Expert Analysis

• Card Grading Merger Suit Tests Antitrust In Niche Market

  

  Rasmussen v. Collectors Holdings, a class action pending in California federal court challenging the effects of a trading card grading company merger, reflects the elevation of trading cards from hobby collectibles to niche investment markets susceptible to classic antitrust injury theories, say attorneys at Kean Miller.

• 3 Private Suits Test Influencer Ads As FTC Stays On Sidelines

  

  Three lawsuits filed so far this year illustrate how influencer campaigns are facing growing scrutiny from private plaintiffs, despite the Federal Trade Commission not bringing an influencer marketing enforcement action since revising its endorsement guides to address the topic in 2023, but brands can take concrete steps to reduce the risks, says Gonzalo Mon at Kelley Drye.

• CIPA Tech Tracking Suits Highlight Uncertain Legal Ground

  

  Alexandra Samofalova at Spencer Fane discusses the state of California Invasion of Privacy Act website tracking litigation, why credible defendants choose to settle and how the businesses best positioned to face this uncertain legal landscape are the ones treating data practices as a legal compliance matter to address today.

• AI, Prediction Markets Lead Securities Developments In 2026

  

  Securities class actions tied to artificial intelligence and the battle over prediction market regulation both raise novel questions that courts are only beginning to address and that will continue to resonate throughout the second half of the year, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Why A Class Was Certified In Financial Aid Info-Sharing Case

  

  The recent Illinois federal court decision in Corzo v. Brown University offers key guidance for defendants confronting class certification in antitrust matters, highlighting how typicality can be satisfied despite class members attending different universities, receiving different aid awards and being affected across different time periods, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• Where Is The Line On Actionable Comms In Securities Cases?

  

  Recent securities cases demonstrate the difficulty in discerning a clear difference between statements made in connection with the purchase or sale of securities and those that aren't, with that line more likely attributable to individualized factual situations than to any doctrinal differences of opinion between various courts, says Samuel Groner at Fried Frank.

• Calif. Wiretap Ruling May Reshape Pixel Tracking Litigation

  

  The recent dismissal of a proposed class action accusing Blue Shield of California of violating the federal Wiretap Act highlights the gap between legacy wiretap laws and modern browser architecture, and the tendency of pixel tracking complaints to oversimplify or mischaracterize how browsers work, says Phil Richards at ThreatHandle Consulting.

• What NYC Bridge Crash Signals About Micromobility Liability

  

  A recent fatal crash between a cyclist and a man riding a high-powered electric scooter on New York City's Queensboro Bridge highlights how litigation over accidents involving micromobility devices may increasingly shift away from ordinary negligence and toward product liability, says Jeff Korek at Gersowitz Libo.

• Series

  Teaching SEC Investigations Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Instructing a law school course on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations has made me a more thoughtful, deliberate practitioner because it requires me to continually reassess and challenge what I know about securities law enforcement, how I know it and how best to explain it, says David Chase at Miami Law.

• Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concerns herbicide labeling regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, but also carries weighty implications for preemption of state law labeling claims against drug manufacturers, say Terry Henry and Ann Querns at Blank Rome and Melanie Leney at Aurobindo Pharma.

• Employer Lessons From Apple Ruling Resolving OT Question

  

  In Costa v. Apple, a California federal court recently handed employers a win on a previously unresolved wage and hour question, offering a reminder that favorable outcomes on novel issues often hinge on the specific facts of a company's own program and compliance efforts, say attorneys at Foley & Lardner.

• And Now A Word From The Panel: MDL Judge Selection

  

  To understand how the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation selects particular judges to preside over MDL proceedings, it helps to consider not only how much experience on the federal bench a judge has, but also whether they have specifically managed any prior MDLs, says Alan Rothman at Sidley Austin.

• Discovery Ruling Shows How Extant Rules Mesh With AI Tools

  

  A California federal court’s recent ruling in Schulte v. LinkedIn reinforces that existing discovery rules can and should accommodate emerging artificial intelligence technologies, providing litigants with confidence that well-designed AI-enabled workflows can satisfy reasonableness and proportionality standards, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Series

  Judges On AI: Examining Administrative, Organizational Uses

  

  U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas examines how artificial intelligence could transform a court's ability to deal with administrative work and organize materials when preparing for hearings or drafting opinions, thereby affording judges more time to resolve contested issues.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: July Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses four recent rulings involving wage and hour allegations, medical care for incarcerated individuals, oil and gas royalty payments, and nuisance claims.