No results found matching "{{query}}" in our Insights database.

The Settlement

According to the agreement, which was reached through a mediation process, the money will be paid out over the course of 2023 through 2029, with $5 billion in cash and $1 billion in 3M common stock. The agreement includes all lawsuits currently pending in the multidistrict litigation in Florida (3M Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2885) and in a coordinated state court action in Minnesota. Per 3M’s announcement, the agreement is not an admission of liability, and the company still maintains that its products “are safe and effective when used properly.” 3M also stated that it is prepared to continue to defend itself if certain agreed upon settlement terms are not met. 3M has the right to terminate the agreement if less than 98% of eligible claimants choose not to take part. However, Chris Seeger, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, is confident that the threshold will be met. Unlike a class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs in the MDL litigation will each receive a portion of the settlement payout based on their own individualized circumstances and injuries.

Plaintiff attorneys referred to the settlement as an historic agreement, stating that: “We are proud to have obtained this settlement, which ensures that those who suffered hearing damage will receive the justice and compensation they so rightly deserve.”

3M to Pay $6 Billion to Settle Lawsuits Over U.S. Military Earplugs

From 1953 to 1987, those at Camp Lejeune drank, cooked, and washed in contaminated water delivered to base homes and businesses through the water system. Marines, their families, and civilians working on the base were all affected.

Located near Jacksonville, North Carolina, Camp Lejeune is the largest Marine Corps training facility on the East Coast. Its size and resources, including 14 miles of coastline, make it a key training facility - and one used by thousands of servicemembers and civilians over the years.

Now, those exposed to the contaminated water at Camp Lejeune are filing lawsuits to seek compensation. The recently-signed Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 expanded the time available for veterans and civilians to file claims.

Navigating Camp Lejeune Litigation: 5 More Things Attorneys Need to Know

The Illinois federal judge presiding over the 75 cases that have been filed against L’Oréal USA, Inc. and its India-based subsidiaries in the multidistrict litigation claiming that hair relaxers cause cancer has appointed a slate of diverse and revered attorneys to represent the plaintiffs.
Background
In 2022, the National Institute of Health (NIH) released a study, which found that frequent users of chemical hair straightening products were more than twice as likely to develop uterine cancer compared to those who did not use such products.
In October 2022, shortly after the disclosure of such findings, Diandra “Fu” Debrosse Zimmerman of DiCello Levitt and Ben Crump of the Ben Crump Law Firm filed their first lawsuit claiming that chemical hair relaxers, which contained chemicals including formaldehyde, metals, phthalates, and parabens, caused uterine cancer by absorbing into the skin through scalp burns. Their plaintiff, Jenny Mitchell, was diagnosed with uterine cancer after using chemical hair straightening products sold by L’Oréal USA, Inc.
    
      
        
            MASS TORT ACCELERATOR
            
          Access a suite of mass tort case evaluation tools
          Streamline your client intake, rank cases, and identify your next bellwether.
          
              Review a mass tort
          
        
      
    
    
Zimmerman and Crump claimed that L’Oréal knew that their products contained dangerous chemicals and marketed and sold such products to mostly Black and Brown women despite having such knowledge.
Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs
Since the filing of the first case, there have been about 75 cases filed in the multidistrict litigation against L’Oréal, which was formed in February. Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois appointed Ms. Zimmerman and Mr. Crump as plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel along with Fidelma Fitzpatrick of Motley Rice LLC, and Michael A. London of Douglas &

Illinois Judge Appoints Diverse Lead Attorneys in L’Oréal Litigation

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) encompass a myriad of chemicals commonly added to consumer goods and industrial products such as firefighting foams. PFAS properties make products waterproof, nonstick, and stain resistant. Also known as “forever chemicals,” PFAS do not break down easily and can dissolve in water, leading to significant health risks. Despite these persistent, widespread, and well-known risks, industries continue to use PFAS chemicals, resulting in significant litigation over the issue.
In this article, you will find a review of PFAS generally and the environmental and health risks of their use. We’ll then review current litigation and how attorneys and subject matter experts alike are at the forefront of the debate.
What Are PFAS?
PFAS substances are used to make fluoropolymer coating and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water. In use since the 1940s, these chemicals can be found in clothing, furniture, adhesives, food, packaging, heat-resistant and nonstick surfaces, and electrical insulation. PFAS are also used in support of major industries such as aerospace, construction, electronics, firefighting, and the military. In short, PFAS chemicals can be found nearly anywhere, with risks associated with them everywhere.
Per the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is a clear PFAS presence in the following:

Drinking water – in public drinking water systems and private drinking water wells.
Soil and water at or near waste sites - at landfills, disposal sites, and hazardous waste sites such as those that fall under the federal Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs.
Fire extinguishing foam - in aqueous film-forming foams (or AFFFs) used to extinguish flammable liquid-based fires.  Such foams are used in training and emergency response events at airports, shipyards, military bases, firefighting training facilities, chemical plants, and refineries.
Manufacturing or chemical production

PFAS Litigation: An Overview

The derailment of Norfolk Southern Railway Company’s 38 train cars, many of which were carrying hazardous chemicals, has potentially serious consequences for the region’s air and water quality. While the National Transportation Safety Board chair described the event as “100% preventable,” the board has not yet determined what, if anything, could have prevented this disaster. Although investigations are still ongoing, this has not stopped the lawsuits from rolling in, with one Ohio-based law firm announcing its class action lawsuit against the railway company. As state and federal investigations continue to unfold, it is very likely that more lawsuits are ahead for those affected by the derailment and its aftermath.
What Happened?
On February 3, 2023, at approximately 8:55 pm, 38 out of the 149 train cars on the Norfolk Southern Railway Company train derailed in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was carrying a variety of products from Madison, Illinois to Conway, Pennsylvania. Eleven of the derailed cars were tank cars carrying hazardous chemicals, resulting in a fire in those cars that subsequently spread to 12 of the non-derailed cars. The fire spanned the entire length of the derailed cars and blocked the two main tracks as response teams attempted to contain the flames and spread of chemicals. First responders implemented a one-mile evacuation zone that affected 2,000 residents, but there were no immediate human fatalities or injuries.
Per preliminary investigative reports from the National Transportation Safety Board, the cause of the derailment may have been a wheel bearing rapidly overheating. Although there are sensors known as hot-box detectors along the 30 miles of train tracks, the train crew was not alerted to stop the train until the third detector, located 19 miles from the first detector, indicated an increased temperature. This third reading – 253 degrees above ambient temperature – was high enough to trigger an alarm, but as the train’s

Lawsuits Loom Over East Palestine Train Derailment

2022 was an eventful year for mass torts and 2023 is proving to be no different. In our 2022 recap piece, we covered major moments in the year’s five top actions. Here, you will find a summary of the seven additional top mass torts to watch in 2023. Read on to learn more about these actions, including current case status and prime opportunities for subject matter experts for each.
Camp Lejeune Water Contamination
For over 30 years, service members, their families, and other civilians living and working at Camp Lejeune were potentially exposed to contaminated drinking water. Camp Lejeune is the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast, located in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Between 1953 and 1987, Marines and civilians drank, cooked with, and bathed in water found to be contaminated. Toxic chemicals, including four specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs), were identified in the water.
All four VOCs have been linked to serious, and sometimes deadly, illnesses such as various cancers, leukemia, and Parkinson’s disease.
Findings
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control, linked the contamination with industrial spills, leaking underground storage tanks, and most prominently, an off-base dry cleaning company. The main contaminants in the Camp Lejeune water supply were trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), benzene, and vinyl chloride. Exposure to just one of these chemicals over time is enough to cause damage to the human body. For instance, TCE is carcinogenic to humans through all routes of exposure. It can also cause non-cancerous damage in the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system, and to a developing embryo or fetus. These findings are supported by evidence spanning several decades.
Camp Lejeune Justice Act
To aid victims of long-term use of the base’s contaminated water, the federal government passed the Promise to Address Comprehensive

Top 7 Mass Torts to Watch in 2023

Dozens of lawsuits, including the one filed by Ljubitza Ghiardi, were filed, alleging that Merck intentionally concealed information about the efficacy and potential risks of its HPV vaccine, Gardasil. Given the common questions of fact and law raised in the lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., in the Western District of North Carolina ordered all Gardasil vaccine lawsuits consolidated in an MDL.
What is Gardasil?
Gardasil is a vaccine developed by Merck to protect against the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases and may be passed through skin-to-skin contact. Most HPV cases are benign. However, if left untreated, a small percentage of HPV cases among women can eventually develop into cervical cancer.
In June 2006, Merck obtained fast-track approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Gardasil vaccine. The FDA approved Gardasil for girls ages nine through 26 and boys ages nine through 15 as a vaccine to prevent cervical, vaginal, and anal cancers. During this fast-track approval process, Merck allegedly failed to perform comprehensive and successful clinical studies and research on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. In December 2014, the FDA approved the current version of Gardasil, Gardasil-9.
Merck marketed Gardasil as a safe and effective vaccine to protect against HPV. However, prior to its introduction on the market, there was not an HPV public health emergency in the U.S. In fact, prior to the introduction of Gardasil, many women were unaware of HPV, let alone the necessity for a vaccine. To effectively market Gardasil, Merck launched an awareness campaign targeted at parents to emphasize the dangers of HPV in adolescents. Merck also utilized political lobbyists and financial incentives to persuade state legislatures to mandate Gardasil for school-aged children.
Gardasil’s Serious Side Effects
According to the lawsuits filed by the teens and young adults who

Merck Faces Claims of Withholding Information About Gardasil Vaccine Risk

Juul Labs, the electronic cigarette giant, has been embroiled in litigation in recent years over the safety of its products and its marketing practices toward teens. The company has recently entered into a historic settlement that would dispose of more than 5,000 lawsuits.
The $1.7 billion settlement is more than three times the amount of other settlements previously reached in Juul litigation. As this is the largest settlement thus far in Juul’s multidistrict litigation, the agreement marks a turning point for the company and its plans for the future.
The Juul Lawsuit’s Allegations
Juul rose to prominence in 2015 when it introduced its electronic cigarette (“e-cigarette”) to the market. Also referred to as a “vape,” these devices heat and vaporize the liquid in its cartridges, which can contain nicotine and other flavors. Juul marketed its products as a safer alternative to smoking regular cigarettes and enticed users with sweet and fruity flavors. In the relatively short time since Juul’s entrance into the marketplace, teen smoking had skyrocketed. High school students experienced a 78% increase in vape usage by 2018.
As a result, school districts, states, and local governments filed complaints against Juul for its safety claims and marketing practices. Namely, all of the complaints shared the common thread that Juul’s e-cigarettes were no safer than other tobacco products and that the company engaged in improper marketing practices of its products to minors. Specifically, the complaints cited Juul’s social media use and their “kid-friendly” flavors as marketing tactics utilized to entice underage minors. The complaints alleged that Juul deceptively concealed the potency and addictiveness of its products while deliberately targeting underage consumers to make life-long, addicted customers.
    
      
        
            
              
              EXPERT SEARCH
            
          Connect with leading experts
          Access top

Juul Reaches $1.7 Billion Settlement for More Than 5,000 Cases

The recent cases are part of a long chain of lawsuits related to PFAS contamination. Currently, about 2500 cases are involved in MDL-2873, In re: Aqueous Film Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation.
Recent Court Rulings in PFAS-Related Multidistrict Litigation
Codefendants in these cases recently filed a motion for summary judgment. They argued that the government contractor defense immunizes them from PFAS-related liability. The defendants claimed that they met the government’s specifications for AFFF manufacturing. Therefore, the court should not hold them liable for the harm caused by the PFAS involved in that manufacturing process, the defendants argued.
In September 2022, however, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected this argument. The court held that as manufacturers of AFFFs and the PFAS involved in the process, the defendants “had significantly greater knowledge than the government about the properties and risks associated with their products and knowingly withheld highly material information from the government.”
Other cases involving PFAS contamination are also making their way through the courts. In 2022, for instance, 3M argued that the New York Department of Health’s 10 parts per trillion limit for PFAS in drinking water was “tantamount to a regulatory guess” and should not be enforced. The New York Supreme Court for Albany County, however, rejected this argument. The court stated that 3M couldn’t show it was injured by the regulation.
Health Effects of PFAS and the EPA’s Involvement
Health effects linked to PFAS exposure have been a subject of concern for many years. In the 1970s, research by DuPont found that PFAS was accumulating in the bodies of workers exposed to the chemical. This situation can increase the risk of cancer and other serious health issues over time. In 2006, a study connected PFAS exposure to a number of ills. The listed illnesses included various types of cancer, thyroid disease,

Manufacturers Face Uphill Battle in PFAS Litigation

A Missouri woman recently filed suit against the cosmetics company, L’Oréal. The plaintiff claims that there's a link between the company’s hair-straightening products and her uterine cancer.
The allegations in the complaint suggest that this case may be the first of many to come.
L’Oréal Faces Lawsuit Over Hair Straightening Products
The plaintiff is a Missouri woman who received a diagnosis of uterine cancer in 2018. Her cancer led to a full hysterectomy. The plaintiff claims that she has no family history of cancer, including uterine cancer. However, she was a regular user of L’Oréal’s hair straightening products.
The lawsuit claims that the plaintiff’s uterine cancer was “directly and proximately caused” by “regular and prolonged exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals” present in the L’Oréal hair straightening products the plaintiff used.
Phthalates, also known as “plasticizers,” are included in hair straightening products to create a softer feel. Yet, phthalates have been categorized as “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs) due to their effects on hormone production and circulation within the human body.
The lawsuit also claims that L’Oréal knew about the link as early as 2015. Yet, the company persisted in including the chemical in its hair straightening products. Despite knowing that “phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals” increased the risk of uterine cancer, the lawsuit alleges, L’Oréal ran a “marketing scheme” full of “branding and slogans that reinforce straight hair as the standard.”
Allegations of negligence and fraud appear in the complaint. The complaint also claims that L’Oréal violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
    
      
        
            
              
              
            
          
          
          
              
          
        
      
    
   

L’Oréal Hair Straightening Product Lawsuit May Be First of Many

The list of at-risk products for cancer-causing benzene presence includes specific lots of widely-used Dove, Bedhead, Bedhead Rockaholic, Nexxus, Suave, and TRESemmé aerosol dry shampoos.
Plaintiff lawyers will need research and expert resources to prevail in the likely onslaught of litigation against Unilever for injuries suffered from the use of these products.
Recalled Shampoo Products
On October 18, 2022, Unilever issued a voluntary product recall announcement. Unilever recalled 19 dry shampoo products. Initially, the company distributed these products across the United States in retail stores. However, Unilever instructed the retailers to remove the products from their shelves so that consumers can no longer purchase them. Likewise, Unilever told consumers to stop using the products. Consumers can seek reimbursement for eligible products via a Unilever website.
Unilever identified the scope of the recall by providing a list of the brands and affected products and their Universal Product Codes. The list included products such as:

Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness
Dove Dry Shampoo Fresh Coconut
Dove Dry Shampoo Go Active
Nexxus Inergy Foam Shampoo
Suave Dry Shampoo Hair Refresher
Tresemme Dry Shampoo Volumizing
Bed Head Oh Bee Hive Dry Shampoo

Unilever Testing Finds Benzene in Dry Shampoos
Unilever announced that the products may have elevated levels of benzene. The culprit seems to be the propellant used in the aerosol spray of dry shampoos. The company has stated that the propellant is the source of the benzene. Unilever also added that it is working with its propellant suppliers to address this issue.
In the recall, the company states that “benzene is classified as a human carcinogen.” Unilever further informed the public that “exposure to benzene can occur by inhalation, orally, and through the skin and it can result in cancers including leukemia and blood cancer of the bone marrow and blood disorders which can be life-threatening.”
However,

Plaintiff Lawyers Gear Up for Litigation After Unilever Recalls Dry Shampoos

In October, a jury found Bayer liable for exposing students and faculty at the Sky Valley Educational Center in Monroe, Washington to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCB is a banned, synthetic chemical linked to some cancers and other illnesses. Bayer intends to challenge the verdict on appeal.
What Happened in the PCB Exposure Case?
The Sky Valley Education Center, an alternative public school, opened in 1998. In 2011, the education center moved from its original location to an aging campus. Within three years of moving to the facility, school district records showed reports of fixtures smoking and catching on fire. Records also indicated that the failing fluorescent lights were leaking a yellowish oil. Additionally, teachers began to complain that the students and faculty were suffering from headaches, inflamed rashes on their limbs, blisters in the mouth, cognitive problems, and skin cysts. In one case, there was a complaint of accelerated puberty. Based on the reported symptoms, one teacher began to raise suspicions about PCBs in the facility. In April 2014, the Sky Valley principal reassured staff that the district had the issue under control. Two weeks after this initial report, the district implemented its first of many inspections conducted over the next seven years.
A 2014 inspection revealed high levels of carbon dioxide, mold, poor air ventilation, and elevated concentrations of PCBs. The inspection also revealed that PCBs were present in the lights and caulking throughout the facility. Based on the inspection findings, the school district removed 67 light fixtures suspected of containing PCBs. The district also cleaned more than 100 other light fixtures and removed carpeting from classrooms. In late 2015, district officials notified parents that they cleaned the facility in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines.
EPA Steps In
Despite assurances to families from the district and school officials that the education center

Insights Categories