April 2019

Spotify Tells EU Apple is Hampering Competitors as Apple Music Surpasses Spotify in U.S. — MoginRubin

April 30th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: Corporate & Securities, eCommerce, Information Technology Law, Regulations|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Apple Music recently surpassed Spotify in the U.S. market, according to the Wall Street Journal, signing up 28 million subscribers compared to Spotify’s 26 million. Spotify continues to have more total subscribers, however. "Spotify Founder and CEO Daniel Elk took to the company blog to make his case, saying, “Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store—and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple’s case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.” "In a recent statement, Apple says it revolutionized the distribution of music with iTunes, and did the same thing with the App Store, something that has created “many millions of jobs” and, it says, generated more than $120 billion for developers and new industries." Read the complete post on the MoginRubin Blog here! [/one-half]

Philadelphia Jury Hits J&J with $120M Award in Mesh Injury Case — Law360

April 25th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Product Liability, Settlements|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Jurors credited claims from Susan McFarland that the negligent design of a mesh implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She was eventually forced to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant. "The pain she’s been left with as a result of the complications, she says, has prevented her from having sex with her husband for the last 10 years. "This is the second time jurors have been asked to determine whether McFarland and her husband should be awarded damages for injuries she attributes to alleged defects in a so-called TVT-O implant she received to treat urinary stress incontinence." Read the complete article on Law360 here. [/one-half]

Top Class Actions: Vaccine Litigation Case Roundup

April 19th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, HB Risk Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Personal Injury, Product Liability|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]There have been numerous lawsuits filed alleging injuries caused by the shingles vaccine Zostavax. Cases have stated they were not warned of the adverse side effects of the vaccine alleging it caused the diseases it is meant to prevent, among other things. Here is what the CDC says to consumers: “Your risk of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) increases as you get older. CDC recommends that people 60 years old and older get shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) to prevent shingles and PHN. Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) is the preferred vaccine, over Zostavax® (zoster vaccine live), a shingles vaccine in use since 2006. Zostavax may still be used to prevent shingles in healthy adults 60 years and older. For example, you could use Zostavax if a person is allergic to Shingrix, prefers Zostavax, or requests immediate vaccination and Shingrix is unavailable. Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) was licensed by the FDA in 2006. This vaccine reduces the risk of developing shingles by 51% and PHN by 67%. It is given in one dose as a shot, and can be given in a doctor’s office or pharmacy.“ Read more: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/zostavax/index.html The vaccine is produced by Merck & Co. Their product information can be found here: https://www.merckvaccines.com/Products/Zostavax Here is a roundup of the cases filed. [/one-half] 1.Husband and Wife File Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit "A North Carolina husband and [...]

The Need for Real MDL Rules Will Only Grow More Acute — Drug and Device Law Blog

April 16th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Drugs & Devices, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Multi-District Litigation (MDL)|

By Bexis [one-half-first].[/one-half-first] [one-half]"In the ensuing procedural gamesmanship, plaintiffs are in the process of losing one of the main ways they gamed the system to keep diverse cases in state court – the so-called 'forum defendant rule' whereby even a diverse action could be kept in state court by the presence of defendant domiciled in the plaintiff’s chosen forum. The forum defendant rule applies only to parties 'properly joined and served,' and technologically-savvy defendants have discovered that, by monitoring electronic dockets, they can remove diverse cases faster than plaintiffs can serve forum defendants. We call this 'pre-service,' 'snap,' or 'wrinkle' removal, and we’ve chronicled (and advocated) its rise since 2007." Read the complete post by Bexis on Drug and Device Law Blog here. [/one-half] This is an excellent blog. One of my favorites. It's unapologetically defense-oriented, of course. A phrase like "gamed the system" is practically an invitation for rebuttal! So if you would like to respond, rebut, or rebuke, please write to us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. --Tom Hagy, HB

Product Liability in the Internet of Things — Schiff Hardin Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Information Technology Law, Legal Tech, Product Liability|

[one-half-first] Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash [/one-half-first] [one-half]"Combining a physical object and an intangible technology also creates a novel issue when it comes to strict product liability principles, which typically hold that a product manufacturer may be strictly liable for a product’s defect. The first task in a strict product liability case is to identify the product. In the context of a device that has no internet connectivity, the answer is straightforward. If a ladder is defective and causes an injury, the ladder’s manufacturer may be held strictly liable because a ladder is the product. But when it comes to IoT devices, the line may be blurred. Almost always, the software part of the IoT device is 'manufactured' by a separate entity from the entity that manufactures the physical object. If the IoT device proves to be defective, the question becomes which entity may be held strictly liable." Read the complete post by Schiff Hardin's Gregory Dickinson & Jeffrey D. Skinner here. [/one-half]

National Geographic Disclosed Customer Info, Class Action Says — Top Class Actions Blog

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes, Technology Law|Tags: Data Privacy, Privacy, Regulations|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "The National Geographic class action states that prior to and at the time that he subscribed to the magazine, the company did not notify him that it discloses the personal reading information of its customers. "Markham also claims that he wasn’t provided with any written notice that National Geographic makes a practice of renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing personal reading information to third parties, and provides no means of opting out. "However, the National Geographic information disclosure class action lawsuit says that since subscribing to National Geographic and between Mach 26, 2016 andJuly 30, 2016, National Geographic disclosed Markham’s personal reading information to data aggregators, data appenders, and/or data cooperatives." Read the complete post by Top Class Actions Editor Emily Sortor here. [/one-half]

A Generic Drug Failure to Warn Claim? –Michelle Hart Yeary

April 14th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Drugs & Devices, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Litigation & appeals, Product Liability|

[one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] "Rather than focusing on what plaintiff’s off-label marketing claim really was – a claim that defendant’s label should have contained different information or warnings about off-label uses – an impliedly preempted claim, the court got distracted trying to fit the case in under Bausch and started talking about parallel violation claims. "The court found that because plaintiff was alleging a violation of federal regulations, his claims “run parallel to [defendant’s] state law duties,” and thus were not preempted. The problem with this is that Mensing is not an express preemption case. It was an implied preemption case, and the district court had no business applying 'parallel claim' analysis to implied preemption, where a 'parallel claim' exception does not exist. It makes no difference whether plaintiff’s off-label promotion claim is 'parallel' to federal regulations, defendant could not have offered any different warning so any claim that the warning or information it provided was inadequate is preempted under Mensing. The court was trying to fit a square peg into a round whole – and the only way that works is to cut off the corners." Read the complete post by Dechert's Michelle Hart Yeary here! [/one-half]

One Stock for the Coming Marijuana Boom, Says The Motley Fool

April 12th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, HB Risk Notes|Tags: Banking & Finance, Cannabis, Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Fintech|

"This legal pot stock could be like buying Amazon for $3.19." "Cannabis legalization is sweeping over North America – 10 states plus Washington, D.C., have all legalized recreational marijuana over the last few years, and full legalization arrived in Canada in October 2018. Legal marijuana is worth an estimated $50 billion for the U.S. today. And since experts have projected the U.S. industry to skyrocket to $80 billion by 2030, it’s time for investors to start paying attention. Because whether or not you’re planning on ingesting any THC, you can’t deny the monumental investing opportunity that a potentially $80 billion industry represents." --Grace Phillips, in an article for The Motley Fool

Private Calif. Plaintiffs Seemingly Enforcing FDCA, Drug & Device Law Blog Says

April 12th, 2019|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: Emerging Litigation & Risk, Medical Malpractice, Personal Injury, Product Liability|

"Doctors treated two plaintiffs for severe psychological problems, ultimately employing defendant’s Thymatron System IV to perform electroconvulsive therapy. Plaintiffs claimed that, as a result, they suffered brain trauma, memory loss and other brain-related injuries. They filed product liability claims based, in the main, on the manufacturer’s alleged failure to report adverse events. The decision in Riera addressed summary judgment motions, ones filed by both the plaintiffs and the defendant. You don’t ordinarily see summary judgment motions by plaintiffs, and Riera is an example of why." Read the complete post by John J. Sullivan of Cozen O'Connor.

Million-Dollar Settlement in Employee Background Check Case, Top Class Actions Reports

April 11th, 2019|Categories: Class Actions, Employment, HB Risk Notes, HB Tort Notes, Technology Law|Tags: Compliance, Data Privacy, Healthcare, Protected Personal Information (PPI)|

"Job applicants have secured a $1.2 million settlement ending allegations that Maxim Healthcare did not properly inform potential employees that they would have a consumer report pulled as part of the application process. Class Members include those who applied and got a job with the healthcare services company between May 5, 2009 and Aug. 27, 2012, who were also subject to a consumer report check by Maxim. The Maxim Healthcare class action lawsuit claimed that Maxim violated federal consumer privacy protections when procuring employee background checks."

Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar
Gallery
Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar

Settlement Psychology: Who is in Control? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? | Complimentary Webinar

April 1st, 2019|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Law Firm Operations|Tags: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Arbitration, Law Practice Management, Litigation & appeals, Mediation, Negotiation skills, Settlements|

Settlement Psychology Who's in charge? Homer Simpson or Mr. Spock? Cognitive obstacles to finding common ground. [two-fifths-first] Complimentary On-Demand Webinar From HB! 1 CLE credit CLE questions? CLE@LitigationConferences.com Questions for speakers? Questions@LitigationConferences.com SPEAKERS Jeff Trueman Mediator / Negotiator John Philip Miller Baltimore City Circuit Judge (ret.) This course is also available via the West LegalEdcenter. [/two-fifths-first] [three-fifths] Improve your negotiation strategy and outcomes. Mediator, arbitrator and settlement conference neutral Jeff Trueman says the lawyer’s mind can sometimes play tricks on them when it comes time to settle a claim. “The central question on the minds of counsel, their clients, and insurance professionals in civil litigation is, of course, ‘What’s the case worth?’ For mature torts there is enough historical settlement and verdict data exist for counsel to argue why a particular case should or should not fit within a certain settlement range. In the midst of these discussions, the human brain plays tricks on us. For example, litigators sometimes assume that their trial experience can determine how jurors will negotiate with one another and resolve factual discrepancies after closing arguments. This assumption is a ‘heuristic’ – a cognitive shortcut called attributional error or illusion of control.” Backed by his decades of psychological and economic sciences research, Trueman says there is a lot of room for [...]