North America: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

A federal court in California dismissed all nine claims in a privacy class action against Adobe, ruling that plaintiffs cannot establish lack of consent by merely asserting they never gave it. The decision establishes critical pleading standards for consent in tracking device cases, requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts about what they saw on websites and why disclosures failed, rather than simply denying consent occurred.

A federal court in Iowa denied summary judgment to Medicare Health Advisors after defense counsel failed to properly authenticate Jornaya lead records and establish hearsay exceptions in a TCPA class action. The ruling highlights critical procedural mistakes in presenting consent evidence and reveals how improper handling of third-party verification records can transform a potential defense victory into millions of dollars in litigation exposure.

Class action litigation filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) dropped 45% in July 2026 compared to the previous year, marking a potential turning point after years of rising cases. While year-to-date filings remain 9.7% higher than 2025, the cooling trend raises questions about what factors are driving this significant decline in TCPA lawsuits.

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.

States across the country are expanding anti-SLAPP protections, with nine states enacting or strengthening laws since 2025. Most have adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), giving defendants new tools to seek early dismissal of lawsuits.

A federal court has awarded Blake Lively over $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs under California's new anti-SLAPP statute after dismissing a defamation claim brought against her for speaking out about workplace harassment. This landmark ruling marks the first fee award under California Civil Code section 47.1, which protects communications about sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation—raising critical questions about the financial risks employers face when responding to workplace allega

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision examines the boundaries of social media criticism in development disputes, addressing when heated online debate crosses into actionable defamation. The case explores how courts balance freedom of expression against reputational harm when Facebook posts allege corruption and misconduct, and clarifies the costs consequences for unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motions where malice may be present.

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.

Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy, retailers and consumer brands have faced an unprecedented wave of CEMA subject-line litigation.  Each case threatens existential exposure. Many defendants initially pursued a familiar strategy: seek dismissal of these cases at the pleading stage. The problem?

After 12 years of litigation, the Ninth Circuit has finally ruled in the epic trademark dispute between Jack Daniel's and VIP Products over the "Bad Spaniels" dog toy parody. The court's decision establishes crucial new standards for proving dilution by tarnishment, requiring brand owners to demonstrate mark-specific fame and actual reputational harm rather than relying on offensive associations alone.