The wave of litigation targeting Apple over its AirTag tracking devices is a useful case study for any company that manufactures or sells a product that could conceivably be misused by a bad actor. In a case pending in the
Toxic Tort Monitor
Toxic Tort Monitor, published by Husch Blackwell LLP, focuses on legal issues related to toxic torts, including litigation and regulatory developments involving exposure to hazardous substances. The blog covers topics such as environmental contamination, product liability, chemical exposure claims, and mass tort litigation strategies. It also addresses evolving case law, risk management, and compliance matters relevant to industries affected by toxic tort claims. The content is aimed at legal professionals, corporate clients, and stakeholders interested in the intersection of environmental law, personal injury, and complex litigation.
Blog Authors
Latest from Toxic Tort Monitor
New Era: CPSC Regains Quorum as Senate Confirms Two New Commissioners
As we previously reported, the CPSC has been undergoing significant changes amid a broader agency shakeup. On August 7, 2026, the Senate confirmed Karen Sessions of Texas and Brien Lorenze of Virginia as Commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety…
EU’s New AI Product Liability Directive: What Manufacturers Need to Know
If your company makes products, integrates software into products, or operates in a complex global supply chain that touches the European Union, a major overhaul of EU product liability law is coming. To guarantee consumer protection in the new age…
No Upgrades Required: Texas Shields Lessors from Retrofit Claims
Texas made a targeted amendment to one of its key products liability statutes governing the rental and leasing of motor vehicles. The Texas Legislature recently amended Section 82.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—a statute that significantly limits…
Texas Supreme Court Clarifies What Slip-and-Fall Plaintiffs Must Prove
A recent ruling from the Texas Supreme Court reinforces a demanding evidentiary standard in premises liability cases and reminds plaintiffs that circumstantial evidence of a hazard’s cause is not the same as evidence of its duration. In H-E-B, LP v.…
D.C. Court of Appeals Strikes Down 10-Round Magazine Limit: What It Means for Product Liability Defenses
By David O'Leary & Caleb Hunt
The D.C. Court of Appeals recently granted rehearing en banc in this case, which vacated the March 5, 2026 panel decision described below.1 The case will be reargued before the full court, and the analysis in this post reflects…
AI-Assisted Pro Se Litigation: Who Pays the Price?
In January 2024, Plaintiff Graciela Dela Torre settled her long-term disability claim with Nippon Life Insurance Company (Nippon) and dismissed her case with prejudice. Later, Plaintiff Dela Torre questioned her settlement. But she did not return to her attorney to…
Kentucky Supreme Court Affirms Duty to Prevent Take Home Exposures in Asbestos Claims in Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams
On March 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of Kentucky issued its decision in Schneider Electric USA, Inc. v. Williams, affirming the duty to prevent take home exposure in asbestos claims on summary judgment.BackgroundThe case arises from a 2016 mesothelioma diagnosis…
Remand Motion Denied in PFAS Lawsuit Brought by Former Professional Baseball Players
On February 11, 2026, Judge Juan R. Sánchez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion to remand in a high-profile toxic torts case. Former professional baseball players and representatives of their estates filed…