Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025

the features fall under § 230 immunity, and thus the States’ claims related to those aspects of its platforms should be granted. However, as to the States arguments that appearance-altering filters promote eating disorders and body dysmorphia among youth, the court agreed, and denied dismissal of the claims. The court also denial dismissal of the States’ deceptive practices claims, holding that Meta’s arguments went beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss. Meta also sought dismissal of the States’ and personal injury plaintiffs’ consumer- protection claims for lack of a connection to commerce under myriad state’s statutes. The court held that the States and personal injury plaintiffs adequately alleged consumer protection claims “in connection with a consumer transaction” under Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, and Virginia law, and likewise for Maryland. Id. at *279. The court also determined that the States and personal injury plaintiffs sufficiently alleged unfair or deceptive acts or practices “in the conduct of any trade or commerce” under the laws of the challenged states. Id. at *280. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 1. Rulings On Mass Tort Motions At The Pleading Stage Mass torts often involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices. One of the first major thresholds for plaintiffs to cross is overcoming a preemption argument. Preemption arguments arise when there is a difference between the requirements of state and federal law. The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, and when a federal and state law conflict, federal law usually wins the day. Preemption can be classified in two main areas. Express Preemption : This occurs when federal law explicitly states that it preempts any state law in a particular area. There is often an express preemption provision found in the statute itself or sometimes is contained in the corresponding regulations. Implied Preemption: While sometimes federal law does not provide for express preemption, the vastness of a law or regulations implies that it preempts state law due to its comprehensive nature. There are two sub- categories of implied preemption, including (i) Field Preemption, which occurs because a federal law is so comprehensive that it occupies the entire field and thus the states have no room for regulation, and (ii) Conflict Preemption, which occurs when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law. The Food & Drug Administration, for example, plays a crucial role in drug regulation, and understanding preemption is important for litigators because oftentimes pharmaceutical litigation typically involves both federal and state law claims. As a general matter, courts often analyze the federal law or regulations compared with the state law or regulations and make an assessment as to whether state laws or regulations are issues that fall into one of the preemption categories discussed above. Preemption is but one of the many threshold issues decided at the pleading stage. Courts in 2024 adjudicated various cases in this area. Although not a medical device litigation, the court addressed preemption in In Re Hair Relaxer Marketing Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation , 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175594 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2024). The court considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss actions brought by plaintiffs who claimed they suffered economic harm from purchasing defective hair relaxer products. The plaintiffs asserted that the products, manufactured and sold by the defendants, were unsafe and carried health risks, including a significantly increased risk of developing uterine and ovarian cancers due to frequent exposure to toxic chemicals in the products. The plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including damages, medical monitoring, and injunctive relief, and they bring claims on behalf of themselves and two putative classes, including one for medical monitoring and another for national consumer protection. The court first examined the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ failed to allege an injury-in-fact because they continued to use the products without immediate adverse effects, and they claimed the products worked as expected in relaxing hair. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs’ claims about potential future health risks, such as cancer,

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online