USA Law and Practice Contributed by: Trevor Keenan, Michelle Byers and Curtis Berglund, Campbell Conroy & O’Neil, P.C.
2.17 Summary of Significant Recent Product Liability Claims In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/ Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, MDL No 3047 (Pending Matter) This ongoing case exemplifies the recent trend in which traditional product liability theories are applied to personal injuries alleged to have resulted from an intangible product. In this mat - ter, product defect and failure to warn claims are asserted against social media platforms, alleg - ing that platform algorithms are “products” that can lead to addiction and poor mental health outcomes in adolescents. The case has implica - tions for how courts will adapt product liability claims to new technologies and non-physical “products” . Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc, et al v Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 23-1141 (Decided 5 June 2025) In March 2024, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the appeal of a First Circuit deci - sion that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) did not immunise manu - facturers from claims by Mexico that they were responsible for supplying cartels with firearms through their advertisements and failure to the stop the flow of firearms from their downstream dealers to the cartels. Mexico argued that its claims fall within a narrow exception to the stat - ute that prohibits firearms manufacturers from claiming immunity if they have committed viola - tions of state or federal law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms. The US Supreme Court held that Mexico’s complaint did not plausibly allege that the manufacturers aided and abetted unlawful sales by gun dealers and the PLCAA barred the lawsuit.
uct liability claims. In these arrangements, the plaintiff’s counsel will receive a percentage of the award or settlement in addition to litigation expenses if there is a recovery. When there is no recovery, the lawyer receives no fee or reim - bursement for expenses. Third-party litigation funding arrangements in which a non-party funds the lawsuit in exchange for a portion of any recovery continues to be a growing trend in personal injury litigation. 2.16 Existence of Class Actions, Representative Proceedings or Co- Ordinated Proceedings in Product Liability Claims Multi-district litigation (MDL) was created by statute and has as its primary purpose estab - lishing a centralised forum where related cases pending in federal court are consolidated so that co-ordinated pretrial proceedings can occur in an efficient and effective manner. Pretrial pro - ceedings include pretrial motions and discov - ery. The objectives for an MDL proceeding are many, and include reducing litigation costs through more efficient discovery, avoiding con - flicting rulings and schedules among court pro - ceedings, streamlining key issues and moving cases towards a resolution – either through trial, motions or settlement. State courts may per - mit consolidated proceedings involving similar claims of product defect. Class action proceedings are available in federal court if the prerequisites of Fed R Civ P 23 are met. Product liability and personal injury actions are rarely appropriate for class action proceed - ings because they require an individualised assessment of causation and injury, making it difficult to satisfy the requirements of Fed R Civ P 23.
314 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook