Litigation

Gov. Pritzker signed Senate Bill 328 into law on Aug. 15. A circuit court recently dismissed one challenge to the law brought by various Illinois lawmakers.
Continue Reading Circuit Court Rejects Illinois Lawmakers’ Challenge to Senate Bill 328’s Expansion of Toxic-Tort Jurisdiction

In Zamani v. SharkNinja, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128075, the District Court concluded that a plaintiff’s Chapter 93A “omission” claim was not well-pleaded enough to survive a motion

Continue Reading Court Dismisses Massachusetts Chapter 93A Omission Claim When Product Safety Information Was Available Through Hyperlinks

Greenberg Traurig’s Consumer Compass newsletter is your guide to navigating the legal landscape of the ever-evolving consumer products industry. Each issue delivers the latest news, emerging trends, and must-know highlights, along with savvy insights designed to keep you ahead of the curve.
Continue Reading Consumer Compass: Navigating the Consumer Products Legal Landscape | Mid-Year 2025

Amid the waning hours of its spring legislative session, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill which, if the governor signs, would significantly expand Illinois courts’ jurisdictional reach to foreign corporations in toxic tort litigation.
Continue Reading Illinois Senate Bill 328 May Impact Foreign Corporations in Toxic Tort Cases

September is Baby Safety Month, and this GT Alert highlights the most recent development in baby safety – the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)’s Aug. 23 notice of proposed

Continue Reading Consumer Product Safety Commission Proposes First Safety Requirements for Nursing Pillows

In a unanimous decision issued Jan. 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead or prove actual harm to bring a claim under Illinois’ Biometric
Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Holds No Showing of Actual Harm Needed to State Claim Under Biometric Information Privacy Act

An Illinois appellate court has formally recognized what both state and federal courts have already considered to be the law—that coparties to a lawsuit who agree to share information pursuant to a common interest in defeating their opponent do not waive either the attorney-client or work-product privilege when they do so.1Parties may object to disclosing these communications when sought by the opposing side in discovery.2 The necessity of this holding as a matter of first impression may come as a surprise to many practitioners who already regularly assert the joint defense privilege in Illinois state courts. The Selby court recognized that “a lot of practitioners and judges will be surprised to learn that [the joint defense privilege] has not already been recognized in Illinois.”3 The doctrine has implicitly existed in federal courts sitting in Illinois for decades, and practitioners have routinely asserted the defense in both state and federal tribunals.4 But although federal courts have conclusively stated that Illinois state law recognizes the joint defense privilege, Selby is the first Illinois appellate court case to finally do so.5
Continue Reading Illinois Appellate Court Recognizes Joint Defense Privilege