LITIGATION TRENDS 2025 | 99 T O C E M P E S G A N T I I P C A P R O W C S P O R T C O N T A C T I N T A P P P A T C C L S E C Product Liability Div. 2006), New York’s Appellate Division dismissed a product defect claim against a manufacturer of a robotic loading system because the defendants were able to show that the robot – and its associated software – were “reasonably safe when designed and installed.” Id. at 1101. The implication is that AI manufacturers are not liable for harm caused by defects that were not present when the products were made. Although, certainly courts have found that manufacturers are responsible for foreseeable defects. The European Union’s AI Act, effective as of August 2024, is the first legal framework for the use and development of artificial intelligence. Under the EU AI Act, AI manufacturers will remain liable for defects that arise after the AI is placed on the market if the defect arises as a result of an AI system’s ability to continuously learn or an update that the manufacturer provides. This is in stark contrast to the precedent established thus far by the U.S. courts that have addressed this issue, and no similar laws have been introduced in the United States. Since its inception, product liability law has adapted to address harms caused by increasingly complex products. While it is not clear how courts will resolve product litigation cases regarding AI, it is unmistakable that they will face more of them. As the law continues to develop, sellers and manufacturers should – as with any product – be transparent with consumers. PFAS Litigation is Here to Stay and Its New Angle is False Advertising Cases PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), sometimes referred to as “forever chemicals,” are a class of synthetic chemicals that have been the subject of multiple lawsuits in recent years, including false advertising lawsuits, focused on their potential environmental and health effects. Product liability cases involving PFAS are not new, but the types of claims and defendants’ potential exposure continue to expand as the EPA has tightened its PFAS regulations over the past two decades. In 2024 alone, the EPA established National Primary Drinking Water Standards for PFAS, updated PFAS reporting requirements for consumer confidence reports, and added reporting requirements for significant new uses of these chemicals in manufactured or imported products. As the EPA’s PFAS regulations have expanded, false advertising lawsuits involving PFAS have continued to proliferate. Generally, these lawsuits allege that the companies’ marketing of their products as “safe” or “natural” is false and misleading because of the PFAS present in their products and that the plaintiffs would not have purchased these products if the “dangers” of PFAS were known. While these false advertising claims have often been brought through class actions, in recent years, state attorneys general have also initiated litigation against manufacturers of PFAS alleging false advertising claims. Much of the litigation concerning PFAS including allegations of false advertising is still in its early phases. Defendants have successfully challenged false advertising claims at the motion to dismiss stage. Courts have dismissed claims due to lack of standing and failure to state a valid claim E M P AI is now being incorporated into cars, household equipment, healthcare devices, and other products. This heightened use raises the question of what happens when AI inevitably malfunctions. 98 | Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTI5NDgyMg==