Archive for class action

Mass Tort Spotlight

Mass Tort Spotlight: Talcum Powder, 3M Earplugs, and Active MDLs in 2025

 

Mass tort litigation continues to dominate the landscape in 2025. Among the most active matters are cases involving talcum powder, 3M earplugs, and other multidistrict litigations (MDLs). These aggregated lawsuits show how victims across the country band together to challenge corporate wrongdoing when failure affects many people at once.

Why are MDLs so powerful? They bring dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of individual claims under a single procedural umbrella. That means shared discovery, coordinated expert testimony, and consistent rulings on legal issues. Victims in separate states benefit from streamlined legal work and increased leverage against large corporations.

Talcum powder litigation has persisted for years. Plaintiffs argue that long-term use of talc-based products, such as baby powder and body cosmetics, led to ovarian cancer or mesothelioma. Despite denials from manufacturers, verdict after verdict has shown that juries are increasingly receptive to claims of cancer risk tied to talc exposure.

Then there are lawsuits over 3M earplugs used by military personnel. These cases claim that 3M sold hearing protection devices that remained defective over time and caused hearing loss, tinnitus, and other serious ear injuries. The MDL has advanced past early stages, and many plaintiffs are now entering bellwether trials to help set the tone for outcomes nationwide.

What other MDLs are worth watching? PFAS “forever chemical” exposure, Roundup litigation, and surgical mesh implants remain active. Each brings its own scientific and legal challenges, such as proving causation, dealing with regulatory defenses, and negotiating settlements that fairly address harm across populations.

What do these mass tort trends mean for individual claims? First, victims may find more access to resources that small cases lack. Legal teams can share expert fees and use national data to strengthen causation arguments. Second, settlements may become more common earlier in the process, as defendants face mounting pressure from aggregated claims.

But there are risks. Some mass torts slow down when common legal issues become contested. If court rulings reject a key causation theory, many cases may be dismissed. Also, funds can become diluted when thousands of claimants compete for a limited settlement pool. In those cases, individual cases with strong evidence may do better when carved out from the group.

How should victims and lawyers respond now? If you believe you’ve been harmed by talcum powder, earplugs, or similar products, time matters. Mass torts often operate under strict deadlines. Gathering medical records, preserving evidence, and joining the MDL promptly are essential for inclusion.

Where is this heading next? Expect more mass torts around pharmaceuticals, environmental exposures, and consumer safety. Insurance liabilities and corporate risk models will also shift. Companies may settle early to avoid bellwether verdicts that attract public attention. That could benefit plaintiffs with serious claims.

Mass torts will continue shaping litigation strategy at a national level. For victims, they offer collective strength. But success will depend on timing, evidence, and a lawyer who can navigate both the group case and individual injury.

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Hit With $8 Billion Lawsuit Over Selling Customer Location Data

AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Hit With $8 Billion Lawsuit Over Selling Customer Location Data

Three of the largest telecom companies in America — AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile — are now facing an $8 billion lawsuit that could redefine what privacy means in the digital age. The lawsuit, filed by a coalition of plaintiffs from multiple states, alleges that these companies secretly sold customers’ real-time location data to third parties without consent. And the result, they claim, has been dangerous, even life-threatening.

What happens when your phone becomes a tracking device without your knowledge? According to the complaint, telecom giants profited by giving access to private customer location data — often down to the street corner — to bounty hunters, marketers, and surveillance firms. In some cases, the data allegedly ended up in the hands of stalkers and abusers. Victims say they never agreed to this. The carriers say otherwise.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) already fined these companies a combined $200 million in 2020 for similar behavior, but this new legal action goes even further. It doesn’t just seek financial penalties — it demands real accountability. Plaintiffs want the telecoms to admit wrongdoing and fund efforts to protect users from ongoing data abuse. This is about more than money. It’s about restoring public trust in an industry that many feel has quietly crossed a line.

How could this happen under existing privacy laws? That question is now front and center. Telecom companies are required by law to protect customer data — including location — under the federal Communications Act. But critics say the rules are outdated and easily bypassed through vague user agreements and third-party loopholes. According to internal reports cited in the case, some companies allowed vendors to access location data with little oversight, even after executives were warned about the risks.

The telecoms have denied any current wrongdoing. They claim any past issues have been addressed, and that consumers now have tools to opt out of data sharing. But those suing say that’s not enough. Many users were unaware their data was ever collected in the first place — let alone sold. The complaint outlines specific cases where individuals were targeted or harmed after their phone location was obtained by third parties. These aren’t abstract fears. They’re real events.

Should companies be able to profit off your physical movements? The heart of the lawsuit asks this question directly. Plaintiffs argue that location data is deeply personal — and that selling it without clear consent violates not only federal law but basic human dignity. This lawsuit is a test of whether privacy still has meaning in a time when every click, call, and movement can be monetized.

What happens next could shape how tech and telecom firms operate for years. If the plaintiffs win, companies might face stricter rules around consent, auditing, and transparency. That could mean rewriting how user data is handled across the board — not just by telecoms, but by every business that collects it.

And what does this mean for the average person? The lawsuit is a reminder that even your quietest moments — walking your dog, visiting your doctor, or taking your child to school — may not be as private as you think. If this case succeeds, it could bring long-overdue limits on how far corporate surveillance can reach into our daily lives.

In a world where data is currency, the question becomes: Who owns your location? And who pays the price when that line is crossed?

Apple Agrees to $95 Million Settlement in Siri Privacy Lawsuit

Apple Agrees to $95 Million Settlement in Siri Privacy Lawsuit

Apple has agreed to pay $95 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that its voice-activated assistant, Siri, violated users’ privacy by recording conversations without consent. The lawsuit claimed that Apple’s data collection practices infringed on consumer rights and that Siri was activated unintentionally, leading to the unauthorized recording of sensitive information.

The case stemmed from allegations that Apple failed to properly disclose how Siri collected and stored voice data. Plaintiffs argued that Apple used these recordings for data analysis and potential advertising purposes, despite its public stance on user privacy. They contended that Apple’s actions violated consumer protection laws and sought damages for affected users.

Apple, while agreeing to the settlement, did not admit to any wrongdoing. The company has maintained that Siri’s voice recognition technology is designed with privacy in mind and that accidental activations are minimal. However, critics argue that the settlement highlights the broader issue of transparency in how tech companies handle user data.

The lawsuit is part of a larger trend in which big tech companies face increasing legal scrutiny over data privacy concerns. In recent years, multiple class-action lawsuits and regulatory investigations have targeted companies such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon for their handling of user data. With smart devices and artificial intelligence-powered assistants becoming more prevalent, there is a growing concern over how personal information is collected, stored, and used.

Legal experts suggest that this case could set a precedent for how digital voice assistants and AI-driven platforms handle user privacy. The lawsuit has also fueled ongoing discussions about stronger regulations on data collection and user consent, particularly as smart devices become more integrated into daily life. Lawmakers and advocacy groups are calling for stricter consumer protections to ensure that tech companies cannot exploit user data without explicit permission.

The settlement is expected to provide compensation for individuals who were affected by Siri’s alleged privacy violations. Eligible Apple users may receive payments as part of the settlement, though the exact compensation amounts and eligibility criteria are still being determined. Moving forward, Apple may need to implement stricter controls and clearer disclosures regarding its data practices to prevent similar legal challenges.

This case also raises questions about whether current privacy laws are sufficient to protect consumers in an increasingly digital world. Some experts argue that existing regulations, such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, need to be expanded to cover evolving AI-driven technologies. Others believe that companies should be held to higher standards of accountability, ensuring that users have more control over their personal data.

The case underscores the growing scrutiny of big tech’s data policies and the need for companies to balance innovation with consumer privacy protections. As privacy concerns continue to rise, companies that fail to adequately safeguard user data could face increased regulatory and legal challenges. The outcome of this lawsuit may influence future legal actions against tech giants and shape the conversation around digital privacy for years to come.