Duane Morris Takeaway: The Duane Morris Class Action Review, our 22nd annual study of the class action space, is the biggest and most comprehensive edition yet, at over 750 pages. The 2026 Review has more analysis than ever before, with discussion of over 1,761 class certification rulings from federal and state courts examining all categories of class action litigation.
We will host an in-depth discussion of the key trends analyzed over the past 12 months at the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026 Book Launch Event on Thursday, February 5, 2026, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Northwestern University School of Law. Register here to reserve your in-person or virtual seat and join us for a 60-minute live panel with DMCAR editors Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley and guest speaker Hon. Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.). CLE, SHRM, and HRCI credit will be available.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley
Duane Morris Takeaways: As we kick off 2026, we are pleased to announce the publication of the annual edition of the Duane Morris Class Action Review. It is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting corporations, including class certification rulings in the substantive areas of antitrust, appeals, the Class Action Fairness Act, civil rights, consumer fraud, data breaches, discrimination, EEOC-initiated and government enforcement litigation, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, labor, privacy, procedural issues, product liability and mass torts, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, securities fraud, state court class actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, wage & hour class and collective actions, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, the largest class action settlements across all areas of law, and primers on the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, the California Private Attorney General Act and in Generative Artificial Intelligence & Crypto cases. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2026.
We are humbled and honored by the recent review of the Duane Morris Class Action Review by Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) – the review is here. EPLiC said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular. The Duane Morris Class Action Review analyzes class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting corporate America and provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect in terms of filings by the plaintiffs’ class action bar and government enforcement agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor (DOL).”
We are also proud that the Review made its way into American jurisprudence on several occasions recently, with a federal district court citing our analysis on class action trends in its decision on a motion for class certification, and both petitioners and amici citing the Review in U.S. Supreme Court briefing as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.
Click here to access our customized website featuring all the Review highlights, including the ten major trends across all types of class actions over the past year. Order your free copy of the e-book here and download the Review overview here.
Check out an exclusive article featuring the Review posted this morning in Forbes here. The Firm’s press release on the Review can be found here.
The 2026 Review analyzes rulings from all state and federal courts in 23 areas of law. It is designed as a reader-friendly research tool that is easily accessible in hard copy and e-book formats. Class action rulings from throughout the year are analyzed and organized into 23 chapters and 8 appendices for ease of analysis and reference.
Key Class Action Trends In 2025
Trend # 1 – Settlement Numbers Broke The $40 Billion Mark For The Fourth Year In A Row
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. That number is the highest value tallied in the past two decades, and exceeding the settlement numbers from 2022, 2023, and 2024 by a significant margin. In 2022, these settlement numbers totaled $66 billion; in 2023, they totaled $51.4 billion; and, in 2024, these settlement numbers totaled $42 billion. Combined, the settlement numbers of the past four years exceeded $238 billion, representing use of the class action mechanism to redistribute wealth at an unprecedented level. On an aggregate basis, across all areas of litigation, defendants settled class actions and government enforcement lawsuits for more than $79 billion in 2025.
Trend #2 – Courts Certified Classes At High Rates Across Nearly All Substantive Areas Of Class Action Litigation
Courts issued fewer decisions on motions for class certification in 2025, as compared to 2023 and 2024, but the plaintiffs’ class action bar obtained certification at a higher rate overall. Across all major areas of class action litigation in 2025, courts issued rulings on 435 motions for class certification. By comparison, in 2024, courts issued rulings on 432 motions for class certification, and, in 2023, court issued rulings on 451 motions for class certification. In 2025, however, courts granted motions for class certification at a higher rate. Courts granted 297 motions for class certification in whole or in part, a rate of approximately 68%. This number is higher than the percentage granted in 2024, where courts granted 272 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 63%, but on par with plaintiffs’ success rate in 2023. In 2023, courts granted 324 motions for class certification, for a certification rate of approximately 72%.
Trend #3 – Class Action Filings Reached New Heights
The gargantuan settlement numbers and high rates of certification have continued to fuel growth in class action filings by the plaintiffs’ class action bar. In 2025, large settlements continued to attract skilled attorneys to the plaintiffs’ side and continued to incentivize plaintiffs’ attorneys to file more and more lawsuits on a class basis. In 2025, the number of class action lawsuits filed in federal courts across the country exceeded 13,229, which equates to more than 52 class actions filed per day on each of the 250 court days in 2025.
That number represents an increase from 2024 and reflects a growth trend relative to the number of class action filed over the past four years. Indeed, the number of class action lawsuits filed in 2022 in federal courts totaled 12,071, the number of class actions filed in 2023 totaled 12,450, and the number of class actions filed in federal courts in 2024 totaled 12,029.
The number filed in 2025 represents a 9% increase over the number of class actions filed in federal court in 2022 and 2024.
Trend #4 – The Landscape Of Privacy Class Actions Continued To Shift
Continued settlements in the privacy space have inspired more members of the plaintiffs’ bar to make privacy litigation the centerpiece of their business models. Although the landscape has shifted over the past five years, the recipe has remained similar — combine archaic statutory schemes, which provide for lucrative statutory penalties, with a ubiquitous technology, to yield the threat of a potential business-crushing class action that can be made via widespread use of form letters and cookie-cutter complaints, to generate payouts on a massive scale. Privacy continued to dominate as one of the hottest areas of growth in terms of class action filings by the plaintiffs’ bar in 2025.
As noted, the landscape has shifted over the past five years. In 2023, many plaintiffs’ attorneys targeted session replay technology, which captures and reconstructs a user’s interaction with a website, or website chatbots, which are programs that simulate conversation through voice or text, or biometric technologies, which capture traits like fingerprints or facial scans for purposes of identification. Over the past two years, the focus for many plaintiffs’ class action lawyers has shifted to website pixels – pieces of code embedded on websites to track activity and, in some circumstances, to provide information about that activity to third-party social media and analytics providers. Plaintiffs have launched thousands of claims via form letters, cookie-cutter complaints, and mass arbitration campaigns.
In 2025, while plaintiffs pulled back on filings in areas like biometric privacy, we saw a surge in litigation over internet tracking technologies based on a patchwork quilt of state-level laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”).
Trend #5 – Exceptions Continued To Erode The Rule In The Arbitration Space
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. One of the most impactful examples is the transportation worker exemption, which courts have applied expansively to local workers, such that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to examine the exemption again, for a third time in the past five years. A defendant’s ability to enforce an arbitration agreement containing a class or collective action waiver continues to reign as one of the most impactful defenses in terms of shifting the pendulum of class action litigation. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the last hurdle to widespread adoption of such agreements with its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, et al., 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018). In response, more companies of all types and sizes updated their onboarding systems, terms of use, and other types of agreements to require that employees and consumers resolve any disputes in arbitration on an individual basis. In 2025, defendants continued to win most of the motions to compel arbitration they filed. Across substantive areas of class action litigation, courts issued rulings on approximately 189 motions to compel arbitration, and defendants prevailed on 122 of those rulings, for a success rate of approximately 65%.
Trend #6 – Data Breaches Filings Continued To Grow As The Playbook Became More Refined
Data breach class action filings continued to expand in 2025, marking it as one of the fastest growing areas in the complex litigation space. Plaintiffs filed approximately 1,822 data privacy class actions in 2025. This represents an average of more than 150 fillings per month and more than seven filings per business day. These numbers reflect growth of more than 18% over the number of data privacy class actions filed in 2024 and growth of more than 200% over the number of data privacy class actions filed just three years ago in 2022.
Trend #7 – The Trump Administration’s Policies Had A Profound Impact On Government Enforcement Litigation
While the EEOC and DOL historically have been among the most aggressive litigants in terms of their pursuit of claims, the Trump Administration has had a profound impact on these agencies and their enforcement agendas. President Trump ran for election on a platform that runs counter to many of the “emerging issues” on the EEOC’s priority list, foreshadowing a realignment of litigation priorities. The Trump Administration has kept its promise of less government oversight and regulation and has shifted the priorities of these agencies to more closely match the administration’s objectives. In several respects, FY 2025 represented a hard pivot in EEOC enforcement targets. While total filings decreased, the new administration foreshadowed a new direction and targeted approach in upcoming EEOC enforcement.
Trend #8 – Chasms Among Circuits Continued To Expand In Several Areas Crucial To Class Action Litigation
In 2025, case law continued to develop in fragmented ways among the federal circuits on issues material to plaintiffs’ ability to maintain and certify class actions, enhancing the likelihood of and incentive for forum shopping. In terms of standards governing conditional certification of FLSA, EPA, and ADEA matters, 2025 saw the crystallization of four distinct standards, ranging in the burdens applicable to plaintiffs, as well as in the review and consideration of the evidence presented. A second chasm relates to courts’ approaches uninjured class members, or the notion that each member of a putative class as defined might not have experienced a concrete injury sufficient to provide such individual standing to pursue a claim. A third chasm reflects courts’ divergent views relative to personal jurisdiction and whether a court that cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction must have a basis for specific personal jurisdiction as to each putative class member. These fractures have made forum selection more consequential than ever. Plaintiffs are increasingly skewing their filings toward federal circuits where they anticipate a greater likelihood of a favorable outcome, including toward jurisdictions where judges are taking a more lenient approach to certification or a more permissive view on issues like standing and jurisdiction. To date, efforts to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to take up cases that would resolve these splits have failed, so we expect they will continue to drive uncertainty in class-related litigation through 2026.
Trend #9 – Artificial Intelligence Impacted The Class Action Landscape On Multiple Levels
In 2025, Artificial Intelligence – AI – continued to influence class action litigation on multiple fronts. First, we saw a growth of class action lawsuits targeting AI, including in the copyright area and employment space, as well as the securities fraud area with claims of “AI washing.” Second, we saw an increasing number of courts and lawyers err in their use of AI to generate documents filed on dockets across the country and encountered numerous examples of the ways in which AI is continuing to impact the efficiencies that underlie the litigation process.
Trend #10 – California Continued Its Dominance As “Ground Zero” For Expansion Of Representative Litigation
The California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) inspired more representative lawsuits than any other statute in America over the past three years. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed in 2025 approached 9,900, which surpasses the 9,464 PAGA notices in 2024. The so-called PAGA reform legislation passed in 2024 by California lawmakers seemingly did little to nothing to curb interest in these cases. The PAGA created a scheme to “deputize” private citizens to sue their employers for penalties associated with violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of other “aggrieved employees,” as well as the State. A PAGA plaintiff may pursue claims on a representative basis, i.e., on behalf of other allegedly aggrieved employees, but need not satisfy the class action requirements of Rule 23. Thus, the PAGA provides the plaintiffs’ class action bar a mechanism to harness the risk and leverage of a representative proceeding without the threat of removal to federal court under the CAFA and without the burden of meeting the requirements for class certification. The PAGA’s popularity in recent years, however, also flows from its status as one of the most viable workarounds to workplace arbitration agreements. Thus, it presents one of the most pervasive litigation risks to companies doing business in California.
According to data maintained by the California Department of Industrial Relations, the number of PAGA notices filed with the LWDA has increased exponentially over the past two decades. In 2024, notices exceeded 9,464 for the first time and, in 2025, the number of PAGA notices reached a new all-time high of over 9,981.
III. What Should Companies Expect In 2026?
Class action litigation is a staple of the American judicial system. The volume of class action filings has increased each year for the past decade, and 2026 is likely to follow that trend. In this environment, 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 from 2022 through 2025 (a combined total of $238 billion), coupled with the ever-developing law, corporations can expect more lawsuits, expansive class theories, and an equally if not more aggressive plaintiffs’ bar in 2026. These conditions necessitate planning, preparation, and decision-making to position corporations to withstand and defend class action exposures.
We hope the Duane Morris Class Action Review provides practical insights into complex potential strategies relevant to all aspects of class action litigation and other claims that can cost billions of dollars and require changes to business practices in order to resolve such claims.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Tyler Zmick
Duane Morris Takeaways: In Svoboda, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 25-1361, 2025 WL 3654053 (7th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed an order granting class certification in a case alleging that Amazon’s “virtual try-on” technology violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). In doing so, the Seventh Circuit dealt Amazon a significant blow by allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on behalf of a class comprised of hundreds of thousands of people who used Amazon’s technology. The Svoboda decision is the most recent example of the plaintiffs’ bar successfully obtaining class certification in an Illinois privacy class action, and it shows that even the most sophisticated companies can face exposure arising out of their data collection and retention practices.
Background
Plaintiffs alleged that Amazon sells makeup and eyeware products through its mobile shopping application and that the company’s “virtual try-on” (“VTO”) technology incorporates augmented reality to overlay the products on images of users, allowing shoppers to see how makeup and eyewear products look on their faces. To superimpose a product over an image of a user’s face, Plaintiffs claimed that the VTO software detects a person’s facial features to determine where to virtually overlay a given makeup or eyewear product.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs filed a class action in September 2021, claiming that Amazon violated the BIPA by collecting, capturing, storing, or otherwise obtaining the facial geometry and associated personal identifying information of thousands of Illinois residents who used Amazon’s VTO technology.
On March 30, 2024, Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois certified a class of individuals who used the VTO feature on Amazon’s mobile website or app while in Illinois on or after September 7, 2016 (our previous blog post on the district court’s order can be found here). Amazon subsequently appealed the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit’s Opinion
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the class certification order and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class of Amazon VTO users within Illinois.
The Seventh Circuit began by identifying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)’s four class-certification requirements (i.e., numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy) and by explaining that Plaintiffs must also satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate” over individual questions and that “a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” The Seventh Circuit further noted that Amazon’s appeal challenged the district court’s order only with respect to Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements.
In affirming the district court’s predominance ruling, the Seventh Circuit found that the same conduct (specifically, Amazon’s alleged use of the VTO application) unites Plaintiffs’ BIPA claims and that issues relating to the functionality of the VTO software, Amazon’s alleged use of class members’ biometric data, and legal questions about whether that use violated the BIPA were common to the class and could be resolved by the district court “in one stroke.”
The Seventh Circuit then turned to the individualized questions identified by Amazon, including the question of whether a class member was in Illinois at the time he or she used Amazon’s VTO tool. Regarding this “locational element,” the Seventh Circuit observed that class members must prove that they were in Illinois when they used the VTO tool to have viable BIPA claims and that the lack of such proof also raised questions relating to class member identification and manageability. The Seventh Circuit further acknowledged that common proof of location may only be available for a subset of claimants, while “individualized inquiries will be necessary for others.” Id. at *5 (“For example, where billing address and geolocation data point to different states, or are unavailable for an alleged VTO use, individual affidavits or other proof will be necessary to show that the claimant used the VTO in Illinois.”).
The Seventh Circuit ultimately ruled that the location of potential class members could generally be determined using (i) users’ billing addresses, (ii) users’ IP addresses and geolocation data, and (iii) personal affidavits from class members attesting that they used the VTO application while in Illinois, and that individualized questions connected to proof of location would not predominate over common questions. See also id. (“[I]t is not uncommon for class actions to have a ‘final phase’ for class members to submit individualized proof of a claim….A phase requiring individual presentations of proof on all (or part of) an element of a claim does not defeat predominance. Stated another way, an individual question does not predominate where common questions of law and fact relevant to liability otherwise generate significant efficiencies and the individual question is manageable.”) (citation omitted). The Seventh Circuit also rejected Amazon’s due process challenge to the district court’s predominance finding because the company would have the opportunity to challenge class members’ individual proof of location.
Implications For Corporate Counsel
Svoboda is one of many cases demonstrating the dangers associated with collecting or retaining biometric information without implementing BIPA-compliant policies. The opinion is also a reminder that the larger the company, the larger the potential class size (and accompanying statutory damages award). The class in Svoboda contained over one hundred thousand individuals, illustrating the potentially significant exposure associated with running afoul of Illinois privacy laws.
Corporate counsel should also remember that the Seventh Circuit’s discussion in Svoboda applies to all class actions (not just those alleging BIPA violations) in which it may not be possible to identify a class member’s location at the time of the alleged privacy violation. As noted above, due process does not require that class counsel be able to uncover such information for all class members at the certification stage. See also, e.g., Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654, 672 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[C]ourts should not decline certification merely because the plaintiff’s proposed method for identifying class members relies on affidavits.”).
Duane Morris Takeaway: Keep your New Year’s whistles on deck for the DMCAR 2026 E-book Launch on Tuesday, January 6, 2026! Our 22nd annual study of the class action space will be the biggest and most comprehensive edition yet, at over 750 pages. The 2026 Review has more analysis than ever before, with discussion of over 1,759 class certification rulings from federal and state courts examining all categories of class action litigation.
We will host an in-depth discussion of the key trends analyzed over the past 12 months at the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026 Book Launch Event on Thursday, February 5, 2026, from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at the Northwestern University School of Law. Register here to reserve your in-person or virtual seat and join us for a 60-minute live panel with DMCAR editors Jerry Maatman and Jennifer Riley and guest speaker Hon. Wayne R. Andersen (Ret.). CLE, SHRM, and HRCI credit will be available.
We look forward to publishing the new edition of the Review and sharing our outlook for class action litigation in 2026. Stay tuned and Happy New Year!
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Justin R. Donoho
Duane Morris Takeaways: On December 23, 2025, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order in Bartz, et al. v. Anthropic PBC, Case No. 24-CV-5417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2025), requiring five law firms seeking a fee award in connection with a class action settlement to file a declaration setting forth the full extent of any of the firms’ actual or proposed fee-sharing agreements and the extent to which any arrangement may result in some class members receiving a sweeter recovery than other class members. Judge Alsup also ordered preservation of all communications and other documents relating to such side deals.
The ruling is significant because it shows that only appointed class counsel may be eligible to receive a fee award in connection with a class action settlement, and may not outsource its responsibilities to non-appointed counsel or seek any other arrangements that may favor some class members to the detriment of other class members. Furthermore, the ruling shows that any such side deals must be disclosed publicly prior to any final approval of a class action settlement.
Background
This case is one of several class actions that plaintiffs have filed alleging that developers of generative artificial intelligence (“gen AI”) violated copyright laws by generating infringing outputs and/or by using unauthorized copies of copyrighted works as inputs to train the developer’s models.
Many of these gen AI class actions are “bet-the-company” lawsuits, even for the world’s largest companies. Plaintiffs in gen AI class actions typically invoke the Copyright Act in order to seek millions — and sometimes even billions — of dollars on the theory that thousands or millions of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works, times up to $150,000 per copyrighted work for willful infringement, equals a crushing, settlement-inspiring number.
In Bartz, the parties reached a $1.5 billion settlement, which the Court preliminary approved, and which we blogged about previously here and here.
Following preliminary approval, two law firms appointed as class counsel and three additional non-appointed firms filed a petition for fees to be awarded in connection with the class action settlement. The fee petition sought $225 million for class counsel and $75 million for the non-appointed law firms. Id. at 3, 7. These three non-appointed firms had agreed to gather contact information for the class list and to provide input on the claim form and claims process, two for the publisher class members (“Publishers’ Coordination Counsel”), and one for the author class members (“Authors’ Coordination Counsel”). Id. at 3.
The Court’s Decision
The Court declined to rule on the fee petition, ordering that a number of disclosures and preservation efforts be made first in order “to set the record straight” concerning aspects of the fee petition. Id. at 1. Such was necessary, according to the Court, because it appeared that counsel may have entered into one or more “side deals.” Id. at 3.
As the Court explained, “[t]wo and only two law firms were ever appointed class counsel.” Id. at 1. Moreover, “preliminary approval and the class notices confirmed that only two firms were approved to serve the class … Those firms never proposed a fee splitting scheme, and none was ever even preliminarily approved.” Id. at 7.
As to the three non-appointed law firms, the Court found that they “cannot appoint [themselves] class counsel by showing up. Nor can class counsel appoint someone else to do its work.” Id. at 2. As the Court further explained, it had not had a chance to vet the non-appointed counsel for conflicts, or to prevent duplication of effort by overlapping law firms. Id. at 8. In addition, the Court found it concerning that “we do not yet know whether ‘Publishers’ Coordination Counsel’ will share any part of their bonanza with one or more publishers so as to give those publishers a premium to not opt out … and thereby avoid triggering [the defendant]’s right to about the settlement.” Id. Furthermore, the class notice “never alerted class members that still other lawyers would come out of the woodwork to seek a third again whatever their class counsel would seek for its work.” Id. (emphasis added).
For these reasons, the Court ordered that, within one week, all law firms who filed fee petitions or on whose behalf fee petitions were filed, must publicly file a declaration (not under seal) setting forth the “full extent” to which such firm agreed or made a proposal “to share any portion(s) of any fee award in this class action or in any other class action (putative or certified) involving any party (or class member) herein,” and stating as to each such agreement or proposal its date, terms, the extent to which it is verbal and the extent to which it is in writing (or in an email or text or other message), and the parties and the names of all persons who made the agreement. Id. at 10. The Court also ordered public disclosure in a declaration of the “full extent to which any arrangement has been made or proposed by which any class member would receive a sweeter recovery than other class members.” Id. at 10-11. Finally, the Court further ordered that “[a]ll emails, messages, and written materials relating to any of the above shall be preserved for future potential discovery.” Id. at 11.
Implications For Companies
The Bartz fee petition order is as extraordinary as it is unique. It offers strong precedent for any company defending a large class action and preparing to enter into a class action settlement. Specifically, Bartz shows that plaintiffs’ firms seeking any portion of a fee award in connection with such a settlement will need to publicly disclose any side deals prior to any final settlement approval. Therefore, settling defendants should consider seeking to discover any side-deal information before entering into such settlement. That way, any obstacles to final settlement approval such as that presented by the Bartz fee petition order might be considered before the parties reach any settlement.
Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partners Jerry Maatman and Sean McConnell with their discussion a certification ruling issued in an antitrust class action brought by consumers alleging ticket seller Live Nation monopolized the live entertainment market following its merger with Ticketmaster.
Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.
Episode Transcript
Jerry Maatman: Thank you, loyal blog listeners and readers, for joining us for our next episode of our podcast series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman of Duane Morris, and joining me today is my partner, Sean McConnell, of our Philadelphia office, who is the chair of our antitrust practice group.
Sean McConnell: Great to be here, Jerry. Thanks for having me.
Jerry: Today, we’re here to discuss a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in which a federal judge certified a nationwide consumer class in antitrust litigation against Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster. This past week, U.S. District Court Judge George Wu certified a class of consumers who had purchased primary concert tickets through Ticketmaster or other Live Nation platforms dating back to 2010. The ruling adopted a tentative decision the court had issued earlier this month. Sean, can you tell us a little bit of the context of the antitrust implications of this ruling?
Sean: Sure, Jerry. The plaintiffs allege that Live Nation used its market power following the transaction with Ticketmaster and that acquisition to suppress competition and inflate ticket prices for concertgoers. The court concluded that the plaintiff satisfied the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, including predominance. Live Nation’s opposition focused primarily on the absence of a nationwide market. The company argued that ticket purchasing is inherently local, and that consumers do not seek alternatives outside their geographic area in response to price increases. Judge Wu rejected that framing. He reasoned that the case centers on ticketing services rather than individual tickets for individual concerts. From the court’s perspective, those services operate at a national scale, supporting certification on a nationwide basis.
Jerry: I know that expert opinions are at the heart of class certification efforts by the plaintiff’s bar and antitrust cases, and here, the court rejected the defendant’s critiques of the plaintiff’s expert report. Stating that the plaintiffs had adequately addressed those challenges, and that Rule 23 does not require the court to resolve competing expert opinions or models at the class certification stage. In this instance, who’s actually included, then, in the certified class?
Sean: Great question, Jerry. The certified class includes only primary ticket sales and excludes secondary market resales. The case has been pending since 2022, and proceeds alongside enforcement actions brought by the Department of Justice and several state attorneys general, which have alleged similar anti-competitive conduct and violations of a prior consent decree when Live Nation and Ticketmaster first merged back in 2010.
Jerry: At a 100,000-foot level, what exactly are the implications of this decision? I know that class certification is the holy grail in these sorts of cases. Is this ruling significant for companies?
Sean: Yes, from a corporate perspective, the decision underscores the litigation risk associated with vertically integrated platforms that operate at a nationwide scale. Courts may look beyond localized consumer behavior and focus instead on centralized pricing, contracting, and service models. The ruling also illustrates the relatively modest evidentiary burden plaintiffs face at the class certification stage in complex antitrust cases. Companies should not assume that disputes over market definition or expert methodology will prevent certification.
Jerry: Well, that’s a great overview, Sean, of those implications. I know that when antitrust cases are certified as viable class action, exposure increases incrementally, if not significantly, and shifts the leverage to the plaintiffs, which in turn increases the pressure to settle and expands both the scope and the cost of discovery.
Sean: Exactly right, Jerry. For companies in highly concentrated or regulated markets, this case reinforces the importance of proactive antitrust risk assessment, careful compliance with merger-related obligations, and early litigation strategy focused on class certification.
Jerry: Well, thanks, Sean, for your detailed analysis of the implications of this ruling, and thanks so much for being here today. Happy holidays to all of our listeners, and we’re glad you were able to tune in to this final 2025 edition of the Class Action Weekly Wire.
Sean: Thank you, Jerry, and thank you, listeners. As always, it was a pleasure to be here, and happy holidays, everyone.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Justin R. Donoho, and Hayley Ryan
Duane Morris Takeaways: On December 11, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 14365 titled “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The Order targets what it characterizes as a “patchwork” of State-by-State AI regulation and directs federal agencies to pursue a more uniform, national framework. Rather than serving as a technical AI governance roadmap, the Order focuses on limiting State AI laws through federal funding leverage, potential preemption, and expanded use of FTC enforcement authority. The discussion below highlights the Order’s core objectives and key implications for companies and employers. The Executive Order is required reading for any organizations deploying AI or thinking of doing so.
The Executive Order’s Core Objectives
Reduce State AI Regulation By Framing It As A Competitiveness Problem
The Order emphasizes U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence and asserts that divergent State regulatory regimes increase compliance costs, especially for startups, and may impede innovation and deployment. It also raises concerns that certain State approaches could pressure companies to embed “ideological” requirements into AI systems.
Create Leverage Through Federal Funding: BEAD Broadband Money As The “Carrot And Stick”
Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce is directed to issue a policy notice describing the circumstances under which States may be deemed ineligible for certain broadband deployment funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program if they impose specified AI-related requirements. The notice is also intended to explain how fragmented State AI laws could undermine broadband deployment and high-speed connectivity goals.
Move Toward A Federal Reporting And Disclosure Standard
Within 90 days after the Order’s State-law “identification” process (discussed below), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in consultation with a Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, is instructed to consider whether to initiate a proceeding to adopt a federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that would preempt conflicting State requirements.
Use The FTC Act As An Enforcement Anchor And Tee Up Preemption Arguments
Within 90 days, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is directed, in consultation with other federal agencies, to issue a policy statement addressing how the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices applies to AI models, with the express objective of preempting conflicting State laws.
Establish A Federal AI Litigation Task Force To Challenge State AI Laws
The Executive Order goes beyond policy statements and funding leverage by directing the Attorney General, within 30 days, to establish an AI Litigation Task Force dedicated exclusively to challenging State AI laws that conflict with the Order’s national policy objectives. The Task Force is authorized to pursue constitutional and preemption-based challenges, signaling an intent to bring coordinated, affirmative litigation against State AI regimes.
That enforcement effort is reinforced by a parallel State-law triage process. Within 90 days, the Secretary of Commerce must publish an evaluation identifying “onerous” State AI laws for potential challenge, particularly those that require AI systems to alter truthful outputs or compel disclosures that may implicate First Amendment or other constitutional concerns. Together, these provisions signal an intent to move quickly from policy articulation to test cases aimed at curbing State-level AI regulation.
Implications For Companies
Compliance Strategy May Shift, But Uncertainty Rises First
Although companies may welcome relief from conflicting State AI mandates, the Executive Order is likely to increase near-term uncertainty. Preemption disputes are likely, and the Order directs agency action rather than establishing a comprehensive statutory framework. Companies should avoid scaling back State-law compliance prematurely and should assume any federal override will be contested until resolved through rulemaking and litigation.
Class Action Exposure Will Shift, Not Disappear
Even if State AI laws are narrowed, plaintiffs’ lawyers are likely to pursue claims under more traditional theories, including consumer protection (particularly AI marketing and disclosure claims), employment discrimination, privacy and biometrics statutes, and contract or misrepresentation theories. The Order’s emphasis on FTC unfair and deceptive practices enforcement suggests that federal consumer protection standards may become the new focal point for both regulatory scrutiny and follow-on civil litigation.
Employment Risk Remains
Employers should expect ongoing scrutiny of AI use in hiring, promotion, and performance management, including disparate impact claims, vendor-liability arguments, and discovery disputes over model documentation, adverse impact analyses, and validation. Defensible governance, testing, and documentation remain critical.
Federal Contracting And Funding May Come With New AI Representations
If federal agencies adopt standardized AI disclosures, companies operating in regulated industries or participating in broadband initiatives may face new contract provisions governing AI use, along with enhanced reporting and audit obligations.
What Companies Should Do Now
Companies should begin by identifying where and how AI tools are being deployed, particularly in consumer-facing and employment-related contexts, and evaluating those uses under existing disclosure, privacy, and anti-discrimination laws. Public-facing statements about AI capabilities should be reviewed to ensure they are accurate and defensible, as increased regulatory and litigation focus on unfair or deceptive practices is likely to heighten scrutiny of AI-related claims. Companies should also review vendor relationships to confirm that contracts clearly address testing and validation obligations, incident response, audit rights, and appropriate allocation of risk for privacy and discrimination claims. Finally, organizations should remain prepared for continued regulatory change by maintaining State-law compliance readiness while monitoring federal agency actions that may shape a national AI framework.
Bottom Line
This Executive Order is a significant policy signal. The federal government is positioning itself to reduce State-by-State AI regulation and replace it with a framework centered on federal disclosure requirements and consumer protection enforcement. Companies should view the Order as an opportunity to prepare for a likely federal compliance baseline, without assuming State-law exposure will disappear in the near term.
By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley
Duane Morris Takeaway: Happy Holidays to our loyal readers of the Duane Morris Class Action Defense Blog! Our elves are busy at work this holiday season in wrapping up our start-of-the-year kick-off publication – the Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2026. We will go to press in early January and launch the 2026 Review from our blog and our book launch website. This announcement also marks our 600th blog post.
The 2026 Review builds on the success of our previous editions and represents our 22nd annual study of the class action space. It will be the biggest and most comprehensive edition yet, at over 750 pages. The 2026 Review has more analysis than ever before, with discussion of over 1,700 class certification rulings from federal and state courts over this past year. The Review will be available for download as an E-Book too.
The Review is a one-of-its-kind publication analyzing class action trends, decisions, and settlements in all areas impacting Corporate America, including the substantive areas of antitrust, appeals, the Class Action Fairness Act, civil rights, consumer fraud, data breach, EEOC-Initiated and government enforcement litigation, employment discrimination, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, labor, privacy, procedural issues, product liability and mass torts, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, securities fraud, state court class actions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, wage & hour class and collective actions, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The Review also highlights key rulings on attorneys’ fee awards in class actions, motions granting and denying sanctions in class actions, and the top-class action settlements in each area. It also will contain a brand-new appendix featuring analysis of rulings in the generative artificial intelligence and crypto space. Finally, the Review provides insight as to what companies and corporate counsel can expect to see in 2026.
The Duane Morris Class Action Review was recently cited in briefing to the U.S. Supreme Court in as the authoritative source on FLSA certification statistics and the widening circuit split regarding when it is appropriate to send notice to would-be plaintiffs, under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action.
In its review of our practice group’s resource, Employment Practices Liability Consultant Magazine (“EPLiC”) said, “The Duane Morris Class Action Review is ‘the Bible’ on class action litigation and an essential desk reference for business executives, corporate counsel, and human resources professionals.” EPLiC continued, “The review is a must-have resource for in-depth analysis of class actions in general and workplace litigation in particular.
With the submission of our analysis to the U.S. Supreme Court, we are humbled and proud to be cited as the authoritative source in the class action space. The Review is also relied on by some of the world’s largest plaintiffs’ firms and federal judges, see, e.g., Laverenz v. Pioneer Metal Finishing, LLC, 746 F. Supp. 3d 602, 614 (E.D. Wis. 2024). The Duane Morris Class Action Review is the “one stop shop” and authoritative source on collective action certification rates, collective action trends and analysis, and the implications, pressures, and contours that parties face when engaged in FLSA collective action litigation.
We look forward to providing the 2026 edition of the Review to all our loyal readers in early January. Stay tuned and Happy Holidays!
Duane Morris Takeaway: This week’s episode of the Class Action Weekly Wire features Duane Morris partner Jerry Maatman and associate Bernadette Coyle with their discussion of the 2025-2026 edition of the American Tort Reform Association’s (“ATRA”) “Judicial Hellholes Report,” which details the eight least favorable venues for corporate defendants across the country.
Check out today’s episode and subscribe to our show from your preferred podcast platform: Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Podcast Index, Tune In, Listen Notes, iHeartRadio, Deezer, and YouTube.
Episode Transcript
Jerry Maatman: Thank you for being here, loyal blog listeners and readers, for the next episode of our ongoing series entitled The Class Action Weekly Wire. I’m Jerry Maatman, a partner at Duane Morris, and joining me today is my colleague, Bernadette Coyle. Welcome, and thanks for being on the podcast.
Bernadette Coyle: Thanks, Jerry, I’m very happy to be here.
Jerry: Today, we’re discussing the annual report prepared by the American Tort Reform Association, known by the acronym ATRA, which is called the “Judicial Hellholes Report.” It focuses on litigation issues and identification of jurisdictions likely to have unfair or biased administration of justice that, in essence, are very difficult places in which corporate defendants are sued. This is an important read for corporate counsel facing class action litigation, because it identifies the who, what, when, where, and how of what jurisdictions are most difficult in which to defend class action litigation.
Bernadette: That’s right, Jerry. The report defines a “judicial hellhole” as a jurisdiction where judges in civil cases systematically apply laws and procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, which generally is to the disadvantage of defendants.
Jerry: This year’s report identified eight total jurisdictions in its list, down from 10 that were identified last year. I’m sure our loyal blog listeners are anxious to hear what jurisdiction came out on top of the list as the most unfavorable jurisdiction in which to be sued.
Bernadette: Jerry, topping the list this year is Los Angeles. Although California has long been considered a plaintiff-friendly state, this year in particular, lawsuit abuse and judicial bias in Los Angeles have set it apart and pushed it to the top of the list. The report points to a $1 billion nuclear verdict, allegations of litigation abuse, and courts leaning into novel liability theories that broaden exposure for defendants. And small businesses are targeted in particular, being hit with ADA and no injury suits, while arbitration continues to face judicial resistance in California.
Jerry: Well, speaking from my own personal experience, I would agree it’s a very difficult place to practice law and defend cases, and its inclusion and placement at the top of the list comes as no surprise. Moving to number two is New York Metro, New York City. What’s happening there on the list?
Bernadette: New York City remained at number two this year, and the ATRF calls it a “fraudemic.” The city continues to produce nuclear verdicts, courts are expanding product liability theories, especially against tech companies, and both no-injury filings and asbestos cases remain heavy in New York City.
Jerry: Number three came in with South Carolina. It’s been on the radar for years of the American Tort Reform Association.
Bernadette: Exactly. The ATRF criticizes the relaxed causation standard, frequent sanctions, and even notes instances where courts increased jury awards because it believed that the jury did not go far enough.
Jerry: Let’s hit the rest of the list of eight. Louisiana, I believe, comes in fourth.
Bernadette: Yes, the first coastal litigation case finally went to trial, and it ended in a nine-figure verdict. Interestingly, the ATRF also points to political connections between plaintiffs’ lawyers and state leadership.
Jerry: Fifth is Philadelphia jurisdiction, where we’re handling many class actions.
Bernadette: Right, and also last year’s defending champion. A RICO lawsuit has raised allegations of fraud in the court system, and the complex litigation Center continues to attract mass tort filings, and historic nuclear verdicts are becoming more common.
Jerry: Sixth is Missouri in general, and St. Louis in particular. What are you seeing there?
Bernadette: Yes, the ATRF says courts there continue to allow junk science, and out-of-state plaintiffs are targeting St. Louis small businesses with ADA lawsuits. Judges have even overturned jury verdicts that they disagreed with.
Jerry: Seventh is a familiar Illinois trio, the counties of Cook, Madison, and St. Clair, the latter two of which were the motivating factors for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 that President Bush signed into law to allow for easier removal from state court to federal court. What’s happening on the Illinois front?
Bernadette: They are described as ground zero for baby formula litigation supported by questionable science. Also, litigation tourism persists, asbestos filings are high, and nuclear verdicts continue.
Jerry: And rounding out the list, at number eight is the state of Washington in general, and King County, in particular, where we’re seeing a rise of many employment-related class actions.
Bernadette: Correct. The report highlights the reinstatement of a nuclear verdict, expanded asbestos liability, and King County’s role in pioneering climate change litigation against energy companies. And as we’ve seen, there’s also been a sharp increase in class actions brought under the EPOA this year in Washington.
Jerry: Let’s shift now to the ATRA’s watch list. It highlights six jurisdictions that are not full judicial hellholes, but have been trending in that direction. What should our listeners know about the watchlist?
Bernadette: Three Georgia counties, Gwinnett, Fulton, and Cobb, are under scrutiny despite statewide reforms. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did have a quieter year this year, but remains influential, especially in forum shopping and arbitration filings. Texas is seeing a rise in pro-plaintiff leanings and state-sponsored lawsuits. Michigan has major decisions pending, Louisiana still faces fallout from fraud schemes, and Kentucky continues to produce nuclear verdicts.
Jerry: The report also calls out what it calls dishonorable mentions. What stands out to you in terms of that list?
Bernadette: There are three main concerns noted in the report. First, the Fourth Circuit’s broad approach to public nuisance, a Colorado evidentiary ruling that the ATRF finds troubling, and Ohio appellate courts that are permitting unlimited non-economic damages.
Jerry: Well, it’s not all doom and gloom. There is a little bit of positive light. What does the report, refer to in terms of what it characterizes as “points of light”?
Bernadette: Yes, and there are some significant ones. Colorado rejected medical monitoring damages, Delaware and Maine pushed back on junk science and public nuisance expansion, North Carolina reaffirmed caps on non-economic damages, and the Utah Supreme Court eliminated phantom damages.
Jerry: Well, Bernadette, thanks so much for guiding us through the tour of the 2025-2026 Judicial Hellholes Report. It’s essential reading for corporate counsel, and certainly any company involved in high-stakes litigation or defending class action litigation. The report certainly manifests what we see on a daily basis in terms of the epicenters of class action litigation, and where the plaintiffs’ bar tends to file their cases in terms of trying to gain an advantage over corporate defenses.
Well, thanks so much for being here, Bernadette, and providing us with your thought leadership in this space.
Bernadette: Thank you for having me, Jerry, and thank you, listeners.
