Solving the Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: An Update on Preserving Your Client’s Defenses after a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court

California appellate courts have recently provided much needed clarity for defendants wishing to preserve the ability to attribute fault to a potentially culpable co-defendant seeking summary judgment. We previously addressed this issue in a 2021 blog post, highlighting the uncertainty facing defense counsel where granting summary judgment to a co-defendant would preclude an empty chair defense. Two published 2025 decisions now confirm that defendants can oppose a co-defendant’s summary judgment motion directly with no cross-complaint required.

This is a rare and tricky situation. Defendants in multiparty litigation often share interests. Opposing a co-defendant’s motion can inflate costs, strain relationships, and ultimately benefit plaintiffs. But sometimes preserving the ability to attribute fault to a co-defendant is necessary to protect your client.

Continue reading “Solving the Culpable Co-Defendant Problem: An Update on Preserving Your Client’s Defenses after a Culpable Co-Defendant Files a Motion for Summary Judgment in California State Court”

Third Circuit Confirms Correlation Still Does Not Prove Causation

A recent Third Circuit decision is a useful and quotable reminder that temporal correlation is not enough to prove causation.

Causation is an indispensable element of any product liability action. It is the same in pharmaceutical third-party payor (TPP) class actions, where it is often the element most likely to defeat class certification. Unsurprisingly, plaintiffs often employ creative workarounds in an effort to sidestep obvious causation problems. In In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, — F.4th —, 2026 WL 2093904 (3d Cir. July 21, 2026), the Third Circuit made clear that there are no shortcuts.

According to the plaintiff TPPs, the defendant pharmaceutical manufacturer had marketed the medication at issue as not only treating diabetes but offering cardiovascular benefits too. The plaintiffs claimed that the promotional campaign caused physicians to prescribe the medication at inflated rates, forcing the plaintiffs to reimburse prescriptions they would not otherwise have covered.

Continue reading “Third Circuit Confirms Correlation Still Does Not Prove Causation”

California Supreme Court Rejects Duty to Innovate

On August 3, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely watched Gilead Tenofovir Cases, No. S283862, — Cal.5th —, 2026 WL 2223748 (Cal. Aug. 3, 2026), rejecting the so-called “duty to innovate.” The court held, in a 6-1 decision, that “a drug manufacturer has no duty of care when deciding whether and when to develop and commercialize an allegedly safer alternative drug” to replace an admittedly nondefective drug. The decision is a significant victory for pharmaceutical manufacturers and carries substantial implications for product liability litigation across industries.

Background

The case arose from a Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding comprising more than 30,000 plaintiffs — HIV patients who took Gilead’s tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Plaintiffs did not claim TDF was defective; it is undisputedly a life-saving medication. Instead, they alleged Gilead unreasonably delayed bringing an alternative medication, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), to market, depriving them of a purportedly safer option and allegedly causing kidney, bone, or tooth injuries.

Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rejects Duty to Innovate”

Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs

The multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning paraquat-based herbicides — In re: Paraquat Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3004 (S.D. Ill.) — has become a focal point in mass torts. Thousands of plaintiffs allege that exposure to paraquat caused them to develop Parkinson’s disease (PD). The litigation has featured high-stakes scientific disputes, key defense wins, a master settlement agreement, and now Case Management Order No. 25 (CMO 25, 2026 WL 1707147), a Lone Pine order with important implications for nonsettling plaintiffs and a potential roadmap for effective case management in other MDLs.

In April 2024, the MDL court excluded the plaintiffs’ sole expert on general causation. That ruling left the plaintiffs unable to establish general causation, and the court accordingly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. But that ruling only formally applied to the four bellwether cases; while the bellwether plaintiffs’ inability to establish general causation portended problems for every plaintiff in the MDL, the litigation continued.

Continue reading “Paraquat MDL Lone Pine Order Creates New Hurdles for Nonsettling Plaintiffs”

New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products

New York lawmakers are advancing the Beauty Justice Act, one of the most comprehensive state-level efforts in the country to regulate cosmetics and personal care products. For in-house counsel at cosmetics and personal care companies, the bill is worth tracking now because it could affect product formulation, supplier oversight, labeling, and litigation risk well before any compliance deadline. The bill responds to growing concerns over consumer exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, reproductive harm, allergies, and other health risks. Supporters argue that current federal law, including the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), does not go far enough. Framed as both a public health and environmental justice measure, the legislation aims to protect consumers in vulnerable communities disproportionately exposed to these products.

  1. Background

    The Beauty Justice Act remains pending before the New York Legislature; if enacted, its core product restrictions would apply beginning January 1, 2029. The bill would prohibit cosmetics and personal care products sold in New York from containing intentionally added chemicals on the bill’s restricted substances list. It would also require companies to evaluate whether ingredients listed as “fragrance,” “flavor,” “colorant,” or other functional classifications contain restricted chemicals, comply with contaminant thresholds such as lead limits, and monitor Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) rulemaking that may add substances to the restricted list over time. The bill targets numerous chemicals that have already faced scrutiny in other jurisdictions and regulatory frameworks, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), parabens, phthalates, certain dyes, and preservatives.

    Continue reading “New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Sweeping Changes Proposed for Cosmetics and Personal Care Products”

What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled that a product vendor’s silence is not deceptive when the vendor has no duty to speak.

The “catch-all” provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) prohibits vendors of goods and services from “[e]ngaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). In March 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that omissions do not count as “deceptive conduct” under the UTPCPL.

Continue reading “What’s the Catch? Interpreting the “Catch-All” Provision of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law”