Intersects with Mass Torts (some include this in Mass Torts), pollution, PFAS, chemical fires, climate change.
The rapid advancement of AI technology continues to challenge courts, companies, and consumers. Read about recent developments that in-house counsel and litigators should be watching.
We’re in an age when deregulation hawks in just about every sector are getting what they’ve asked for. That includes environmental protection, something many of us have taken for granted, as we watch federal measures undergo a dramatic unwinding at a time when the scientific community agrees more should be done, not less, to safeguard the planet. Federal agencies are retreating from aggressive enforcement, states are asserting new authority, and courts—both state and federal—are emerging as decisive arbiters of climate and energy policy. The result is a patchwork of obligations and opportunities that lawyers, corporations, and communities must navigate with increasing urgency. This week’s developments underscore the trend.
A Montana District Court has awarded nearly $3 million in fees and costs to youth plaintiffs after their landmark constitutional victory recognizing a right to a stable climate system. The ruling highlights the societal importance of the case, the inequity of resources between the parties, and the critical role of private enforcement in protecting environmental rights. Learn more in the full article.
The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup. A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists. As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles. Read the update from Tom Hagy.
While Trump’s freeze on offshore wind permits faces legal challenge, a federal judge isn’t convinced the states bringing the case have shown enough harm. In this article, guest contributor Justin Ward explains why the motion for an injunction was denied, what it means for the broader battle over renewable energy, and how executive power could stall green infrastructure without ever breaking the law.
Guest contributor, Jennifer Holmes discusses the growing legal, regulatory, and financial fallout from PFAS—also known as “forever chemicals”—through the lens of 3M’s recent $450 million settlement with the state of New Jersey. In this wide-ranging piece, she explores how PFAS litigation is evolving beyond environmental cleanup to include product liability suits against major brands like Apple, insurance coverage battles over pollution exclusions, and the uncertain regulatory landscape shaping outcomes. As public pressure and legal scrutiny mount, Holmes offers a timely look at what businesses, insurers, and legal teams need to know about this rapidly expanding area of risk.
Amid rising concerns about toxic chemicals in consumer products, Apple finds itself under scrutiny. Guest contributor Justin Ward examines the controversy surrounding Apple’s smartwatch bands after researchers detected elevated levels of PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” While Apple insists its products are safe, a class action lawsuit alleges deceptive marketing and health risks, raising broader questions about accountability and chemical transparency in tech and apparel.
In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, you will discover the legal complexities of wildfire litigation as Ed Diab, founding partner of Diab Chambers LLP, unpacks the strategies used to establish liability against utility companies in the wake of Southern California’s devastating January 2025 wildfires. With over 100 lawsuits filed against power providers like Southern California Edison, plaintiffs—including public entities, individuals, and insurers—face an uphill battle proving negligence and inverse condemnation claims. Ed shares insights on case-building strategies, the role of expert investigations, key legal defenses raised by utilities, and the evolving litigation landscape. Tune in for a deep dive into how these high-stakes cases unfold. Don't miss this episode!
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of the evolving legal, regulatory, and insurance landscape surrounding PFAS ("forever chemicals") and their growing impact on businesses and insurers. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Bob Horkovich and Cameron Argetsinger and environmental experts Arthur J. Clarke and Walker Prentke from J.S. Held. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Take this CLE webinar and gain a better understanding of ey insurance coverage issues arising from Hurricanes Helene and Milton, including business interruption claims, deductibles, flood sublimits, and strategies to address delays in the claims adjustment process. We feature experienced insurance recovery attorneys Dennis Artese, Marshall Gilinsky, Joshua Gold, and Grant Brown of Anderson Kill, P.C. Take it now or when you're ready. It's on demand!
Bret Thurman provides an in-depth look at the surge of legal actions stemming from the catastrophic 2025 California wildfires, which caused widespread destruction across Southern California. He explores the numerous lawsuits filed against major utility companies like Southern California Edison (SCE) and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), as well as actions against landlords accused of price gouging in the wake of the disaster. Key legal theories include negligence, inverse condemnation, and public nuisance, with plaintiffs arguing that mismanagement, delayed responses, and regulatory failures significantly contributed to the scale of the devastation. These cases could set important legal precedents for disaster liability and corporate accountability in California and beyond.
Tim Zyla examines the high-stakes legal battle between New York and a coalition of 22 states, led by West Virginia, over the state’s newly enacted Climate Change Superfund Act. The law requires energy producers to pay $75 billion over 25 years to fund climate damage recovery efforts. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, argues that New York’s law is unconstitutional, overreaches state authority, and unfairly targets out-of-state energy companies. Plaintiffs claim the Act violates multiple constitutional provisions, including the Commerce Clause, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses, as well as federal environmental law. Meanwhile, a pro se West Virginia resident has filed a motion to dismiss the case, defending New York’s actions as necessary for public health and climate accountability. Zyla highlights how this case could set a major precedent for state-level climate initiatives and corporate liability for environmental damage.
