Case Filings Alert™ reports daily on new cases filed in courts around the country, alerting you to significant new cases at the beginning of the litigation process, long before the case is settled or a decision handed down. A wide range of topics are covered, including product liability, intellectual property, antitrust, among others. A number of these cases, particularly the product liability litigation, will develop into mass torts as new cases raising similar issues are filed. Mass torts are covered in our report MDLCases.com, which deals with major multidistrict litigation (MDL) cases. Also see our litigation reports: Social Media Addiction, Copyright-Litigation.com, and Litigation Report 2026-27. Editor: Robert S. Want (rwant@LegalEditor.com).
August 24, 2026 – Environment
States Sue California Over Landmark Plastics Packaging Law
A group of U.S. states and the National Association of Wholesalers have sued California, seeking to undo a new state law designed to limit single-use plastic and promote recycling.
In a complaint filed in federal court in Sacramento, Calif., the states accuse California of trying to “impose its own policy preferences on the entire nation” with its Plastic Pollution Prevention & Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. The law, which took effect May 1, requires producers to reduce single-use plastic in packaging and food-service items by 25% and to ensure that all such items are recyclable or compostable by 2032.
The states led by Nebraska argue that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by substantially burdening interstate commerce. They also say the law will boost prices for consumers, with inflationary effects hitting lower-income Americans especially hard, as producers pass on the “extremely expensive” costs of transforming a wide range of products and practices.
August 21, 2026 – Securities
Uber Shareholders Accuse Directors of ‘Serial’ Compliance Failures, Sexual Abuse Lawsuits
A Detroit pension fund has filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc.’s current and former directors and officers, claiming that they failed to oversee compliance with laws governing passenger safety, disability rights, and consumer protection while misleading investors about the company’s governance practices.
The complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco, describes Uber as a “serial compliance offender” whose leadership allegedly prioritized growth and cost-cutting over legal compliance. The complaint asserts that the company’s board ignored repeated warnings about risks involving sexual assault and harassment, disability discrimination, and Uber One subscription practices, exposing the company to substantial legal and regulatory liability.
Uber faces thousands of lawsuits stemming from alleged sexual assaults by drivers and continues to confront government scrutiny, according to the complaint. The suit cites allegations that Uber received reports of sexual assault or misconduct “almost every eight minutes on average” between 2017 and 2022 and failed to implement certain safety measures because they could undermine the company’s classification of drivers as independent contractors.
August 20, 2026 – Labor & Employment
Ford Accuses Law Firm of Billing Low-Paid Overseas Labor as Attorney Work
Ford Motor Co. has sued California law firm Quill & Arrow LLP, accusing it of orchestrating “one of the largest attorney billing fraud schemes in California history” by falsely billing legal work performed by non-lawyers and overseas staff as attorney work in thousands of consumer warranty cases.
Filed in Los Angeles federal court, the lawsuit alleges that Quill systematically exploited California’s Lemon Law fee-shifting provisions by recruiting consumers through misleading advertising and steering them away from quick vehicle buybacks. The suit claims that the firm encouraged clients to ignore repurchase offers and communications from automakers in order to prolong litigation and increase fee recoveries.
Ford contends that Quill’s “back-end” scheme involved assigning work performed by paralegals, legal assistants, and overseas virtual assistants to California-licensed attorneys who “never performed the work,” then billing Ford at attorney rates ranging from $350 to $950 per hour. The complaint states that the submitted billing records were “utter fabrications” supported by false sworn declarations.
August 19, 2026 – Constitution
ABC Sues Administration Over ‘Retaliatory Campaign’ for License Reviews
ABC has sued the Federal Communications Commission, alleging that the Trump administration is using broadcast licensing authority to punish the network for news coverage and programming the administration disfavors.
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accuses the administration of conducting a “sustained effort” to retaliate against ABC in violation of the First Amendment. The dispute centers on an FCC order requiring eight ABC-owned television stations to apply for license renewals as early as five years in advance. In its lawsuit, ABC called the demand unprecedented and said the applications ordinarily would take months to prepare, rather than the 30 days allowed.
ABC claims that the pressure intensified after President Donald Trump criticized comments by late-night host Jimmy Kimmel and the network’s decision not to broadcast Trump’s July 16 address live. Plaintiffs argue that a hearing could lead to years of costly proceedings or the loss of licenses necessary to operate stations in major markets. They seek an injunction barring further action on the early applications and prohibiting officials from using sanctions to influence ABC’s editorial decisions.
August 18, 2026 – Product Liability
Juvederm Lawsuit Claims Fillers Caused Facial Scarring, Disfigurement
A woman’s lawsuit alleges that she suffered severe medical reactions, scarring, and other side effects after receiving Juvederm cosmetic injections.
Filed in federal court in Chicago, the suit names AbbVie Inc. as defendant and seeks class-action status on behalf of other Juvederm users nationwide. Juvederm filler injections, according to the complaint, are cosmetic hyaluronic acid injections placed under the skin to plump wrinkles and fine lines or enhance facial contours. The complaint says that more than 5.3 million Juvederm and other hyaluronic acid filler injections were administered in 2023 alone, second only to Botox injections.
Plaintiff says that she received multiple Juvederm injections in her face in 2023, paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for the cosmetic procedures. In June 2026, she says she became extremely ill and was hospitalized due to delayed-onset granulomas that developed at the injection sites. A granuloma is a hard lump that forms when immune cells cluster around a foreign object or area of inflammation.
August 17, 2026 – Consumer Fraud
Dannon Yogurt Sues Chobani Over ‘20G Protein’ Yogurt Labeling Claims
Danone US, the parent of yogurt brand Dannon, has sued rival Chobani, accusing it of misleading consumers with claims about a higher-protein yogurt line.
Danone, maker of Oikos Pro yogurt, claims that Chobani launched its “20G Protein” line in 2024 to compete in the growing high-protein yogurt market but lacked the technology to produce a comparably protein-dense product. Instead, the complaint alleges, Chobani relied on “consumer deception” by manipulating serving sizes to maintain the critical “20 grams of protein per serving” claim. Danone says in its lawsuit that consumers increasingly view 20 grams as an important benchmark when selecting protein-rich foods.
According to the complaint, Chobani’s 32-ounce multi-serving tubs should contain only about 18 grams of protein per serving if FDA serving-size rules were applied correctly. Danone alleges that Chobani improperly inflates serving sizes by approximately 12.5%, allowing it to advertise “20G Protein” on labels, packaging, and promotional materials.
August 14, 2026 – Intellectual Property
AI Legal Tech Startup Sued Over Alleged Patent Infringement
A legal technology company has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in San Francisco federal court against a rival AI startup, alleging that the competitor’s platform unlawfully uses patented methods for generating legal documents using artificial intelligence.
The plaintiff, AI Law (www.ai.law) filed its lawsuit against Butler Labs Inc., which does business as Eve Legal. The suit centers on plaintiff’s patent titled “Method and System for Transforming Data Using Artificial Intelligence to Generate Content.” Plaintiff says its patented system transforms unstructured information into long-form legal documents using large language models and a “novel context-aware feedback loop.” The company argues that its technology enables the efficient creation of complaints, discovery responses, and other legal filings.
The complaint claims that Eve Legal markets AI-powered tools that automate case intake, document drafting, medical chronologies, and discovery tasks for law firms, and contends that those features involve methods covered by plaintiff’s patent. Eve Legal “cannot deliver the multi-page complaints, discovery responses, and medical chronologies it advertises without practicing the technical methods claimed in the ’[patent].”
August 13, 2026 – Antitrust
Commercial Brokers, Landlords Accuse CoStar of Rental Data Monopoly
CoStar Group Inc., along with several other national real estate brokerages, faces a proposed class action alleging that they held a monopoly over commercial lease data.
According to the complaint filed in Chicago federal court, plaintiffs assert that data company CoStar “facilitated and orchestrated the exchange of confidential, property-level lease transaction terms — including effective rents, concessions, and other lease economics — among competing brokers and landlords. This information, the complaint says, would otherwise remain confidential between the negotiating parties.”
Plaintiffs contend that CoStar ran a hub-and-spoke conspiracy that resulted in supra-competitive rents. CoStar acted as the hub of the conspiracy, plaintiffs argue, by collecting and redistributing nonpublic lease data and promoting its services as a mechanism for landlords to optimize pricing. Defendant brokers acted as the spokes of the conspiracy by knowingly submitting competitively sensitive data to CoStar in order to access competitors’ similarly sensitive data.
August 12, 2026 – Product Liability
Natera IVF Genetic Testing Lawsuit Claims PGT-A Results Were Misleading
Two women have filed a proposed class action against Natera Inc., alleging that the genetic testing company falsely marketed its preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) as an accurate and effective tool for improving in vitro fertilization outcomes while concealing evidence that the test is unreliable and unproven.
The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, contends that Natera promoted its Spectrum PGT-A test as a way to increase implantation and live-birth rates, reduce miscarriages, and improve IVF success. Plaintiffs claim that they and other consumers paid thousands of dollars for the testing based on representations that it was “99% accurate” and beneficial for patients undergoing IVF.
Numerous scientific studies, professional organizations, and insurers have questioned those claims, according to the lawsuit. The suit cites statements from insurers, including United Healthcare and Aetna, describing PGT-A as lacking sufficient evidence of efficacy or being “experimental, investigational, or unproven.” The plaintiffs further allege that PGT-A can incorrectly classify viable embryos as abnormal, potentially leading patients to discard embryos capable of producing healthy births.
August 11, 2026 – Consumer Fraud
MoneyLion Accused of Disguising ‘0% APR’ Loans as Fees
A proposed class action filed in Los Angeles federal court alleges that financial technology company MoneyLion deceptively marketed certain loan products as low-cost or “0% APR” while charging fees that effectively functioned as undisclosed interest.
The lawsuit contends that MoneyLion’s InstaCash cash advances and Credit Builder Loans include charges labeled as “turbo fees,” “tips,” and “monthly membership fees” that should be treated as finance charges under the federal Truth in Lending Act. Plaintiffs allege MoneyLion excluded those fees from disclosed annual percentage rates, causing consumers to underestimate the true cost of borrowing.
MoneyLion advertised InstaCash as providing “0% APR cash advances up to $500, deposited in seconds,” yet routinely charged expedited funding fees and encouraged users to pay tips, according to the complaint. A borrower receiving a $100 advance, the complaint says, could pay $18.99 in fees and tips, resulting in an effective APR of 495% if repaid within 14 days. Plaintiffs further claim that defendant’s Credit Builder Loans required borrowers to pay recurring membership fees of roughly $20 to $29 per month that were not included in advertised APR calculations.
August 10, 2026 – Securities
Investors Challenge Adobe Execs Over AI Copyright Statements
Adobe shareholders have filed a stockholder derivative lawsuit against current and former company executives and directors, alleging that they misled investors by promoting the company’s artificial intelligence products as “commercially safe” while concealing reliance on copyrighted materials and exposing the company to significant legal, financial, and reputational risks.
The complaint, filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif., claims that Adobe repeatedly assured investors and customers that its Firefly generative AI models were trained only on licensed and public-domain content. The suit points to statements in Adobe’s 2024 and 2025 proxy filings asserting that Firefly was trained on content that “respects creator rights” and “doesn’t infringe on third-party intellectual property rights.”
Instead, plaintiffs assert, Adobe’s AI development relied on datasets that incorporated copyrighted works, including the pirated Books3 collection and the Common Crawl repository. Plaintiffs contend that the company “knowingly utilized datasets contaminated with unlawfully copied material” while marketing its AI products as safe for enterprise use. The shareholders further allege that Adobe ignored mounting legal warnings as AI copyright lawsuits proliferated across the technology industry.
August 7, 2026 – Constitution
DOJ Files Challenge to Virginia Mask Ban for Federal Officers
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a civil action against the state of Virginia, alleging that the state attempted to regulate federal law enforcement officers by criminally prohibiting them from wearing masks and requiring them to wear individual identifiers.
In its lawsuit filed in federal court in Richmond, Va., DOJ argues that the state law is an illegal attempt to regulate the federal government, and that the law threatens the safety of federal officers who have faced an unprecedented wave of harassment, doxing, and even violence. Threatening officers with prosecution for simply protecting their identities and their families also chills the enforcement of federal law and compromises sensitive law enforcement operations, the department says.
DOJ asserts that the law violates the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, conflicts with federal immigration statutes, and obstructs congressional objectives. The department argues that Virginia is attempting to control “what agents must wear, how they must conduct enforcement operations, where they may conduct such operations,” and other aspects of federal enforcement.
August 6, 2026 – Product Liability
Nissan Cooling Fans Are ‘Dangerously’ Defective, Lawsuit Alleges
A proposed class action claims that Nissan North America knowingly sold 2017–2022 Nissan Rogue Sport vehicles with defective radiator cooling fans that can cause engine overheating, air-conditioning failure, stalling, and potentially catastrophic engine damage.
In their lawsuit, filed in federal court in Nashville, Tenn., plaintiffs say they incurred repair costs ranging from hundreds of dollars to more than $1,600 after the alleged defect manifested in their vehicles. The suit contends that defective radiator fans can cause engines to overheat, leading to damage to components such as cylinder heads and gaskets and, in some cases, complete engine failure.
Nissan “knew or should have known about the defect before selling the vehicles” through pre-sale testing and consumer complaints but failed to disclose the issue or provide a recall, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs argue that consumers were left to choose between paying for costly repairs or continuing to drive unsafe vehicles.
™
Editor: Robert S. Want
Services of WANT Publishing:
CaseFilingsAlert.com
(new cases filed in courts around the country)
Social Media Addiction
(addiction lawsuits with Meta, TikTok et al. on trial)
MDLCases.com
(intro to mass-tort multidistrict litigation
plus listing of pending cases)
Copyright-Litigation.com
(impact of artificial intelligence on copyright law)
Litigation Report 2026-27
(survey of notable litigation)
NationsCourts.com
(comprehensive guide to nation’s
federal, state and county courts)
LegalEditor.com
(editing and writing services)