Lost benefit suits are especially threatening to product manufacturers because these claims are particularly susceptible to class aggregation. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits plaintiffs to assemble into classes when, among other things, they share 'questions of law or fact' and those common questions 'predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. Ordinarily, injury and causation are sources of diversity between plaintiffs and, by extrapolation, impediments to class treatment. Plaintiffs who claim injury from tobacco, for example, frequently claim different injuries and different causal mechanisms and, therefore, typically may not assemble into classes. <i>See, e.g., Aspinall</i>, 442 Mass. at 392-93, 813 N.E.2d at 485-86. By dispensing with the injury and causation requirements, lost benefit suits destroy a source of diversity between plaintiffs and promote class treatment.
James H. RotondoThomas O. FarrisPart Two of a Two-Part Series
Part One of this article discussed how lost benefit suits are a significant departure from traditional tort principles. The conclusion describes the threat that these suits pose to all types of manufacturers and makes suggestions as to how to reduce that threat.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
