Emerging Litigation Podcast
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.
Mitigating Greenwashing Litigation Risks with Ramya Ravishankar
In this episode, we discuss mitigating greenwashing litigation risks with guest Ramya Ravishankar, General Counsel at HowGood, an independent research firm that helps the world’s largest food brands meet their sustainability commitments. Listen and learn more!
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
Fall bellwether trials for social media addiction cases to test novel legal theories
Are social media platforms the next Big Tobacco? A major lawsuit argues they’re designed to be addictive—will the courts agree? Justin Ward explores the upcoming bellwether trials against major social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. The consolidated lawsuits, involving over 1,900 claims, argue these platforms are deliberately designed to exploit young users and cause addiction—drawing comparisons to cases against nicotine and opioids. Ward examines the complex legal challenges, including First Amendment issues and Section 230 protections, as courts determine whether these claims of negligence and failure to warn will move forward. The trials could set major precedents for social media regulation and corporate accountability.
22 States Sue New York Over Climate Fund, Calling It an ‘Unconstitutional Shakedown’
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.
When Litigation Financing Goes Wrong, Who Pays?
The bankruptcy of Houston's AkinMears LLP highlights the risks of relying too heavily on third-party litigation financing and the broader implications for transparency, regulation, and financial sustainability in mass torts. The firm filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy citing more than $200 million in debt owed to litigation funding companies Virage SPV 1 and Rocade Capital. According to Bloomberg Law’s U.S. Bankruptcy Tracker, AkinMears LLP was the only U.S. law firm filing for bankruptcy in January 2025 with $50 million or more in liabilities. In total, 12 large law firms declared bankruptcy in January 2025, up from seven in January 2024 but slightly below the 17 cases recorded in January 2023. Read our report by guest contributor Jennifer Holmes.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
The Medical Monitoring Tort Remedy: Advanced Level
The medical monitoring tort remedy – allowing for medical monitoring without physical injury – is recognized in 14 states and not allowed in 23. The law is divided in two states while the rest have not specifically addressed the issue. States that allow medical monitoring to do so when a group of claimants is at increased risk of disease or injury due to exposure to a known hazardous substance or a dangerous product as the result of a defendant’s conduct. Under this tort remedy, claimants are tested periodically, for an agreed or decided period, usually between 10 and 40 years. In this CLE webinar, Gentle Turner & Benson LLC attorneys Edgar (“Ed”) C. Gentle III and Katherine (“Kip”) A. Benson discuss the evolution of the medical monitoring tort, related cases, tests to determine whether the tort should be applied, types of monitoring, and the arguments for an against medical monitoring.
Avoiding the Nuclear Verdict or the Defense Verdict
According to professionals in the insurance industry and the defense bar, the number of nuclear verdicts, or verdicts that exceed $10M, is on the rise. Although the defense may prevail over plaintiffs more often at trial, when the defense loses, they lose big. And plaintiffs who could have obtained needed resources in settlement, sometimes "roll the dice" at trial and get less, or nothing at all. Do clients really want to engage in such high stakes showdowns? Is there a better way to administer "justice?" In this CLE webinar, Mediator Arbitrator Jeff Trueman and Negotiation Educator and Author, John Lowry discuss these very questions. Register for the on-demand webinar today!
Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations
In this CLE webinar, Anderson Kill attorneys, Cort Malone and John Leonard discuss the state of biometric privacy litigation, the regulatory landscape, and insurance coverage considerations and rulings.