and organized, the value of otherwise weaker claims can go up. In these cases, competent plaintiffs’ counsel can often be the difference in whether a class is certified, which is often the difference between millions of dollars of potential of exposure and not. Thus, corporate counsel should weigh the competency of his or her adversaries when assessing the risk that a putative class or collective action poses.

The second lesson is that hiring experienced defense counsel and developing an aggressive litigation strategy are critical for success in such cases. In Ayers, Chief Judge Eagles observed defense counsel’s strategy and explained “it has been clear for years that GKN intended to hold the plaintiffs to their burden of proof at every stage on every issue, as is their right.” Id. at *22, n.13. As a result, any delay by GKN ultimately did not negate the deficiencies by Plaintiffs’ counsel. It takes experienced counsel to toe this line and keep the focus on a plaintiff’s conduct. Corporate counsel should consider such experience when deciding who is best to represent their organizations.

April 30, 2026April 30, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 146: Class Action Litigation In The Healthcare Industry

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and John Polzer with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Healthcare Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this industry.

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

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and I’m pleased to be joined today for the first time on our podcast show by my partner, John Polzer, who is also co-chair of the Duane Morris Healthcare Litigation Division of our Trial Practice Group. Welcome, John.

John Polzer: Thank you, Jerry, I’m happy to be here.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re going to be discussing the publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Healthcare Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. John, can you tell our listeners a bit about the publication?

John: Absolutely, Jerry. You know, I’m a huge fan of all these iterations within our Class Action Review. I think they’re very helpful. Duane Morris released the third in a series of industry-focused class action publications, the Healthcare Class Action Review, for 2026. This publication was really about making sense of a rapidly expanding area of litigation, one that myself and my colleagues at Duane Morris live in every day. We wanted to provide a clear picture of where cases are being filed, the legal theories the plaintiffs are using, and how courts are responding. It’s really meant to help companies understand not just the risks, but also how to proactively manage them. I could tell you, Jerry, in-house lawyers, my clients use this resource in their day-to-day duties to make sure that they’re doing their best to align with the constantly changing and current trajectory of risk and class actions.

Jerry: Well, certainly class action litigation is on the rise, in general across many industries, but especially so in the healthcare sector. What’s significant to you in this particular space?

John: Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that, Jerry. Two things stick out to me. I think first, just the sheer diversity of claims. We’re seeing cases tied to data breaches, billing practices, ERISA fiduciary duties, and even AI-driven decision tools. And I think second, Jerry, it’s the increasing sophistication of plaintiff attorneys as they get more strategic, often combining multiple legal theories into a single class action.

Jerry: That’s very interesting feedback in this space. Let’s talk about some trends. What are you seeing as the biggest healthcare class action trends in your day-to-day practice?

John: Yeah, I think there’s a few key ones. I think data privacy, which won’t surprise anyone, is still front and center. You know, breaches and authorized data sharing continue to drive class action litigation. There’s also a rise in claims related to pricing transparency and surprise billing, especially as the regulations evolve through the NSA. We’re also seeing more ERISA-related lawsuits targeting health plan fiduciaries, particularly around excessive fees or mismanagement of plan assets. Another emerging area that we’re seeing is algorithmic bias, and that’s a mouthful, but those are cases alleging that healthcare algorithms produce discriminatory outcomes, so we’re seeing cases starting to be filed along those lines as well.

Jerry: Well, I’m defending class actions coast to coast at any one time in about 40 to 42 states, and my practice mirrors your articulation of what’s new, what’s hot, what the plaintiffs’ bar is looking at. How would you measure the degree of seriousness and the battening down the hatches, so to speak, in terms of compliance in the healthcare space to counteract this trend towards big class actions against the industry?

John: Well, Jerry, I think some are out in front of it, but not all. And I think that’s a risk, especially in the healthcare space. So, if you’re not paying attention to what’s happening in this risk area, you need to be. As healthcare providers and insurers increasingly rely on these predictive tools, plaintiffs are starting to question how these tools are designed and whether they create inequities. So, I expect this to become an even bigger issue moving forward.

Jerry: In terms of looking ahead and providing prognostications for the remainder of 2026, what do you think companies in the healthcare industry should be focused on in terms of reducing the risks of class actions?

John: I think, Jerry, if you talk to some of my clients, we could be here all day with that question, but I think I can probably break it down to three major developments. First, continued growth in privacy-related class actions, especially as more states, pass their own data protection laws. I think second, more regulatory-driven litigation. There’s new rules, new laws out there, particularly around transparency and patient rights that I think we’ll see plaintiffs now using as a basis for these class claims. And I think third and finally, for what to expect in 2026, Jerry, an increased scrutiny of digital health and AI. Companies are operating in telehealth and have been for some time, but we’re seeing a progression into things like wearable tech or AI diagnostics. That should now expect a closer examination, both from regulators and from the plaintiffs’ bar.

Jerry: I think as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, in essence, the risk landscape is expanding, and certainly not shrinking in the healthcare industry.

John: Yeah, I think, Jerry, that’s exactly right, and it’s not just about reacting when that lawsuit drops on your doorstep or in your inbox. It’s also about prevention. I think companies need to invest in compliance and data governance and documentation now, because those are the things that will determine how well they can defend against a class action later. In a way, Jerry, when we’re talking about healthcare, this is, like, a little bit like preventative maintenance that you would get from your provider.

Jerry: That’s a great analogy. If you had to give one piece of advice to your clients in the healthcare sector heading into the remainder of 2026, what would you focus on?

John: Yeah, I’d say just don’t treat legal risk as an afterthought. Like we talked about before, don’t wait till the class action lawsuit hits. Integrate it into your business strategy. That means involving your legal teams early when adopting new technologies, reviewing policies regularly, and then stress testing those practices against potential class action theories to know that you’re on the right path for what you’re doing internally.

Jerry: Those are great insights, and we know from the data analytics that we collect on a daily basis in the class action world that settlements in the healthcare sector are growing. More lawsuits are being filed, and my suspicion is at the end of 2026, we’re going to see a definite uptick in the amount of class action litigation brought in the healthcare sector.

Well, John, thanks for breaking down these issues on our podcast today. It’s certainly clear this is an area of concern and something that healthcare providers cannot ignore. And thanks to our listeners for tuning in. We’ll be back next time with more insights on emerging legal and business trends.

John: Thanks, Jerry, I was happy to be here, and listeners, don’t forget to check out this amazing resource, and stop by the blog for a free copy of our Healthcare Class Action Review e-book.

April 30, 2026April 30, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Georgia Federal Court Holds That To Establish Article III Standing To Sue In Data Breach Class Actions, The Named Plaintiffs’ Injury-In-Fact Requirement Demands Nuanced And Detailed Pleadings

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca S. Bjork, and Ryan Garippo

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 23, 2026, in Hall v. Bitcoin Depot, Inc., Case No. 25-CV-04317 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 23, 2026), Judge William Ray of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a putative class action alleging that users of Bitcoin Depot’s cryptocurrency ATMs were at significant risk of identity theft and attendant personal, social and financial harms due to a data breach. The District Court held that the Named Plaintiff did not properly plead a cognizable injury sufficient to confer Article III standing to sue, due to not pleading any specific misuse of his data. The decision clarifies the legal standards within the Eleventh Circuit regarding standing requirements in data breach class action cases, thus providing helpful and nuanced guidance for defendants facing similar lawsuits. This is especially true because the dismissal was granted without prejudice, affording the Named Plaintiff an opportunity to cure his defective pleading and potentially setting the stage for further litigation on this issue.

Case Background

Quincey Hall sued Bitcoin Depot, Inc. in federal court in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of consumers who used the company’s cryptocurrency ATMs. Id. at 2. After a data breach occurred affecting the ATMs, approximately 26,000 individuals’ personally identifiable information was exposed online. Id. After being notified by Bitcoin Depot that his information was amongst that involved in the breach, Hall filed his class action lawsuit as a “proposed representative of a class of individuals ‘impacted by [Bitcoin Depot’s] failure to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect’ their personal information prior to the data breach.” Id.

Hall’s Complaint alleged that because of the data breach, he and the putative class members are “at [a] significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social and financial harm.” Id. at 3. He alleged that Bitcoin Depot is liable for common law tort and contract claims, as well as for violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and he sought both monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id.

Bitcoin Depot filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) based both on a failure to state a claim and for lack of standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution. Id.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Ray granted Bitcoin Depot’s motion to dismiss the complaint and he did so without prejudice, allowing the Named Plaintiff an opportunity to correct his defective pleading. Id. at 10. The court’s analysis of the legal requirements for standing in data breach cases is clarifying because it demonstrates that nuance matters when considering whether the injury-in fact requirement for Article III standing is properly pled.

First, the court explained that to constitute a case or controversy within the meaning of Article III, the plaintiff must have standing to sue (id. at 3), and in the context of a class action lawsuit “only one named plaintiff must have standing as to any particular claim in order for it to advance.” Id. at 5 (citation omitted).

Second, the court explained that to demonstrate standing, a named plaintiff must show that “[he] has suffered ‘an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical[.]’” Id. Furthermore, when seeking damages specifically, the court explained that “the mere risk of future harm, standing alone, cannot qualify as a concrete harm.” Id. (quoting TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 436 (2021). And for injunctive relief, too, the named plaintiff must establish that there is a “substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury.” Id.

Third, the court applied these standards to the allegations in the Named Plaintiff’s complaint and held that those allegations were insufficient to establish Article III standing. Hall had only pled a risk of identity theft and the resulting potential adverse impacts on him and putative class members. He had not pled any facts that his specific information had been leaked to known criminal dark websites that in similar circumstances have survived motions to dismiss in data breach cases. Id. at 9 (citing, inter alia, Green-Cooper v. Brinker, Int’l., Inc., 73 F. 4^th883, 889 (11^th Cir. 2023).) In short, the Named Plaintiff had failed to allege that there was any misuse of his stolen identity data, and that was fatal to his pleading under the established rules for Article III standing.

Implications For Data Breach Class Action Defendants

Data breach class actions are abundant, as corporate counsel working in this space know. As such, it is crucial for all to have an understanding of the possible defenses available at the pleading stage to reduce litigation risk and force potentially meritless claims to a second round of pleading and motion to dismiss practice. Understanding how district courts analyze nuances in plaintiffs’ pleadings relating to this important area of the law – Article III standing – is critical to launching a successful defense to any such claims.

April 28, 2026April 28, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Introducing the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review – 2026!

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: In an era where the transportation industry underpins global commerce, from last-mile delivery networks to international logistics, legal risk has never been more complex or consequential. Class action litigation, in particular, has emerged as a powerful force shaping how transportation, automotive, and logistics companies operate, manage risk, and plan for the future. Against this backdrop, Duane Morris is proud to announce the first edition of the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review.

This new publication is designed to provide a comprehensive, data-driven overview of class action litigation trends specific to the transportation sector. Building on the broader framework established by leading annual reviews of class action activity—which analyze hundreds of decisions and billions of dollars in settlements each year—the Review narrows the focus to one of the most dynamic and heavily litigated industries in the modern economy.

Class actions have long been recognized as high-stakes litigation, capable of reshaping business models and imposing significant financial exposure. By aggregating claims across large groups of plaintiffs, these cases can exponentially increase potential damages and create industry-wide ripple effects. Nowhere is this more evident than in transportation, where evolving workforce models, regulatory frameworks, and technological change continue to generate new legal challenges.

Recent litigation trends highlight the growing complexity of the space. For example, courts have wrestled with the scope of the “transportation worker exemption” under federal arbitration law, producing inconsistent rulings that affect employers ranging from trucking companies to warehouse operators. At the same time, issues involving wage-and-hour compliance, independent contractor classification, accessibility requirements, and data privacy are increasingly finding their way into class action complaints.

The Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review captures these developments in a structured, accessible format and offers practitioners, in-house counsel, and industry stakeholders a clear understanding of where litigation risk is heading.

Download your copy today and stay ahead of the curve in transportation, automotive, and logistics class action litigation.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on the Transportation, Automotive, and Logistics Class Action Review – 2026 coming soon!

April 27, 2026April 27, 2026 by Gregory Tsonis

Class Action Issues In 2025/2026 – Report From The Perfect Law Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference In London

By Gregory Tsonis

Duane Morris Takeaways: Gregory Tsonis, a Partner in the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Group, recently spoke at the Global Class Actions and Mass Torts Conference organized by Perfect Law in London. During the conference on April 22 and 23, 2026, over 200 attendees discussed key issues impacting class action litigation in 2025/2026. As a guest presenter from the United States on employment class actions, Greg spoke on United States class action trends and defense strategies.

The Conference

Perfect Law brings together top practitioners on both sides of the bar, as well as academics and the judiciary, to tackle contemporary issues in complex litigation, focusing on class actions and mass torts. The conference featured several prominent federal judges who handle leading MDL proceedings and class actions, including Judge Robert Dow, Northern District of Illinois (and Counselor to the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court), Judge Robin L. Rosenberg, Southern District of Florida, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Northern District of California. In addition, Judge Amy J. St. Eve of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit spoke on multiple panels.

The organizers compiled a wide range of knowledge and experience on cutting edge class action topics, including recent trends and emerging issues. The presenters covered the latest developments in class action trends across Canada, the United States, and Europe. They discussed trends and legal developments in consumer, privacy, and employment class actions, as well as the continued growth of mass tort actions targeting various industries.

Trends in Global Mass Torts and Public Nuisance

I had the privilege of speaking on class action and mass tort trends. Our panel addressed a wide variety of cutting-edge class action issues running the gamut from settlements, the important arbitration defense, and litigation funding.

The proliferation of mass tort and class action litigation is largely driven by heightened risks and elevated exposure that are connected to record-breaking settlement numbers. In 2025, settlement numbers reached an unprecedented level in class action litigation. In 2024, settlement numbers broke the $40 billion mark for the third year in a row. In 2025, the cumulative value of the highest ten settlements across all substantive areas of class action litigation surpassed that benchmark and totaled $79 billion. Combined, the top 10 settlement numbers of the past four years in all substantive areas exceeded $238 billion, representing use of the class action mechanism to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level. Mass tort litigation has recently also somewhat shifted away from areas like the pharmaceutical companies and the opioid crisis to industries like technology companies, for example, on the basis that tech companies knew and disregarded harms from social media.

I was also able to address the effectiveness of the arbitration defense to preclude or limit class action litigation. Arbitration agreements with class action waivers provide the foundation for one of the most potent defenses to class action litigation. While the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to promote arbitration agreements, plaintiffs have continued to attack their enforceability, and courts across the country have continued to apply exceptions in inconsistent and expansive ways. Mass arbitration has also emerged as a way to weaponize arbitration proceedings, with the plaintiffs’ bar seeking to adjudicate hundred or thousands of claims by bypassing Rule 23’s class certification requirements.

Litigation funding by private entities also continues to fuel the prevalence of class action and mass tort litigation. Financial firms are continuing to invest substantial sums into portfolios of class action and mass tort litigation, and disclosure requirements continue to be a source of dispute.

Panel On Thresholds For Class Certification Across Jurisdictions

On the first day of the conference, an interesting panel discussion ensued on class certification standards in various jurisdictions. Panelists spoke to the general requirements under Rule 23(a) – numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality – and the differences between class action requirements in the United States and other countries. In Canada, for example, a sufficiently numerous class can consist of as little as two people, while in the United States 40 individuals will typically be sufficient to satisfy numerosity.

In discussing the Rule 23 standard in the United States, the panel presented to the audience the statistics on class certification presented in the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026. In terms of class certification motions, the Plaintiffs bar successfully secured certification in 68% of cases over the past year, a slight increase from the 63% success rate in 2024. In 2025, plaintiffs also maintained more consistent certification rates across substantive areas, from a low of 33% in the data breach area, to highs above 70% in the antitrust, wage & hour, and securities fraud areas. Likewise, courts granted more than 90% of the motions for class certification that they adjudicated in 2025 in the ERISA and WARN areas. Additionally, the panel spoke to the importance of reaching the class certification stage in a case, which in many cases can take three to four years, and that approximately 75% of Rule 23(f) petitions to appeal class certification decisions during the pendency of the case are denied by courts of appeal.

Panel on Class Representative Duties

Another panel of plaintiffs lawyers, defense lawyers, judges, and professors addressed the duties of class representatives in varying jurisdictions. The panelists discussed how in the United States, class representatives are expected to be knowledgeable about the litigation, the claims asserted, and the class nature of the action. The class representatives must individually be adequate and have claims that are typical of the putative class as well. The panelists discussed the ability to compensate class representatives for their participation as class representatives, with all but one circuit in the United States permitting such incentive payments (the Eleventh Circuit does not allow incentive payments). Europe largely does not permit incentive payments to class representatives, with such payments expressly forbidden in the Netherlands.

April 23, 2026April 23, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 145: Class Action Litigation In The Hospitality Industry

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman, Jennifer Riley, and Greg Tsonis with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Hospitality Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this sector – from the increase in filings to the sophistication of claims brought on behalf of workers and consumers – and best practices for hospitality companies.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome, listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast series, The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and I’m pleased to be joined today by my colleagues and partners, Jennifer Riley and Greg Tsonis, who are both members of the Duane Morris Fashion, Retail, and Consumer Branded Products Industry Group. Welcome, Jen and Greg.

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

Greg Tsonis: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we’re discussing publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Hospitality Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Greg, can you tell our listeners a little bit about this new publication?

Greg: Absolutely, Jerry. So, Duane Morris released the second in a series of industry-focused class action publications, the Hospitality Class Action Review for 2026. This publication analyzes the key related rulings and developments in 2025, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting class action litigation in this industry for 2026. We hope that the companies and employers out there will benefit from this resource in compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: Well, certainly class action litigation seems to be on the rise across many industries, but especially for the hospitality industry. Jen, what’s driving that trend?

Jennifer: You’re absolutely right, Jerry. The hospitality industry has grown rapidly over the past decade, but with that growth comes some complexity. Hotels, restaurants, resorts – they all operate in a highly complex space, dealing with overlapping laws: employment laws, consumer protection, data privacy, accessibility – you name it. Those overlapping obligations can create some fertile ground for systemic issues, which is exactly what the plaintiff’s class actions lawyers are hoping to leverage.

Jerry: So, it’s just not more lawsuits, it’s the type of industry sometimes that lends itself to susceptibility to class action litigation.

Jennifer: Exactly. When you have large groups of employees or customers potentially affected by the same practice, class action litigation becomes a very efficient tool for the plaintiffs.

Jerry: Greg, let’s talk about the numbers. What are we seeing in terms of filings these days?

Greg: Well, the growth is pretty striking, Jerry. In 2025 alone, there were 1,787 class action filings in federal courts involving hospitality companies. That’s up from about 1,585 in 2024. And these cases span across traveler accommodations, food service, and drinking establishments.

Jerry: That’s quite a significant jump in year-after-year analytics. What sorts of claims are we talking about here when we’re focusing on the hospitality industry?

Greg: Well, on the employment side, wage and hour claims really dominate. We’re seeing allegations of unpaid overtime, improper tip pooling, and employee misclassification. These are classic issues in hospitality, especially given the reliance on hourly workers and tipped employees.

Jerry: Well, I know, Jen, you argued and won the signal tip credit case involving the hospitality industry before the Seventh Circuit a few years ago. Are these issues new, or are they just getting more attention these days?

Jennifer: Well, Jerry, I think it’s a bit of both. These issues have been around for a long time, but enforcement and awareness have really increased. Plus, plaintiffs’ attorneys are being more aggressive in bringing representative claims, especially when they see patterns across locations or franchises.

Jerry: But it’s just not employees, right? Customers are getting involved, too, in class action litigation?

Greg: Absolutely. So, consumer-facing class actions are growing very quickly. We’re seeing cases involving hidden fees, like resort fees, misleading advertising, and even data breaches. With so much business happening online now, these risks have expanded quite a bit.

Jerry: Let’s focus on that for a minute. How has technology changed this class action landscape?

Jennifer: Technology has introduced a whole new category of exposure. Digital booking platforms, mobile apps, and loyalty programs all collect and store customer data. If that data isn’t properly protected, it can lead to large-scale privacy claims. And because the effective group can be huge, those cases are often brought as class actions.

Jerry: So, what we’re seeing is more digital the business, the bigger the potential risk in this space?

Jennifer: That’s right, convenience for customers often means increased responsibility and potential liability for businesses.

Jerry: Greg, what about accessibility? That seems to be another growing area of risk.

Greg: It is, Jerry. We’re seeing more class claims alleging noncompliance with disability access requirements, particularly related to websites and online booking systems. If a platform isn’t accessible to individuals with disabilities, it can trigger significant legal exposure.

Jerry: Let’s shift our focus to the structure of the industry. Hospitality businesses often operate differently than other industries, with franchising, high turnover, multiple locations. How does that impact litigation risk in this space?

Jennifer: I think it really amplifies it. Franchising models can create complicated questions about liability. Who’s responsible, the franchisor or the franchisee? High employee turnover makes consistent compliance harder, and multi-jurisdictional operations mean businesses have to navigate different laws in different states, which really increases the risk of missteps.

Greg: And from a litigation standpoint, those factors Jen talked about really make it easier to argue that an issue’s widespread enough to justify class treatment.

Jerry: Well, class actions against any business can be devastating, but when it comes to the hospitality industry, I would imagine reputational brand stakes are pretty high on the radar screen.

Jennifer: Very high. Hospitality is a customer-centric industry. A class action, especially one involving consumer issues, can quickly damage a brand reputation. Even before a case is resolved, that publicity alone can have real business consequences.

Jerry: So, given all these risks, what should companies be doing in this day and age to protect themselves?

Greg: Well, first, I would say proactive compliance is key. Doing regular audits of wage and hour practices, having clear policies around tips and classification, and really staying up to date with evolving laws can go a long way.

Jennifer: I would add that companies need to invest in data security and privacy protections. That includes not just technology, but also training employees on proper data handling. And don’t overlook accessibility, both physical and digital.

Jerry: What about legal strategy? If a company does get hit with a class action, what should they keep in mind?

Greg: Early assessment of the case, I think, is critical. Understanding the scope of the claim, the potential class size, and the legal vulnerabilities can really help shape the defense strategy. In some cases, early resolution might make sense. In others, it’s worth fighting class certification.

Jennifer: And documentation matters. Having clear records, whether it’s payroll data, customer disclosures, or compliance efforts, those can make a huge difference in defending these cases.

Jerry: As we wrap up this edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire, any final thoughts, Jen and Greg, where this trend is heading?

Jennifer: I think we’ll continue to see growth in class actions, particularly as regulations and laws evolve and technology becomes even more integrated into hospitality operations.

Greg: Absolutely agreed. I think the key takeaway is that this isn’t a passing trend. It’s a fundamental part of the legal landscape now, and businesses really need to adapt accordingly.

Jerry: Well, thank you, Jen and Greg, for being here today, and for your thought leadership in this space, and thank you to our loyal listeners for tuning in. Please stop by our blog for a free copy of the Hospitality Class Action Review e-book.

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

Jennifer: Thanks so much, everyone.

April 21, 2026April 21, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Introducing The Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026: A Deep Dive Into Healthcare Litigation Trends

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: The healthcare industry continues to face a rapidly evolving class action landscape, and 2025 has proven to be a pivotal year. For that reason, we are pleased to announce the publication of our latest industry-focused eBook, the Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026. From data privacy disputes to billing transparency and pharmaceutical liability, class action litigation is reshaping how healthcare organizations operate and manage risk.

The Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026 is a comprehensive new eBook that examines the most significant developments in healthcare-related class actions over the past year. Healthcare organizations today operate at the intersection of regulation, innovation, and patient expectations. Class action litigation involving healthcare companies, including hospitals, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology firms, medical device and health technology companies, and diagnostic and testing companies has evolved from a peripheral phenomenon into a central feature of complex class action litigation. The Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026 offers a clear, structured analysis of these trends, helping legal professionals, compliance teams, and industry leaders stay informed and prepared.

As enforcement intensifies and plaintiffs’ strategies become more sophisticated, understanding class action risk is no longer optional—it’s essential. The Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026 equips readers with the knowledge needed to anticipate challenges and respond effectively in an increasingly complex legal environment.

Download your copy today and stay ahead of the curve in healthcare litigation.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on the Healthcare Class Action Review – 2026 coming soon!

April 17, 2026April 17, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

Colorado Federal Court Compel Arbitration In Parking Lot Dispute, Finding Posted Signs Create Binding Contracts

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Tiffany Alberty, and Brett Bohan

Duane Morris Takeaways: On April 14, 2026, in Brant, et al v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:25-CV-01771 (D. Colo. Apr. 14, 2026), Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendant Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs, a group of parking lot customers who brought a putative class action, argued that they never agreed to arbitrate and that any arbitration clause was unconscionable. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that by parking in the lots, Plaintiffs assented to the terms posted on conspicuous signs — including a binding arbitration clause — and that the clause was not unconscionable. This ruling reinforces that businesses can form enforceable contracts, including arbitration agreements, through conspicuously posted signage, and that consumers who fail to read posted terms are nonetheless bound by them.

Case Background

Plaintiffs Brian Brant, Brooke Fitz, Robert Caldwell, and Mayenssi Montiel each parked at various parking garages managed by Defendant Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. (“PRRS”) in Denver and Little Rock between 2023 and 2025. (ECF 36 at 1-2) At each of these lots, PRRS posted large red signs at the entrances, exits, and pay stations. (Id. at 2-14) The signs stated, in relevant part, “This is a Contract,” instructed customers to “Read these terms PRIOR to parking,” and included a capitalized, boldfaced “ARBITRATION” heading explaining that “[b]y parking on this Facility, you hereby agree that the sole remedy for all unresolved disputes is binding arbitration, and specifically waive the right to jury trial, class action and/or class arbitration”. (Id.)

Each of the Plaintiffs claimed they did not see the signs. (Id. at 7, 12, and 14.) Some faulted the location, lighting, and number of signs, while others argued there were no gates or speed bumps to slow drivers down enough to read the posted terms. (Id.)

The Court’s Order

The Court granted PRRS’s motion to compel arbitration, addressing both of Plaintiffs’ arguments against enforcement. (Id. at 16-21.)

First, as to whether a valid agreement to arbitrate existed, the Court noted that two other courts in Colorado had recently addressed the same issue with the same defendant. (Id. at 16.) Adopting the analysis of Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico in Butler v. Asura Technologies USA, Inc., the Court held that a contract was formed when Plaintiffs manifested assent to the implied terms of the parking agreement by choosing to park in the lots. (Id. at 17.) The Court emphasized that the fundamental exchange — temporary use of a parking spot in exchange for a promise to pay — was sufficient to establish contract formation, and that the operator of a parking lot may modify or add to the basic terms by posting signs. (Id.) The Court analogized the posted signage to online “clickwrap” contracts, noting that users of such contracts are regularly bound by terms they never actually read. (Id. at 19.) Accordingly, whether Plaintiffs chose to read the signs was irrelevant because they agreed to the posted terms when they decided to park their cars on PRRS’s lots. (Id. at 18.)

The Court also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the arbitration clause was insufficiently specific because it lacked details regarding the scope, rules, or effect of any arbitration ruling. (Id. at 19.) Citing the Supreme Court of Colorado’s long-standing precedent in Guthrie v. Barda, 533 P.2d 487 (Colo. 1975), the Court held that a clause stating disputes “shall be submitted to binding arbitration” is sufficient and enforceable, even without additional procedural details. (Id.)

Second, the Court addressed Plaintiffs’ unconscionability defense. Applying the seven-factor test under Colorado law, the Court acknowledged that the first factor — a standardized agreement between parties with unequal bargaining power — may point toward unconscionability but noted that consumer contracts of adhesion are ubiquitous in modern commerce. (Id. at 20.) The remaining factors, however, weighed against a finding of unconscionability: Plaintiffs had the opportunity to review the terms before parking, the arbitration provision was written in large font against a contrasting red background and arbitration is a commercially reasonable method of dispute resolution. (Id.) The Court concluded bluntly that “if Plaintiffs did not wish to agree to the terms, they could have parked somewhere else.” (Id. at 21.)

The Court ordered the case stayed and administratively closed pending the conclusion of arbitration. (Id. at 22.)

Implications For Employers And Businesses

The Court’s decision in Brant v. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. affirms that conspicuously posted signage can create binding arbitration agreements with consumers, even in the absence of a signed written contract, a clickthrough mechanism, or any affirmative acknowledgment. For businesses that rely on physical signage to communicate contractual terms — including parking operators, event venues, and service providers — this decision provides a roadmap for drafting and displaying enforceable arbitration clauses. Specifically, businesses should ensure that their signs are prominently displayed, use clear language and contrasting formatting, and explicitly state that use of the premises constitutes acceptance of the posted terms, including arbitration. The decision also reinforces that a consumer’s failure to read posted terms does not relieve them of their contractual obligations, further underscoring the importance of adequate notice over actual knowledge.

April 16, 2026April 16, 2026 by Class Action Defense

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 144: Class Action Litigation In The Digital Assets & Blockchain Sector

Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Mauro Wolfe and senior associate Hayley Ryan with their discussion of Duane Morris’ Digital Assets & Blockchain Class Action Review, highlighting several trends and developments shaping class action litigation in this space.

Episode Transcript

Jerry Maatman: Welcome to our listeners. Thank you for being here for our weekly podcast series, the Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today are my colleagues Mauro Wolfe and Hayley Ryan. Mauro is joining us for the first time – he’s our lead partner in Duane Morris’ Digital Assets and Blockchain Practice Group, a multidisciplinary group of over 50 lawyers providing a full suite of services to clients in the cryptocurrency, digital assets, and blockchain industries, both domestically and internationally. Thank you both for being on the podcast today.

Mauro Wolfe: Thank you, Jerry, very happy to be here.

Hayley Ryan: Thanks for having me, Jerry.

Jerry: Today on the podcast, we are discussing the publication of a brand-new desk reference, the Duane Morris Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review. Listeners can find the e-book version of the publication on our blog, the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog. Hayley, could you tell our listeners a bit about the desk reference publication?

Hayley: Absolutely, Jerry. So, Duane Morris just released the first in a series of industry-focused class action publications called the Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review – 2026. This publication analyzes the key related rulings and developments in 2025, and the significant legal decisions and trends impacting class action litigation in this industry for 2026. We hope that companies and employers will benefit from this resource in compliance with these evolving laws and standards.

Jerry: It seems like crypto litigation is everywhere right now. What’s driving that?

Mauro: First, Jerry, that’s exactly right. So, by 2025, litigation involving digital assets and blockchain companies really moved from sidelines to center stage in the area of complex financial litigation. One of the big drivers, quite frankly, is the current policy environment, and specifically what I’m referring to is, look, enforcement cases at the federal level, specifically by the SEC, is at a historic drop, you know, in excess of 30 to 40%. And what that means is that private plaintiffs are stepping in to fill the gap. We saw a huge surge in class actions last year as dozens filed, and it’s not just token issuers anymore. The net has widened significantly as to the targets of these class action cases.

Jerry: So, who specifically are the targets, now that we’re in 2026?

Hayley: Yeah, Jerry, so pretty much everyone in the ecosystem. So early on, lawsuits focused on token issuers and promoters, but now we’re seeing claims against crypto exchanges, blockchain developers, fintech platforms, Bitcoin ATM operators, and even decentralized protocol creators.

Mauro: And, major exchanges like Coinbase have been frequent defendants. I mean, plaintiffs are alleging things like operating unregistered securities under the SEC laws, listing tokens that are later characterized as securities, a lot going on.

Jerry: So private lawsuits are almost foreshadowing regulatory enforcement in this space?

Mauro: Exactly, and sometimes it’s even getting ahead of it. In fact, certainly getting ahead of it in the context of this administration, and referring to the SEC and CFTC enforcement regimes.

Jerry: What sort of claims are we talking about, then, in this space?

Hayley: Well, we’re talking about a wide range of claims, Jerry, but the most common include the sale of unregistered securities, misstatements or omissions, consumer protection violations, and data privacy breaches.

Mauro: And then, of course, there’s a long tail that includes, you know, breaches of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and even RICO claims. The plaintiffs’ bar is, as you know very well, Jerry, they’re very creative.

Jerry: Nothing if not innovative, that’s for sure. Why is it, then, that unregistered securities claims are so popular, for the plaintiffs’ bar?

Hayley: It’s a good question, Jerry. It’s because they’re powerful and easier to prove. You don’t need to show fraud, just that a security was sold without proper registration. So, that opens the door to rescission claims, and also class certification is often easier.

Jerry: Let’s talk about one of the key legal developments: centralized versus decentralized exchanges.

Mauro: Yeah, this was huge in ‘25. So, courts in the Second Circuit, for example, started drawing a clear distinction. If an exchange is centralized, meaning its intermediary’s transactions can potentially be liable as a statutory seller. If it’s decentralized, just coding, facilitating transactions, courts have been more hesitant to impose liability. In those cases, plaintiffs struggle to show the platform to actually a seller under the securities laws.

Jerry: Well, the million-dollar question, or maybe the billion-dollar question, is what counts as a security in digital assets?

Hayley: So, Jerry, that is still hotly contested. Courts are often sidestepping it when they can, but 2025 did bring some clarity. For example, Congress passed the Genius Act, which says fiat-backed stablecoins themselves are not securities. But, and this is key, transactions involving them still might be. Courts are still relying heavily on the Howey test, which asks whether there’s an investment contract based on expectation of profits from others’ efforts.

Jerry: In terms of your analysis of rulings in 2025, are there any standout decisions?

Mauro: Yeah, there are a couple of major rulings. One court found that selling stablecoins during a de-pegging event didn’t qualify as a security under Howey. Another reaffirmed that selling certain quote-unquote bridge tokens to institutional investors did not constitute an unregistered securities offering and refused to revisit $125 million-dollar penalty. And importantly, courts are not backing off prior rulings, just because regulatory attitude shifts, and that’s a big deal. And I would be remindful of folks to keep in mind that there is a really important case that predates ‘25, which is the Loper-Bright case from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. And that’s important because in the 6-3 decision on June 28th of ’24, the Supreme Court officially overruled the Chevron deference, which is a 40-year-old legal doctrine that previously required federal courts to defer to federal agencies reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law. In other words, the courts historically had to defer to reasonable decisions made by the federal agency who was the expert on the area. That no longer is true, which I think opens up the door for court decisions in a variety of areas, including the securities laws and fraud.

Jerry: Very interesting. What about class certification? That’s obviously the Holy Grail in class actions. How did courts rule over the past 12 months in either granting or denying plaintiffs’ motions to certify a class in this space?

Hayley: Though two federal courts granted certification in part, specifically for unregistered securities claims, but they rejected certification for things like consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims, which tend to have more individualized issues.

Jerry: Also, again, it seems that those security claims are leading the charge. Let’s shift to regulations. The SEC made waves with something called Project Crypto. What should our listeners know about that?

Mauro: So, in 2025, in late ‘25, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins came out with a proposed framework, that recently, in the past couple months, had been released in an interpretive guidance. And the purpose of the Project Crypto was designed to provide more clarity, at least from the regulator’s perspective, of what is and is not a security. It’s built around, sort of, three key ideas: token taxonomy, categorizing assets like digital commodities, digital securities, digital tools, utility tokens, tokenized securities. And a temporal view of securities – that is, meaning a token might start out as a security, but not remain one forever. And tailored regulation, what the SEC refers to as fit for purpose. And that’s focusing on capital-raising activities, not necessarily crypto activities. And all of that is important for two reasons. One, the Project Crypto was in the release of the interpretive guidance a couple months ago. It was important because it was the first joint interpretive guidance on these issues issued by the CFTC and the SEC jointly. That was historic – outlining what is and is not a security, and what are these other categories. And it’s really important in order to give clarity and guidance to the markets, which will be hotly contested, no doubt, by the federal securities class action lawyers.

Jerry: Well, this sure sounds like a shift away from “everything is a security.” Where is all this heading, in your opinion?

Hayley: Though 2026 will definitely bring more litigation without a doubt, the combination of regulatory uncertainty and evolving case law is certainly fueling continued filings, Jerry.

Mauro: Yeah, and Jerry, from my perspective, you know, we’re going to see more clarity, guidance from the federal regulators, but it’s likely to result in lots of court and private litigation about that interpretive guidance. Now, I mentioned Loper for a reason, right? So that means that the courts are not really bound by whatever the SEC says or doesn’t say about what the law is. So, it’s going to be really interesting, and I think it’s going to generate a lot of litigation, because there’s a lot of money, as you put it, billions at stake, for the parties that are right on the issues.

Jerry: Well, that’s fascinating stuff, but sure feels like we’re watching an entirely new area of law being built or unfolded in real time. So thanks, Mauro and Hayley, for being here today, and thank you for loyal listeners for tuning in. Please stop by our blog for a free copy of the Digital Assets and Blockchain Class Action Review e-book.

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

Mauro: Thanks, everyone. Appreciate the time.

April 14, 2026April 14, 2026 by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.

The New Hospitality Class Action Review – 2026 Is Now Available!

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

Duane Morris Takeaway: We’re excited to officially announce the release of the all-new Hospitality Class Action Review – 2026, a new desk reference resource designed to help legal professionals and businesses better understand the evolving landscape of class action law this quickly evolving industry.

As the hospitality industry continues to evolve in a landscape shaped by shifting labor laws, consumer protection regulations, and data privacy concerns, class action litigation has become an increasingly significant area of exposure. This new publication offers a comprehensive, practical guide to understanding and managing these complex legal challenges.

Hotels, restaurants, and travel-related businesses face a growing wave of class actions—ranging from wage and hour disputes to hidden fee allegations and data breach claims. This book breaks down these trends and provides actionable insight into how organizations can proactively mitigate risk and respond effectively when litigation arises. The Duane Morris Class Action Team created this new resource offering clear, practical insights into the rules, trends, and key considerations that define class action practice in the hospitality industry. This is the second book in our new series focusing on industry-specific class action litigation, and dives deep into industry-specific procedures, recent case developments, and strategic considerations.

The Hospitality Class Action Review – 2026 is now available here.

Stay tuned to the Class Action Weekly Wire for more information on this new addition to the Duane Morris Class Action Review series.