Worldwide: Civil Law

Recent federal court decisions have reshaped the landscape for website tracking privacy litigation, with four rulings favoring defendants while one demonstrates how plaintiffs can still prevail with properly pleaded claims. These cases establish critical precedents for defending against wiretapping, invasion-of-privacy, and computer-fraud allegations based on pixel and cookie-tracking technologies.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed whether manufacturers can be held liable under consumer protection laws for failing to disclose potential product defects that manifest after purchase. In Halpern v. Ricoh, U.S.A., Inc., the Court examined whether a vendor's silence about a latent defect constitutes "deceptive conduct" under Pennsylvania's catch-all consumer protection provision, establishing important boundaries for when disclosure duties arise in product liability cases.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that ERISA preempts state defamation claims against employee benefit plans. The decision arose from a case where a doctor sued Cigna's subsidiary over explanation of benefits notices that allegedly damaged his reputation by stating claims were denied because services were provided by unlicensed healthcare providers.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation have reshaped the TCPA landscape by inviting courts to reconsider long-standing FCC interpretations of the statute.

A New York Commercial Division judge awarded over $30 million in compensatory and punitive damages against a car dealership owner who misappropriated $4.7 million in dealer advances and engaged in a persistent pattern of fiduciary breaches. The court rejected the defendant's testimony entirely under the falsus in uno doctrine and imposed punitive damages double the amount of misappropriated funds, citing willful deception and conscious disregard for corporate interests.

The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly fundamentally reshapes consumer protection law by overturning decades of precedent that shielded regulated businesses from liability. What does this landmark ruling mean for businesses that previously relied on regulatory compliance as a defense against consumer protection claims, and how must companies now navigate the intersection of industry-specific regulations and broader consumer protection requirements?

Many people assume death simply “pauses” the statute of limitations. Under Washington law, that is not quite right. Sometimes there is an extension; sometimes there is a separate probate deadline...

The third day of the NAW v. Feldon bench trial examined Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, with witnesses questioning the economic feasibility of the Extended Producer Responsibility program's implementation and its potential impact on supply chains, distribution channels, and producers of varying sizes. Expert testimony explored whether the RMA's fee structures and compliance obligations create constitutional concerns regarding interstate commerce, while Oregon's cross-examination

State attorneys general are emerging as the primary enforcers of AI regulations, filing landmark lawsuits against major AI companies over safety failures, trade secrets, and consumer protection. As federal preemption debates continue, companies face immediate legal challenges from state-level enforcement actions targeting AI deployment, workplace policies, and algorithmic decision-making systems.