Loading...
  • Arson Investigations: Best Practices for Establishing Fraud and Avoiding Bad Faith

    Arson-related insurance claims are rising—and so are the risks for insurers who don’t investigate thoroughly and by the book. Guest contributor Melissa A. Segel breaks down how carriers can use modern tools, smart strategy, and legal precision to uncover fraud while steering clear of costly bad faith pitfalls. A must-read for anyone navigating the intersection of fire science and insurance law.

  • Facing PFAS lawsuit, Apple claims watch bands are safe, but what does the evidence say?

    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.

  • AI tool that summarizes evidence from cracked phones wades into uncharted constitutional waters

    As law enforcement agencies adopt cutting-edge AI to process digital evidence, constitutional questions are quickly coming into focus. Guest contributor Justin Ward explores how Cellebrite’s new AI-driven tool—capable of scanning and summarizing entire phone contents—may clash with Fourth Amendment protections. While the tech promises efficiency, civil rights advocates argue it opens the door to warrantless digital dragnets, with court interpretations varying widely across jurisdictions.

  • Valid Antitrust Concerns or Partisan Objectives: Which Will Guide Trump’s FTC?  

    Concerned that the spirit of retribution that drove executive orders against some of the nation's largest law firms will carry over to business deals, Tom Hagy writes about recent changes at the Federal Trade Commission and some of the comments from the new chair that suggest infusion of retribution into the process of examining business deals is inevitable.

  • AI tools may be the cause of the explosion in nuclear verdicts — and also the solution

    Guest contributor Justin Ward discusses how artificial intelligence is both fueling and fighting the rise of “nuclear verdicts.” Plaintiff attorneys are using AI to identify high-damages cases, favorable jurisdictions, and winning arguments—driving a spike in verdicts over $10 million. At the same time, defense lawyers and insurers are adopting tools like NaVeL to spot high-risk cases early and craft smarter strategies. As AI reshapes legal practice, the very technology accelerating massive awards may also be the best hope for containing them.

  • Supreme Court to Reconsider Separate Sovereignties

    The Supreme Court’s decision to review Barrett v. United States signals a potential shift in how the long-standing “separate sovereignties” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause is applied. This article by guest contributor Bret Thurman offers a deep dive into the historical, constitutional, and practical complexities of double jeopardy, from its roots in ancient Greece to modern-day interpretations. It explores how exceptions—like implied acquittals, mistrials, and fraud—have shaped the doctrine, and raises questions about whether dual prosecutions still make sense in today’s legal landscape.

Emerging Litigation Podcast

Gamification of Stock Trading with Brad Rustin

Gamification of Stock Trading with Brad Rustin "What's the deal?" you ask? Find out! Listen to my interview with FinTech attorney Brad Rustin, a partner with Nelson Mullins. In addition to chairing the firm’s Financial Services Regulatory Practice, Brad counsels  financial institutions in regulatory matters, including strategic agreements, product development, and operational compliance. A large portion of his work is on bank and non-bank partnerships involving white-label deployments, FinTech partnerships, or payments, digital assets, cryptocurrency, and lending partnerships. Brad is a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS) by ACAMS and a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager (CRCM) by the American Bankers Association. He received his JD, magna cum laude, from the University of South Carolina School of Law and his BA in Political Science and History, cum laude, from Furman University. And now, he is not only a guest on the Emerging Litigation Podcast, but the FinTech advisor on the  Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Brad for speaking with me about this fascinating subject. As for me, I will stay away from "game trading." Hearing people describe it reminds me of my PacMan obsession in college, which frequently cost me many hours that I should have spent differently, and too often a functioning shoulder. Tom Hagy As brokerages focus on enhancing user experience, they risk shifting their customer’s focus from serious financial decisions to a game-like experience.  Some think this is a good thing. [...]

A Special Episode: A lovable litigator with Danny Karon

A Special Episode: A lovable litigator with Danny Karon For  30 years attorney Daniel R. Karon has successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in class-action and individual lawsuits. He's also chair of one of the leading class action conferences for lawyers, judges and law professors: the American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions. He's passionate about educating up-and-coming lawyers. He teaches and writes extensively, and has been featured on podcasts and television news shows.   While practicing law (handling some intensely serious matters), Danny became acutely aware of "a societal bias against access to justice where people who need justice the most often get it the least." One response to that was to launch Your Lovable Lawyer, a multi-media website whose goal is to "make  justice more accessible to people who don’t know, can’t find, or can’t pay for lawyers." He endeavors to provide actionable insights regarding common legal problems. He refers to his "lovable" concept as "legal wellness," and encourages regular folks to take a proactive approach to legal matters and potential conflicts.  This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how lovable Danny is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. 

Impact of Surfside Condo Collapse with Judah Lifschitz

Impact of Surfside Condo Collapse with Judah Lifschitz Joining me is experienced construction law attorney Judah Lifschitz of Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram  who spoke about the near- and long-term impacts of the Surfside condo collapse not only in Florida around the country.  Judah has extensive experience dealing with construction matters, representing clients in engineering, procurement and construction contracts and disputes. He represents and advises government agencies and private owners; regional, national and international contractors; construction managers and subcontractors; design professionals; and insurance companies. Notably, Judah won one of the largest liquidated damages awards in the history of the construction industry.  Education: George Washington University, J.D.; Yeshiva University, B.A., magna cum laude. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, Docket Alarm and, most recently, Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful and informative Judah is, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Thanks to Judah for speaking with me about this important topic. I was especially proud that I pronounced his name correctly on the first try, though he assured me that I could in no way do more damage to it than those who have come before me. (Clearly he doesn't know me well.) Tom Hagy (pronounced HEY-ghee, for the record) Nothing illustrates the tragic consequences of building decay more than the June 24, 2021, collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida, which claimed the lives of nearly 100 residents. The event raises questions about the building inspection process not only in Florida but around the country. What caused this calamity? Who is responsible? How many other buildings are in similar condition? Since any compensation for the loss [...]

A Shameless Plug for Our Content Services

Your content marketing is everything you’ve ever dreamed of. Right?

White Label Critical Legal Content for your organizationSara 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

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? | By Jennifer M. Oliver | MoginRubin LLP

7th Circuit: Is Each Transmission of Biometric Data a BIPA Violation? By Jennifer M. Oliver The outcome of this case will have a dramatic impact on statutory damages. The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has certified a question to the Illinois Supreme Court over the accrual of claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The question, posed by the court in Cothron v. White Castle Systems, Inc., reads: “Do section 15(b) and 15(d) claims accrue each time a private entity scans a person’s biometric identifier and each time a private entity transmits such a scan to a third party, respectively, or only upon the first scan and first transmission?” The case was brought by an employee of the White Castle hamburger chain, which requires fingerprint scans for employees to access computer systems. The plaintiff charged that sharing her fingerprints with a third party vendor violated the law. Cothron v. White Castle Sys., No. 20-3202, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37593 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2021). An accrual rule based on each collection, opponents to such a finding argue, would pose potentially existential damages — especially in the class action context — since BIPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 per violation. Parties disagree on whether BIPA damages are mandatory or discretionary, however. Should the court determine that the first scan is the only scan that starts the statute of limitations clock ticking, opponents to that interpretation say,  anyone bringing a claim after five years would be out of luck, even if their private biometric data continued to be transmitted more than five years after the first occurrence. Preceding the federal court’s certification of this question by just five days, an Illinois appellate court ruled that, yes, claims under sections 15(a) and (b) accrue with each capture and use of a plaintiff’s biometric  information. Watson v. Legacy [...]

The New Lloyd’s Market Association War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies | By Vincent J. Vitkowsky | Gfeller Laurie LLP

The Author Vince Vitkowsky is a partner in Gfeller Laurie LLP, resident in New York. He focuses on cyber risks, liabilities, insurance, and litigation. Vince assists insurers and reinsurers in product development, and in all aspects of coverage evaluation and dispute resolution in many lines of business, including cyber, CGL, property, and professional liability. He also assists in complex claim evaluations, and if necessary, the defense of insureds in complex matters. Vince is also a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. Contact: vvitkowsky@gllawgroup.com More from Vince and his colleagues. The New LMA War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions for Cyber Insurance Policies By Vincent J. Vitkowsky On November 25, 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association released four War, Cyber War and Cyber Operation Exclusions (“Exclusions”). The LMA Cyber Business Panel spent well over two years drafting the Exclusions, which are models for use in standalone cyber insurance policies.  Lloyd’s has agreed that they meet the requirement that all insurance and reinsurance policies written at Lloyd’s must, except in very limited circumstances, contain a clause which excludes all losses caused by war.  The Exclusions address some difficult issues troubling the cyber insurance market for several years, following cyberattacks by nation-states (“states”) and threat actors associated with them.  They attempt to reduce uncertainty for both insurers and policyholders. Five interrelated issues. The treatment of collateral damage (borrowing a concept from the traditional Law of Armed Conflict). Some state-sponsored attacks had significant effects on many entities that were not the intended targets. How attribution is to be determined, and whether the insurers have an obligation to make payments while attribution is being determined. The extent to which attacks by non-state actors associated with a state are excluded. The treatment of state and state-sponsored cyberattacks directed at essential services, most [...]

HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge

Content Partners

Go to Top