Emerging Litigation Podcast
Trademarks, Copyrights, Brands, T-Shirts, and Champagne with Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon
In this episode, we discuss three matters relevant to anyone watching copyright and trademark law, or anyone fond of branded t-shirts and fancy French beverages, with guests Tiffany Gehrke and Kelley Gordon, both Partners at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP. Listen and learn more! Tom even (somewhat) learned how to say something in French. Mon dieu, people!
Algorithmic Software Facilitated Price Fixing with Jonathan Rubin
Everyone knows that price fixing is against the law, chiefly Section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Competitors may not collude to set prices. However, there are relatively new price-calculation tools that some companies maintain take them out of the equation. With these tools, shared across an industry, firms do not have to directly swap private information with competitors. Instead, they feed their data to a third-party which uses algorithms to come up with prices. In this episode, we discuss what algorithmic or software-facilitated pricing is, what the law says about price collusion, how this new pricing mechanism violates the law, and recent developments in litigation. Our guest highly regarded antitrust attorney Jonathan Rubin, Partner and Co-Founder of MoginRubin LLP.
Biometric Privacy Litigation and Coverage Disputes with John Leonard and Cort Malone
Biometric data is big business. In many cases it even helps make our lives better. It also presents significant risks for a variety of parties, in addition to those of us who surrender our data. Companies collecting, storing, utilizing, and monetizing the data face penalties and litigation bolstered by the increasing number of states enacting biometric information privacy acts, or BIPAs, the first of which was in Illinois. In this episode, we discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, insurance coverage considerations, and recent rulings with guests John Leonard and Cort Malone of Anderson Kill P.C.
A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services
Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?
Sara is marketing director at a boutique law firm. When we asked her how their blog was going, she made a sad face. But then, we made Sara smile.*
Critical Legal Content was founded by Tom Hagy, former Editor & Publisher of Mealey’s Litigation Reports and VP at LexisNexis, founder of HB, current litigation podcaster and editor-in-chief. CLC’s mission is to help smaller firms and service providers not only create content — blogs, articles, papers, webinars, podcasts (like the stuff on this site) — but also to get it out there. How? Via social media, this website, your website, and potential via our podcast and journal which we publish in collaboration with vLex Fastcase and Law Street Media. The goal is to attract readers and dizzy them with your brilliance.
*Inspired by actual events.
Create content like a real legal publisher.
Emerging Litigation Journal
Insurance Coverage Litigation’s Modern Mayhem with Jeremy Moseley on the Emerging Litigation Podcast
Insurance coverage litigation isn’t what it used to be. In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, Jeremy Moseley of Spencer Fane unpacks how automation, AI, climate change, and “social inflation” are reshaping risks and fueling high-stakes disputes. From thermonuclear verdicts to dangerous policy gaps, Jeremy offers sharp, practical insights into what insurers, policyholders, and lawyers should expect next.
Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyrighted Books Fair Use
Federal courts in California just issued conflicting rulings on whether training AI models with copyrighted books qualifies as fair use. In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court protected training on lawfully purchased works but rejected the use of pirated copies. In contrast, Kadrey v. Meta allowed AI training on pirated books, calling it “highly transformative.” Tom Hagy explains that with more than 50 similar lawsuits pending, these decisions underscore the legal uncertainty facing tech companies, publishers, and creators—and could reshape the future of AI development and copyright law.
Artificial Intelligence Meets Copyright Law with Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke on the Emerging Litigation Podcast
What happens when artificial intelligence collides with copyright law? In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, intellectual property attorneys Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP unpack two landmark court decisions on fair use and AI training data. They explain why courts found AI training to be “transformative use,” how judges are treating legally obtained versus pirated data, and why algorithmic outputs could be the real battleground ahead. With deep expertise in technology and IP law, Ryan and Tiffany offer practical insights into how these rulings may shape the future of AI, copyright, and innovation.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability
AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability AI programs are now readily available for all. Stability AI, Lensa, and other AI image creation tools create original works of art, raising the question of IP protection for such art. The United States requires human authorship in order to obtain copyright protection, and so far, the U.S. Copyright Office has declined to grant copyright registrations for AI-created works of art based on a lack of human authorship (one of these decisions is being challenged in Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. filed June 2, 2022)). While some countries take a similar approach to the US, others treat the issue of copyright eligibility for AI-generated art quite differently and provide at least some protection of computer generated works. Questions have also been raised as to whether AI-generated images constitute derivative works and whether such images and the AI generation tools used to create them infringe third-party copyrights, or whether the fair use doctrine or other defenses may apply. The first lawsuits involving image generators have now been filed raising copyright claims in addition to other claims. Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines AI image generators and the associated copyright issues. The panel will discuss eligibility in the U.S. and the recent actions by the Copyright Office and contrast this with the approaches used in other countries. The panel will also address the recent cases that have been filed and the potential liability for copyright infringement in the U.S. and other countries. Michael R. Graif Member Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo Lisa T. Oratz Senior Counsel Perkins Coie Scott J. Sholder Partner Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard CLE On-Demand Webinar This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. What hurdles confront counsel when demonstrating authorship of AI-generated works? How does [...]
Class Certification Evidence: Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits
Class Certification Evidence What Are the Standards of Admissibility and Probative Value Among the Circuits? Numerous splits exist among the circuits on two key certification issues: What is required to prove the elements for class certification and whether plaintiff's certification evidence must be admissible. Further, courts apply different admissibility standards to fact evidence than to expert evidence. Certain courts have issued clear guidance on these important issues, while others have remained circumspect, sending mixed signals. This is particularly vexing for defendants, who may be sued in more than one district or circuit. What is sufficient for class certification in one jurisdiction may be inadequate in another. With standards unsettled, counsel must anticipate and preserve the right to revisit class certification by preserving all objections and the factual record. Listen as the panel of class action attorneys discusses the standards of admissibility of evidence at certification and best strategies for leveraging ambiguities. Questions Addressed How can defense counsel preserve objections to admissibility? How can counsel leverage the law of other circuits in jurisdictions with no controlling precedent? What does how a court assesses evidence imply about its view on admissibility standards? Webinar Outline Fact evidence Need not be admissible Must be admissible Ambiguous Expert evidence Full Daubert analysis Limited Daubert analysis Strategies for managing and leveraging the uncertainty A Strafford production specially selected for HB audiences. Learn Strategies forOpposing or Narrowing Class Certificationand Preserving Objections This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences. Kevin Daly Counsel Robinson & Cole Alexander Madrid Partner McGuire Woods Michael Ruttinger Partner Tucker Ellis Robert Sparkes, III Partner K&L Gates This Strafford production has been specially selected for HB audiences.
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class
Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery challenges counsel face when litigating wage and hour collective and class actions--from initiation through resolution of the case? What strategies have been effective in wage and hour collective and class actions for obtaining essential information with the least expense? What is the scope of discoverable evidence before and after certification of the putative class, and how can you limit or best manage discovery? When drafting discovery requests in wage and hour class and collective actions, what should employment counsel consider to ensure that the requests align with the proportionality standard? Interested in [...]
Content Partners
