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?

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
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.
Injunction against Trump’s DEI executive orders unlikely to stem massive wave of ‘reverse discrimination’ lawsuits
Justin Ward examines the recent federal court injunction against President Trump’s executive orders targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. While the ruling temporarily halts enforcement of these orders, legal experts suggest it’s unlikely to slow the growing wave of “reverse discrimination” lawsuits. Since the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, more than 100 claims alleging discrimination against majority groups have been filed. Additionally, state legislation and an upcoming Supreme Court case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, could further lower the bar for such claims, potentially fueling even more litigation.
2025 California Wildfires Prompt Wave of Suits
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.
HB Webinars on CeriFi LegalEdge
Adapting to AI: Taking A Practical Approach Governance, Introductory Level for New Attorneys and Legal Staff
Robinson+Cole attorney Blair Robinson and knowledge management leader Liz Salsedo discuss how attorneys and legal staff can adapt to AI by taking a practical approach to governance, addressing its potential and attendant risks, legislative and regulatory considerations, and how to incorporate AI most responsibly into their legal practice or business.
AI Nuts & Bolts Survival Guide: Artificial Intelligence – Discrimination in Employment Context
On this CLE webinar, Duane Morris LLP Attorneys Alex W. Karasik, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and George J. Schaller discuss two novel artificial intelligence lawsuits, recent governmental guidance related to AI use, the business risks associated with AI, and mitigation strategies.
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 [...]





















