HB Litigation News

Category: News

HB Artificial Intelligence Update Monday, Dec. 15, 2025 | Wrongful Death, Discrimination, Intellectual Property
Artificial Intelligence Litigation Update | 12.15.2025

Artificial intelligence continues to challenge existing laws and business models, and at a rapid pace. The rules of commerce, creativity, and liability are all being tested. Recent cases illustrate some of the legal flashpoints: privacy, intellectual property, mental health, and employment bias.

Google Faces Dual Privacy Battles Over AI Activation and Tracking

Google is fighting on two fronts in California courts. In September, a federal jury awarded $425 million to Gmail users who claimed the company tracked their activity on third-party apps even after they disabled privacy settings, according to filings in Rodriguez v. Google LLC. That verdict is now on appeal.

Meanwhile, a new class action alleges Google secretly activated its Gemini AI across Gmail, Chat, and Meet in October without consent. The complaint calls the move “deceptive and outrageous,” asserting Gemini accessed “the entire recorded history of its users’ private communications.” Plaintiffs argue this violates the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act. One cited prompt reads: “When you turn this setting on, you agree…”—even though the feature was already enabled.

Analysis. IfAI features are rolled out as opt-out rather than opt-in, will this create exposure under privacy statutes? It sure seems that way.

Authors Secure $1.5 Billion Settlement in Anthropic Piracy Case

In a high-stakes copyright fight, authors and publishers reached a $1.5 billion settlement with Anthropic over allegations that its Claude AI was trained on pirated books. Judge William Alsup approved the deal in October, calling it “fair” but warning distribution “will be complicated.” The settlement covers up to 500,000 works, with payouts estimated at $3,000 per book. Anthropic agreed to destroy pirated copies and reaffirmed its stance that “transformative use remains a cornerstone of AI innovation.”

Analysis. What a price to pay for sloppy data acquisition! Fair use may shield transformative training, but sourcing pirate libraries is indefensible. If the practice keeps up, we will see more suits targeting the provenance of training data.

ChatGPT Blamed in Grisly Murder-Suicide

In December, the estate of Suzanne Adams, 83, sued OpenAI and Microsoft, alleging ChatGPT fueled her son’s paranoid delusions, leading to a murder-suicide. The complaint claims the chatbot convinced him he had implanted a “divine instrument system” and could trust “no one except ChatGPT.” OpenAI said it is reviewing the case and pointed to crisis intervention protocols.

Analysis. This appears to be the first U.S. wrongful death claim tying AI to homicide. While causation will be hard to prove, the case begs the question: When does a chatbot cross from tool to dangerous and manipulating influence? Establishing foreseeability and duty to warn will be key issues in the case.

Workday Faces Collective Action Over AI Hiring Bias

A federal court certified a nationwide collective action against Workday, alleging its AI-driven hiring tools discriminated against older and disabled applicants. Judge Rita Lin’s May ruling allows thousands to join the suit. Plaintiffs argue the system acted as “an unlawful gatekeeper,” issuing rejections within minutes.

Analysis. Algorithmic bias is no longer hypothetical. With Workday reporting 1.1 billion rejections, the scale alone invites scrutiny. Vendors can’t — or at least shouldn’t — hide behind clients. If your model screens candidates, the risk is on you, the employer.

Alpha Modus Sues H&M Over AI Patent Infringement

On December 3, Alpha Modus Corp. Sued H&M in Texas, alleging infringement of five patents covering in-store AI systems for shopper analytics and personalized engagement. The company seeks a jury trial and enhanced damages for willful infringement.

Analysis. As AI moves from cloud to physical spaces, patent wars will follow. Retailers adopting “smart store” tech without licensing agreements are painting targets on their backs.

So …

Watching how courts apply old doctrines to new technology is a core mission of this site. But it’s nothing new. There was once a miracle building insulation that was also fire retardant. That was all great until people inhaled fibers into their lungs. Incredibly, asbestos litigation continues today. When it comes to AI, businesses should know that the risk is an enterprise risk, one that increases when companies fail to deploy adequate and appropriate safeguards. Compliance, transparency, and IP hygiene are keys to survival. And, for individuals, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean an algorithm isn’t out to get you. –Tom Hagy
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
December 14, 2025
HB Environmental Update Monday, Dec. 15, 2025 | Feds Step Back, States Step In, Courts Push Back, EPA Wavers
Environmental Law Round‑Up: States Step In, Courts Push Back, EPA Wavers

One Person’s Dreamscape is Another’s Nightmare

We’re in an age when deregulation hawks in just about every sector are getting what they’ve asked for. That includes environmental protection, something many of us have taken for granted, as we watch federal measures undergo a dramatic unwinding at a time when the scientific community agrees more should be done, not less, to safeguard the planet.

Federal agencies are retreating from aggressive enforcement, states are asserting new authority, and courts—both state and federal—are emerging as decisive arbiters of climate and energy policy. The result is a patchwork of obligations and opportunities that lawyers, corporations, and communities must navigate with increasing urgency.

This week’s developments underscore the trend: state legislatures advancing environmental justice mandates, the EPA signaling a softer enforcement posture, the Supreme Court preparing to hear cases that could redefine regulatory authority, communities winning climate litigation against fossil fuel companies, and a federal judge clearing the way for offshore wind projects off Massachusetts. Together, these stories reveal a system in flux, where power is shifting away from Washington and toward states and courts.

Feds Retreat, States Surge in Enviro Justice

With federal agencies scaling back, states are filling the void. E&E News reported that “states are increasingly stepping up to integrate environmental justice into permitting and enforcement decisions.” New York now requires cumulative impact assessments before permits are issued, while California has expanded mandates for community participation. Connecticut and Maine have followed suit, obligating agencies to weigh disproportionate impacts on low‑income and minority communities.

Grassroots pressure has been decisive. The National Caucus of Environmental Legislators explained that lawmakers are “responding to decades of inequitable exposure to pollution by embedding EJ into statutory frameworks.” Yet industry groups warn the rules could stall development. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued cumulative impact assessments “impose burdensome requirements and create uncertainty in permitting processes.”

Why it matters: Compliance obligations now vary dramatically across jurisdictions. For national corporations, attorneys must navigate a patchwork of state mandates, anticipating litigation risks and tailoring strategies to each regulatory climate.

EPA Enforcement Under Scrutiny

The EPA’s December memorandum has unsettled its own staff. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance directed personnel to prioritize “compliance first.” Craig Pritzlaff, acting assistant administrator, told E&E News the memo “reinforces a ‘compliance first’ orientation as the guiding principle.”

Industry welcomed the shift. The National Law Review highlighted six guiding factors, including voluntary self‑audits and coordination with states. Holland & Knight described the memo as “an enforcement policy shift that emphasizes swift resolution and compliance… over prolonged investigations.”

But critics see a retreat. One EPA staffer warned, “This will stop all meaningful cases in their tracks.” NGOs point to continued aggressive enforcement under the Toxic Substances Control Act, where citizen suits remain active. Meanwhile, Reuters reported EPA may delay Biden‑era vehicle pollution rules, reinforcing perceptions of uneven enforcement.

Why it matters: Attorneys must advise clients to seize compliance assistance opportunities while preparing targeted enforcement in sectors where NGOs and statutory mandates keep pressure high.

Supreme Court Environmental Docket

The Supreme Court’s October 2025 term is stacked with environmental cases. SCOTUSblog reported six major disputes, including challenges to EPA’s greenhouse gas authority and state water quality standards. Legal scholars told Bloomberg Law the Court’s rulings “could reshape doctrines on federal authority and redefine the balance between state and federal power.”

Chevron deference is also on the line. Several cases question whether agencies should retain broad interpretive authority. A narrowing—or overturning—of Chevron would force EPA to justify regulations more rigorously, opening new avenues for litigation.

Why it matters: These cases could reset the regulatory landscape for decades. Attorneys must prepare clients for precedent shifts that affect permitting, enforcement, and liability.

Court Victories for Climate Advocates

Climate advocates scored wins in 2025. A federal appeals court allowed municipalities’ damages claims against oil companies to proceed. Inside Climate News called it “a major victory for communities seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.”

Other rulings blocked pipeline approvals and challenged fossil fuel subsidies. Courts increasingly recognize standing for communities facing climate harms, signaling judicial willingness to engage with climate science. Industry groups, however, warn of costly litigation. The American Petroleum Institute argued, “Climate policy should be set by legislatures, not courts.”

Why it matters: Litigation is becoming a central tool of climate governance. Attorneys must anticipate expanded liability for fossil fuel companies and prepare municipalities and NGOs to use courts as policy drivers.

Offshore Wind Pause Overturned

In Massachusetts, a federal judge struck down the Trump Administration’s pause on offshore wind projects, calling it “arbitrary and capricious.” The Boston Globe reported the ruling “clears the way for developers to resume planning and permitting for offshore wind farms off the Massachusetts coast.”

The case, brought by renewable energy companies and environmental groups, argued the pause violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge agreed, finding no rational basis for halting projects. Fishing groups remain wary, but clean energy advocates hailed the decision as a milestone for offshore wind.

Why it matters: The ruling accelerates clean energy deployment and underscores judicial checks on executive power. Attorneys advising developers or coastal stakeholders must prepare for renewed permitting activity and potential conflicts with fishing interests.

The Takeaway

This week’s environmental law stories reveal a landscape defined by state assertiveness, judicial activism, and federal uncertainty. From state‑led EJ initiatives to Supreme Court cases that could reshape regulatory authority, the terrain is shifting rapidly. For practitioners, the message is clear: environmental law is no longer defined solely by federal agencies. Courts and states are taking the wheel, and attorneys must adapt strategies accordingly. If we elect to see a silver lining, it is that states and courts still have considerable power, but they are under attack. So, maybe we have a slightly tarnished silver lining.
Want to appear on the Emerging Litigation Podcast?
Send us your idea!

It’s possible it could make this man smile. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Tom HagyEditor-in-Chief

Tom is a legal content provider with more than four decades’ experience as a writer, editor, publisher, podcaster, and legal education provider — always producing information and services on emerging areas of litigation. He founded HB in 2008 and CLC in 2012, to provide content for small firms and providers in the litigation space. If you have comments or wish to collaborate, write to him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
December 13, 2025
Ninth Circuit Rejects Religious Accommodation Claim in COVID Testing Case

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Religious Accommodation Claim in COVID Testing Case

This ruling provides helpful clarity for employers—especially in healthcare—who continue to navigate religious accommodation requests post-pandemic.

–Stefani Schwartz

In Detwiler v. Mid-Columbia Medical Center, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought by a healthcare worker who objected to weekly COVID-19 antigen testing despite being granted a vaccination exemption. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead a bona fide religious belief that conflicted with the testing requirement, and that the employer’s accommodation—masking plus testing—was reasonable.

Employment attorney Stafani Schwartz told HB Litigation that this ruling provides helpful clarity for employers—especially in healthcare—who continue to navigate religious accommodation requests post-pandemic. In practice, most litigation in this area turns on what is considered a reasonable accommodation, and how far an employer must go before it becomes an undue burden.

Stefani noted that the Ninth Circuit reinforced several key points for employers:
• A religious objection must be tied to an identifiable and sincerely held religious belief—not personal or philosophical opposition.
• Reasonable accommodations grounded in safety, such as testing or masking, are likely to be upheld when implemented consistently.
• Employers are not required to offer an employee’s preferred accommodation if a reasonable alternative already exists.

Stefani emphasized that for defense counsel, the case highlights the continuing importance of:
• Maintaining clear, consistent policies
• Documenting an interactive accommodation process
• Ensuring all decisions are tied to legitimate business and safety needs

Taken together, the ruling strengthens employers’ ability to defend against religious discrimination claims where a good-faith, reasonable accommodation has already been provided.

November 17, 2025
California AI Hiring Law Takes Effect, Mandating Bias Audits

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

California AI Hiring Law Takes Effect, Mandating Bias Audits

These regulations introduce a new category of potential liability. Employers can no longer focus solely on their own conduct in the hiring process—they must now account for the behavior and impact of the automated tools they rely on.

–Stefani Schwartz

Effective October 1, 2025, California employers using automated decision systems (ADS) in hiring must conduct bias audits under new regulations issued by the Department of Industrial Relations. The law prohibits discriminatory use of AI tools in employment decisions and requires transparency in algorithmic processes. Employers must document compliance and may face penalties for violations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The regulation is part of California’s broader effort to address algorithmic bias and protect workers’ rights in the digital hiring landscape.

Offering a labor and employment defense perspective, employment attorney Stefani Schwartz told HB Litigation News that these regulations introduce a new category of potential liability. Employers can no longer focus solely on their own conduct in the hiring process—they must now account for the behavior and impact of the automated tools they rely on.

Stefani noted that the law also reaches beyond what most people would consider “AI.” ADS is defined broadly enough to include résumé screeners, candidate-ranking software, and even algorithmic tools within platforms like LinkedIn or Indeed. These tools do not need to be abandoned, but employers must rethink how they are deployed and disclosed.

Key steps Stefani says employers should consider now:
• Maintain transparency – Inform applicants when ADS is used and how it influences hiring decisions.
• Screen for bias – Regularly audit tools for disparate impact and adjust criteria to remain skills-focused and compliant.
• Retain human oversight – Use technology as a tool, not a substitute for judgment. Ensure real people review final hiring decisions.

As California moves into a new era of AI oversight, employers who proactively reassess their hiring systems and document compliance will be best positioned to avoid discrimination claims and demonstrate good-faith fairness in hiring.

November 16, 2025
Montana Court Awards $2.9 Million in Fees to Youth Climate Plaintiffs After Landmark Constitutional Win

Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Montana Court Awards $2.9 Million in Fees to Youth Climate Plaintiffs After Landmark Constitutional Win

The constitutional provisions are directly impacted by anthropogenic climate change, and climate change harms the Youth Plaintiffs by harming their physical and psychological health and safety, interfering with family and cultural foundations and integrity, and causing economic deprivations.

–Montana Supreme Court in Held v. State

A Montana District Court recently awarded $2.86 million in attorney fees and $98.7 million in costs to the youth plaintiffs who prevailed in their constitutional climate change case against the State of Montana and other state defendants.

In making this award under the Private Attorney General Doctrine (PAGD), the court emphasized the “exceptional strength and societal importance of the public policies vindicated by this litigation,” noting the substantial harms affecting Montana’s children and the natural environment. The number of beneficiaries was found to include all those protected by rights guaranteed in the Montana Constitution.

The court further found that equity supported the fee award under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), highlighting the disparity between the resources available to the youth plaintiffs—who “suffer the direct impacts of climate change and have limited means to seek redress”—and those of the state defendants, who possess “significantly greater governmental capacity to protect Montana’s natural resources.”

This decision follows the Montana Supreme Court’s December 2024 affirmation of the District Court’s ruling which recognized the Montana Constitution’s protection of the right to a stable climate system. The case was brought by 16 youth plaintiffs who challenged a provision of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) that barred consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews.

The Supreme Court held that the youth plaintiffs had standing to assert their right to a clean and healthful environment and found the MEPA limitation violated that right. The opinion underscored the right’s “forward-looking and preventative” nature, its application to pollutants not fully understood at the time of the 1972 Constitutional Convention, and required that statutes implicating the right undergo strict scrutiny (Held v. State, 2024 MT 312, 419 Mont. 403, 560 P.3d 1235).

The District Court remarked on the need for private enforcement, stating, “The need for private enforcement of the constitutional provisions asserted by Plaintiffs is established by all of the circumstances, including the scientific facts established at trial.” The court explained the broad reach of its ruling. “The number of people standing to benefit from this Court’s decision in this case is the number of persons who benefit from the rights in Montana’s Constitution.”

These findings underscore the significance of the Held v. State case as a major recognition of climate-related constitutional protections at the state level and highlight the vital role of private enforcement in safeguarding environmental rights for future generations.

November 16, 2025
Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyrighted Books Fair Use
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyright Fair Use

By Tom Hagy*

The intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law is rapidly evolving. In recent weeks, courts in the Northern District of California issued contrasting rulings on whether training AI models on copyrighted works constitutes “fair use”—a question with enormous implications for technology companies, publishers, and creators.

Bartz v. Anthropic: Fair Use for Training, Not for Pirated Copies

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court held that using lawfully purchased books to train generative AI models qualifies as “exceedingly transformative” and is protected by fair use. However, the court drew a line at pirated copies, finding that training on unauthorized works constitutes direct infringement.

Key Points:
- Transformative Use: Training AI models on purchased books is considered transformative, as it does not substitute for the original work and serves a new purpose.
- Pirated Works: Use of pirated books for training is not protected; direct infringement occurs at the ingestion stage.
- Implications: The ruling clarifies that the source and licensing of training data matter for fair use analysis.
Kadrey v. Meta: Meta’s Use of Pirated Books Transformative

In Kadrey v. Meta, the court found that Meta’s use of pirated books to train its Llama AI models was “highly transformative” and did not constitute direct infringement. The decision is controversial and likely to be appealed, as it diverges from the Bartz ruling.

Key Points:
- Transformative Purpose: The court emphasized the new and different use of the works in AI training, distinguishing it from traditional copying.
- No Direct Infringement: Despite the use of pirated books, the court found no direct infringement at the ingestion stage.
- Legal Uncertainty: The decision highlights the lack of consensus among federal courts and signals further litigation ahead.
Why These Rulings Matter
- AI Industry Impact: These decisions affect how companies like Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI source and use training data for large language models.
- Copyright Holders: Authors, publishers, and rights holders face uncertainty about how their works may be used by AI developers.
- Litigation Trends: More than 50 AI copyright lawsuits are pending, and courts are increasingly scrutinizing the ingestion and use of copyrighted works in AI training.
- Fair Use Doctrine: The rulings underscore the evolving nature of fair use in the context of transformative technologies.
For those interested in exploring the practical implications of these decisions, the Emerging Litigation Podcast episode “Artificial Intelligence Meets Copyright Law” with Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke provides an excellent discussion. The episode highlights how courts are analyzing AI training as a “transformative use,” distinguishes between legally obtained and pirated training data, and explores how AI outputs could affect fair use outcomes. Phelan and Gehrke offer insights into the balance between AI innovation and protecting copyright holders, emphasizing the importance of compensating creators when their works are central to high-value AI models.

Key Takeaways

Companies will want to ensure that their AI models are trained on lawfully acquired works to minimize legal risk. As for these cases, appeals are almost certain. Of course, attorneys, companies, and developers will want to monitor these and other decisions in this exploding area. They are certain to impact how companies use AI, the liability they will face, and how creators can protect their original works.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com.
September 9, 2025
Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyrighted Books Fair Use
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Federal Courts Issue Contrasting Rulings on AI Training and Copyright Fair Use

By Tom Hagy*

The intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law is rapidly evolving. In recent weeks, courts in the Northern District of California issued contrasting rulings on whether training AI models on copyrighted works constitutes “fair use”—a question with enormous implications for technology companies, publishers, and creators.

Bartz v. Anthropic: Fair Use for Training, Not for Pirated Copies

In Bartz v. Anthropic, the court held that using lawfully purchased books to train generative AI models qualifies as “exceedingly transformative” and is protected by fair use. However, the court drew a line at pirated copies, finding that training on unauthorized works constitutes direct infringement.

Key Points:
- Transformative Use: Training AI models on purchased books is considered transformative, as it does not substitute for the original work and serves a new purpose.
- Pirated Works: Use of pirated books for training is not protected; direct infringement occurs at the ingestion stage.
- Implications: The ruling clarifies that the source and licensing of training data matter for fair use analysis.
Kadrey v. Meta: Meta’s Use of Pirated Books Transformative

In Kadrey v. Meta, the court found that Meta’s use of pirated books to train its Llama AI models was “highly transformative” and did not constitute direct infringement. The decision is controversial and likely to be appealed, as it diverges from the Bartz ruling.

Key Points:
- Transformative Purpose: The court emphasized the new and different use of the works in AI training, distinguishing it from traditional copying.
- No Direct Infringement: Despite the use of pirated books, the court found no direct infringement at the ingestion stage.
- Legal Uncertainty: The decision highlights the lack of consensus among federal courts and signals further litigation ahead.
Why These Rulings Matter
- AI Industry Impact: These decisions affect how companies like Meta, Anthropic, and OpenAI source and use training data for large language models.
- Copyright Holders: Authors, publishers, and rights holders face uncertainty about how their works may be used by AI developers.
- Litigation Trends: More than 50 AI copyright lawsuits are pending, and courts are increasingly scrutinizing the ingestion and use of copyrighted works in AI training.
- Fair Use Doctrine: The rulings underscore the evolving nature of fair use in the context of transformative technologies.
For those interested in exploring the practical implications of these decisions, the Emerging Litigation Podcast episode “Artificial Intelligence Meets Copyright Law” with Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke provides an excellent discussion. The episode highlights how courts are analyzing AI training as a “transformative use,” distinguishes between legally obtained and pirated training data, and explores how AI outputs could affect fair use outcomes. Phelan and Gehrke offer insights into the balance between AI innovation and protecting copyright holders, emphasizing the importance of compensating creators when their works are central to high-value AI models.

Key Takeaways

Companies will want to ensure that their AI models are trained on lawfully acquired works to minimize legal risk. As for these cases, appeals are almost certain. Of course, attorneys, companies, and developers will want to monitor these and other decisions in this exploding area. They are certain to impact how companies use AI, the liability they will face, and how creators can protect their original works.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com.
September 9, 2025
Subway Surfing Suit Against Meta and TikTok: Setting the Stage for Social Media Liability
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Subway Surfing Suit Against Meta and TikTok: Setting the Stage for Social Media Liability

The Legal Battle Over Algorithmic Targeting and Dangerous Challenges

By Tom Hagy*

I will confirm it, not that I will be the first. Without much prompting, teenage boys will do really stupid, really high-risk things. Or, in the minds of teenage boys, really exciting, really entertaining things.

I have stories I can only share now that my parents are no longer alive. I regularly surfed on top of a moving station wagon that my other friend was driving speedily up a pedestrian pathway. I rode my bike at top speed down a hill into a ditch, hoping it would swallow and lock my front wheel, just to see how far over the handlebars I would fly. On my first day ever on skis I jetted straight down an icy hill meant for experts, going as fast as I could – a trip cut short by a collision with a half-ton snow gun that snapped my ski in half. In each case, I suffered not a scratch. At least that I can remember. And I wasn’t one to journal.

Blame it on an undeveloped prefrontal cortex and/or the sweet rush of adrenaline. Either way, the outcome was the same. But with prompting, I would do even more. Now I think, what if I could have shared my feats with thousands or potentially millions of people around the world? Many of them girls! “Has anyone strapped themselves to a rocket recently?” I would have wondered.

Thanks to social media, that is what teenagers have at their disposal today. And that is what inspired a New York teenager to attempt what would end up being his last shot at social media attention and his last act. The lawsuit brought by his mother recently withstood a motion to dismiss, but with some paring. Below are details of that case, the arguments made by the parties, and some notes on other similar cases.

The Subway Surfing Case

On June 27, 2025, the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision in Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd., allowing a wrongful death lawsuit to proceed against social media giants Meta (Instagram) and TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. The case centers on the tragic death of 15-year-old Zackery Nazario, who died while “subway surfing” in Brooklyn—a risky act allegedly fueled by dangerous viral content promoted through algorithmic targeting on these platforms.

Justice Paul A. Goetz’s decision rejected the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the case on several grounds, signaling a potential shift in the landscape of platform liability. Norma Nazario, Zackery’s mother, contends that Meta and TikTok intentionally designed their products to addict young users and promoted hazardous “subway surfing” challenges to Zackery, encouraging participation in deadly trends. The court found these claims plausible, especially given allegations that the companies’ algorithms actively pushed such content to minors who had not even solicited it, potentially exceeding the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The ruling held that Section 230 immunity, often a powerful shield for social media companies, does not necessarily cover claims where platforms are alleged to have played an active role in targeting and promoting dangerous content. The court cited recent precedents, including Anderson v. TikTok, Inc. (3rd Cir. 2024), which recognized that algorithmic amplification of harmful challenges could fall outside Section 230’s scope.

Additionally, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s claims for strict product liability (design defect and failure to warn), negligence, wrongful death, and loss of services could proceed. Claims against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority were dismissed, with the judge finding that Zackery’s own conduct was the superseding cause and that transit agencies had no further duty to warn of the obvious dangers of subway surfing.

Part of a Broader Legal Trend

While the Nazario case has garnered attention for its focus on algorithmic promotion of dangerous challenges, it is not an isolated event. Across the United States and internationally, social media platforms face increasing litigation over their role in allegedly encouraging minors to participate in risky, and sometimes deadly, viral trends.

Other high-profile cases include lawsuits surrounding the so-called “Blackout Challenge,” where children lost their lives or suffered severe injury after participating in asphyxiation games promoted or popularized on social media. In Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals allowed claims to proceed, drawing similar lines between passive hosting of content and active algorithmic promotion to vulnerable users.

Families in multiple jurisdictions have brought wrongful death and product liability actions against platforms for challenges ranging from dangerous stunts to pharmaceutical misuse, with courts increasingly scrutinizing the underlying design and function of recommendation algorithms.

Many cases, like Nazario’s, allege that companies not only failed to curb the spread of hazardous content but also engineered their platforms to maximize engagement among minors, amplifying the reach and appeal of dangerous trends. Plaintiffs have also pointed to internal documents and whistleblower revelations that, they claim, demonstrate the companies’ awareness of the risks to young users.

Arguments in the Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Response

In their motion to dismiss, Meta and TikTok argued:
- Section 230 Immunity: The companies argued that the Communications Decency Act shields them from liability because the content at issue was user-generated, and platforms are protected from claims arising from third-party content.
- No Duty Owed Under Product Liability: They asserted that social media platforms are not “products” under New York law and thus not subject to strict product liability theories.
- First Amendment Protection: The defendants claimed the suit sought to regulate protected speech, which would violate their First Amendment rights.
- Dismissal of All Claims: They requested dismissal of all tort and statutory claims, including those for personal injury, unjust enrichment, and emotional distress.
The plaintiffs countered:
- Active Role and Algorithmic Promotion: Plaintiffs argued that the platforms went beyond mere hosting and played an active, targeted role by using algorithms to push dangerous content to minors. This, they contended, was not protected by Section 230.
- Products Liability Applies: They asserted that, under New York law, digital platforms can constitute “products” when their design and function foreseeably lead to user harm. The court agreed, noting the plausibility of this legal theory.
- First Amendment Not Absolute: Plaintiffs maintained that the lawsuit sought to regulate tortious conduct and negligent product design, not protected speech. The court concurred, holding that whether the companies’ actions were protected or actionable would require further factual development.
- Survival of Key Claims: While some claims (including personal injury and certain statutory violations) were dismissed, the core allegations of strict product liability, negligence, wrongful death, and loss of services survived, ensuring the main case would proceed to discovery.
Zooming Out

As I’ve said, there have been numerous lawsuits against social media companies alleging that their platforms encourage or amplify dangerous behavior, especially among children and teens. Here are some of the most notable examples and trends:
1. Social Media Addiction and Harm MDL
- Thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Meta (Facebook/Instagram), TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, and Discord, alleging that these platforms are intentionally designed to be addictive to children and teens, causing mental health issues, self-harm, eating disorders, and even suicide.
- These cases are consolidated in a multi-district litigation (MDL) in the Northern District of California, with bellwether trials set to begin in 2026.
- Plaintiffs include families of affected children and school districts, arguing that platforms “prioritize engagement and growth over user safety” and “amplify dangerous content that prioritizes engagement over safety.”
1. Viral Challenge Lawsuits
- Subway Surfing Challenge (discussed in this article): The wrongful death lawsuit against Meta and TikTok for promoting subway surfing is part of a broader trend. Multiple lawsuits have been filed after children died or were injured participating in dangerous stunts seen on social media.
- Blackout Challenge: TikTok faces lawsuits after children died participating in the “blackout challenge,” which encourages users to choke themselves until they lose consciousness. A federal appeals court recently ruled that TikTok can be sued for allegedly promoting this challenge through its algorithm.
- Other Challenges: Lawsuits have also been filed over the “hot water challenge,” “Benadryl challenge,” and other dangerous viral trends.
1. Product Liability Theory
- Plaintiffs are increasingly using product liability claims to bypass Section 230 immunity, arguing that social media platforms are “defective products” because their design and algorithms addict users and promote harmful behavior.
- Courts have begun to allow some claims to proceed, especially those focused on platform design rather than specific user content.
1. Government and School District Lawsuits
- Attorneys general in over 40 states have sued Meta, TikTok, and other platforms, alleging they misled the public about the dangers of social media and failed to protect children.
- School districts are suing social media companies for contributing to the youth mental health crisis and increased disciplinary problems.
1. Notable Cases and Rulings
- Snapchat Speed Filter Case: A federal appeals court found that Snapchat could not invoke Section 230 to shield itself from a lawsuit claiming its speedometer filter encouraged speeding, resulting in a fatal crash.
- Buffalo Shooting Case: The estates of victims of the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting sued social media platforms, arguing that their algorithms radicalized the shooter.
Conclusion

The Subway Surfing case not only highlights the tragic consequences of dangerous viral challenges but also signals a shift in judicial willingness to scrutinize the design and operation of social media platforms. As courts allow more claims to proceed past the motion to dismiss stage, discovery will shed further light on algorithmic targeting and the responsibilities of tech companies to protect vulnerable users. The outcome of Nazario v. ByteDance Ltd., alongside similar cases nationwide, will start to shape the future of online safety, platform liability, and regulatory frameworks for years to come.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com.
September 1, 2025
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility

U.S. and UN policies diverge, as litigation over corporate responsibility falters in one state and advances in another.

By Tom Hagy*

The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup.

A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists.

As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles.

The ICJ’s Climate Opinion: A New Legal Standard for Global Accountability

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion that could redefine the legal obligations of nations in addressing climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the opinion affirms that:
- States have a legal duty under international law to prevent environmental harm.
- Countries with higher emissions bear greater responsibility.
- Governments must regulate corporate climate impacts, including emissions and misinformation.
- A healthy environment is a human right, protected under international law.
This opinion doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent, but it sets a powerful normative standard. It will likely influence future litigation, especially in jurisdictions where international law is integrated into domestic legal systems. It also provides a legal foundation for climate activists and affected communities to challenge governmental inaction and corporate misconduct.

Implications for Mass Torts and Litigation

The ICJ’s opinion could bolster mass tort claims against multinational corporations by framing climate harm as a violation of human rights. Plaintiffs may now argue that companies and governments failed to meet international obligations, especially in cases involving vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change.

Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Dismissed: A Setback for Municipal Tort Claims

On August 6, 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP. The city alleged that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change and misled the public about its risks, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and increased flooding.

The court’s decision hinged on several key findings:
- Federal preemption: The judge ruled that federal law governs emissions and climate policy, preempting state tort claims.
- Jurisdictional issues: Some defendants were dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Causation and foreseeability: The court found the city’s theory of liability too broad, noting that climate change involves complex, global factors beyond the scope of tort law.
Implications for Future Litigation

Charleston’s loss is part of a broader trend of municipal climate lawsuits facing procedural hurdles. Courts have struggled with the challenge of attributing specific climate harms to individual companies, especially when those harms are diffuse and cumulative.

However, the dismissal does not necessarily signal the end of climate torts. Plaintiffs may refine their legal theories, focus on narrower claims (e.g., fraud or consumer protection), or pursue litigation in more favorable jurisdictions. The case also underscores the importance of venue selection and the evolving role of federal courts in climate litigation.

Honolulu’s Lawsuit Gains Momentum: A Bellwether for Climate Accountability

While Charleston’s case faltered, Honolulu’s climate lawsuit continues to gain traction. Filed in 2020, the city’s suit targets major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and contributing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Unlike Charleston, Honolulu’s case has survived multiple procedural challenges and is moving toward trial. The city argues that:
- Fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of misinformation.
- The companies’ actions directly contributed to climate-related damages, including coastal erosion and infrastructure costs.
- The defendants should be held liable under state tort law, including public nuisance and failure to warn.
Why Honolulu Matters

Honolulu’s case is widely viewed as a bellwether for climate litigation. If successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits by other municipalities, states, and even private entities. The case also reflects a strategic shift: rather than focusing solely on emissions, plaintiffs are targeting alleged corporate deception and public misinformation.

Trump Administration’s Political Overhaul of Environmental Policy

In August 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that dramatically reshape the federal government’s approach to climate science and environmental regulation. These actions reflect a broader agenda to centralize control over scientific research, dismantle climate protections, and boost fossil fuel development.

Political Control Over Scientific Grants

A new executive order places all federally funded research—including climate science—under direct political oversight. Agencies must now seek approval from political appointees before announcing or awarding grants. Previously awarded grants can be canceled if deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Peer review, long considered the gold standard for scientific integrity, is now advisory and subordinate to political judgment.

This move has raised alarm across the scientific community, with critics warning that it could stifle innovation, politicize research, and undermine the credibility of U.S. science.

Rewriting National Climate Reports

The administration has begun revising past editions of the National Climate Assessment, a key document synthesizing federal climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, announced that previous reports were being “reviewed” and would be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views.

This follows the revocation of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which underpins regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has also dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next climate assessment, raising concerns about transparency and scientific integrity.

Broad Rollback of Climate Protections

The Trump administration has taken sweeping steps to dismantle climate action, including:
- Opening 58 million acres of national forests to logging and development.
- Phasing out FEMA, the nation’s disaster recovery agency, amid predictions of an intense hurricane season.
- Fast-tracking deep-sea mining without environmental safeguards.
- Blocking state-level climate laws, including ESG and carbon emission regulations.
- Ramping up oil and gas production through emergency permitting and deregulation.
- Mass layoffs at NOAA, weakening the country’s ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather.
These actions mark a sharp departure from previous climate policy and have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and international criticism.

Scientific Community Reacts to Trump Administration’s Climate Orders

The Trump administration’s recent executive actions on climate change have sparked widespread concern and condemnation from the scientific community. These measures—ranging from political oversight of research grants to rewriting national climate reports—are seen by many experts as a direct assault on scientific integrity and environmental policy.

DOE Climate Report Sparks Outrage

A Department of Energy report claiming that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” has drawn sharp criticism. The report was authored by a group of climate skeptics, including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

“The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona, described the report as “designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it.” Benjamin Santer, a prominent climate scientist formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called it “a revision of science and a revision of history,” adding, “We have to respond.” Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M, is helping coordinate a rebuttal, saying, “The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

These scientists argue that the report misrepresents decades of climate research and is part of a broader strategy to repeal the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which legally recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public welfare.

Rewriting the National Climate Assessment

Energy Secretary Wright confirmed that previous editions of the National Climate Assessment have been removed from public access and will be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views. Hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition of the report have been dismissed, despite legal obligations under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the assessment to Congress and the president.

This move has raised concerns about transparency and the politicization of climate science.

Undermining Scientific Standards

Critics say the administration’s actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientific foundation of climate policy. The DOE report selectively uses outdated or regionally limited data to obscure global trends, such as rising sea levels and record-breaking temperatures. It introduces misleading terminology—like referring to ocean acidification as “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”—and questions well-established phenomena like Arctic warming and urban heat effects.

The revocation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is framed as a legal correction rather than a scientific reassessment, despite overwhelming evidence of climate-related harm.

In response, scientists across the country are organizing formal rebuttals and public statements, warning that these actions could have long-term consequences for environmental regulation, public health, and the credibility of U.S. science.

Broader Trends in Environmental Mass Torts

These developments reflect several broader trends in environmental and climate-related mass tort litigation:

Shift Toward Corporate Accountability

Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on corporate behavior—especially misinformation, failure to warn, and deceptive marketing—rather than emissions alone. This approach may be more legally viable and emotionally compelling to juries.

International Law as a Litigation Tool

The ICJ’s opinion and similar international rulings are being used to frame climate harm as a human rights violation. This could expand the scope of liability and introduce new legal standards into domestic courts.

Municipalities as Plaintiffs

Cities and counties are leading the charge in climate litigation, often citing local infrastructure damage, public health costs, and emergency response burdens. These cases are testing the limits of tort law and raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and jurisdiction.

Procedural Challenges Remain

Despite growing momentum, climate torts face significant hurdles, including federal preemption, standing, and causation. Courts are still grappling with how to apply traditional tort principles to global, systemic harms.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com. He also insisted *we* include the following acknowledgement: This piece was written with research and drafting assistance provided by Microsoft Copilot™, their AI tool, under the direction, review, editing, and adornment of a human editor — Tom being that human. Also, he wrote this part, in case that wasn’t obvious.
August 8, 2025
Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility
Emerging Litigation PodcastProduced by HB Litigation

Interviews with leading attorneys and other subject matter experts on new twists in the law and how the law is responding to new twists in the world.

Interested in contributing an article? Email us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.

Climate Change Law: Tension Increases Over Governmental and Corporate Responsibility

U.S. and UN policies diverge, as litigation over corporate responsibility falters in one state and advances in another.

By Tom Hagy*

The world’s leaders still don’t agree on what, if anything, to do about climate change – despite mounting evidence that, as a planet, we are in the soup.

A major ruling from the International Court of Justice says states have an obligation to save the planet, as the U.S. president is enthusiastically sprinting the other way, inspiring cheers from his base and jeers from scientists.

As for domestic litigation designed to pin liability on the fossil fuel industry, a case in South Carolina faltered as another in Hawaii is clearing hurdles.

The ICJ’s Climate Opinion: A New Legal Standard for Global Accountability

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a groundbreaking advisory opinion that could redefine the legal obligations of nations in addressing climate change. Requested by the United Nations General Assembly, the opinion affirms that:
- States have a legal duty under international law to prevent environmental harm.
- Countries with higher emissions bear greater responsibility.
- Governments must regulate corporate climate impacts, including emissions and misinformation.
- A healthy environment is a human right, protected under international law.
This opinion doesn’t carry the force of binding precedent, but it sets a powerful normative standard. It will likely influence future litigation, especially in jurisdictions where international law is integrated into domestic legal systems. It also provides a legal foundation for climate activists and affected communities to challenge governmental inaction and corporate misconduct.

Implications for Mass Torts and Litigation

The ICJ’s opinion could bolster mass tort claims against multinational corporations by framing climate harm as a violation of human rights. Plaintiffs may now argue that companies and governments failed to meet international obligations, especially in cases involving vulnerable populations disproportionately affected by climate change.

Charleston’s Climate Lawsuit Dismissed: A Setback for Municipal Tort Claims

On August 6, 2025, a South Carolina state court dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed by the City of Charleston against several fossil fuel companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP. The city alleged that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change and misled the public about its risks, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and increased flooding.

The court’s decision hinged on several key findings:
- Federal preemption: The judge ruled that federal law governs emissions and climate policy, preempting state tort claims.
- Jurisdictional issues: Some defendants were dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Causation and foreseeability: The court found the city’s theory of liability too broad, noting that climate change involves complex, global factors beyond the scope of tort law.
Implications for Future Litigation

Charleston’s loss is part of a broader trend of municipal climate lawsuits facing procedural hurdles. Courts have struggled with the challenge of attributing specific climate harms to individual companies, especially when those harms are diffuse and cumulative.

However, the dismissal does not necessarily signal the end of climate torts. Plaintiffs may refine their legal theories, focus on narrower claims (e.g., fraud or consumer protection), or pursue litigation in more favorable jurisdictions. The case also underscores the importance of venue selection and the evolving role of federal courts in climate litigation.

Honolulu’s Lawsuit Gains Momentum: A Bellwether for Climate Accountability

While Charleston’s case faltered, Honolulu’s climate lawsuit continues to gain traction. Filed in 2020, the city’s suit targets major fossil fuel companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the dangers of fossil fuels and contributing to rising sea levels and extreme weather events.

Unlike Charleston, Honolulu’s case has survived multiple procedural challenges and is moving toward trial. The city argues that:
- Fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of misinformation.
- The companies’ actions directly contributed to climate-related damages, including coastal erosion and infrastructure costs.
- The defendants should be held liable under state tort law, including public nuisance and failure to warn.
Why Honolulu Matters

Honolulu’s case is widely viewed as a bellwether for climate litigation. If successful, it could open the floodgates for similar suits by other municipalities, states, and even private entities. The case also reflects a strategic shift: rather than focusing solely on emissions, plaintiffs are targeting alleged corporate deception and public misinformation.

Trump Administration’s Political Overhaul of Environmental Policy

In August 2025, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders that dramatically reshape the federal government’s approach to climate science and environmental regulation. These actions reflect a broader agenda to centralize control over scientific research, dismantle climate protections, and boost fossil fuel development.

Political Control Over Scientific Grants

A new executive order places all federally funded research—including climate science—under direct political oversight. Agencies must now seek approval from political appointees before announcing or awarding grants. Previously awarded grants can be canceled if deemed inconsistent with the administration’s priorities. Peer review, long considered the gold standard for scientific integrity, is now advisory and subordinate to political judgment.

This move has raised alarm across the scientific community, with critics warning that it could stifle innovation, politicize research, and undermine the credibility of U.S. science.

Rewriting National Climate Reports

The administration has begun revising past editions of the National Climate Assessment, a key document synthesizing federal climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking executive, announced that previous reports were being “reviewed” and would be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views.

This follows the revocation of the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which underpins regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. The administration has also dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next climate assessment, raising concerns about transparency and scientific integrity.

Broad Rollback of Climate Protections

The Trump administration has taken sweeping steps to dismantle climate action, including:
- Opening 58 million acres of national forests to logging and development.
- Phasing out FEMA, the nation’s disaster recovery agency, amid predictions of an intense hurricane season.
- Fast-tracking deep-sea mining without environmental safeguards.
- Blocking state-level climate laws, including ESG and carbon emission regulations.
- Ramping up oil and gas production through emergency permitting and deregulation.
- Mass layoffs at NOAA, weakening the country’s ability to forecast and respond to extreme weather.
These actions mark a sharp departure from previous climate policy and have sparked legal challenges, public protests, and international criticism.

Scientific Community Reacts to Trump Administration’s Climate Orders

The Trump administration’s recent executive actions on climate change have sparked widespread concern and condemnation from the scientific community. These measures—ranging from political oversight of research grants to rewriting national climate reports—are seen by many experts as a direct assault on scientific integrity and environmental policy.

DOE Climate Report Sparks Outrage

A Department of Energy report claiming that global warming is “less damaging economically than commonly believed” has drawn sharp criticism. The report was authored by a group of climate skeptics, including John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

“The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

Joellen Russell, an oceanographer at the University of Arizona, described the report as “designed to suppress science, not to enhance it or encourage it.” Benjamin Santer, a prominent climate scientist formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, called it “a revision of science and a revision of history,” adding, “We have to respond.” Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M, is helping coordinate a rebuttal, saying, “The alternative is to do nothing. I just don’t think I can do that.”

These scientists argue that the report misrepresents decades of climate research and is part of a broader strategy to repeal the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding,” which legally recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public welfare.

Rewriting the National Climate Assessment

Energy Secretary Wright confirmed that previous editions of the National Climate Assessment have been removed from public access and will be replaced with new versions reflecting the administration’s views. Hundreds of scientists working on the sixth edition of the report have been dismissed, despite legal obligations under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to deliver the assessment to Congress and the president.

This move has raised concerns about transparency and the politicization of climate science.

Undermining Scientific Standards

Critics say the administration’s actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the scientific foundation of climate policy. The DOE report selectively uses outdated or regionally limited data to obscure global trends, such as rising sea levels and record-breaking temperatures. It introduces misleading terminology—like referring to ocean acidification as “neutralizing ocean alkalinity”—and questions well-established phenomena like Arctic warming and urban heat effects.

The revocation of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding is framed as a legal correction rather than a scientific reassessment, despite overwhelming evidence of climate-related harm.

In response, scientists across the country are organizing formal rebuttals and public statements, warning that these actions could have long-term consequences for environmental regulation, public health, and the credibility of U.S. science.

Broader Trends in Environmental Mass Torts

These developments reflect several broader trends in environmental and climate-related mass tort litigation:

Shift Toward Corporate Accountability

Plaintiffs are increasingly focusing on corporate behavior—especially misinformation, failure to warn, and deceptive marketing—rather than emissions alone. This approach may be more legally viable and emotionally compelling to juries.

International Law as a Litigation Tool

The ICJ’s opinion and similar international rulings are being used to frame climate harm as a human rights violation. This could expand the scope of liability and introduce new legal standards into domestic courts.

Municipalities as Plaintiffs

Cities and counties are leading the charge in climate litigation, often citing local infrastructure damage, public health costs, and emergency response burdens. These cases are testing the limits of tort law and raising questions about causation, foreseeability, and jurisdiction.

Procedural Challenges Remain

Despite growing momentum, climate torts face significant hurdles, including federal preemption, standing, and causation. Courts are still grappling with how to apply traditional tort principles to global, systemic harms.

*Tom Hagy has produced content for litigators in a variety of formats — news reporting services, conferences, webinars, podcasts, papers, and online research services — for more than 40 years. Wow. That’s longer than is probably healthy. He is founder of HB Litigation™, which is now a brand owned by Critical Legal Content LLC, provider of legal content for clients, which he founded in 2012. Tom can be reached at editor@litigationconferences.com. He also insisted *we* include the following acknowledgement: This piece was written with research and drafting assistance provided by Microsoft Copilot™, their AI tool, under the direction, review, editing, and adornment of a human editor — Tom being that human. Also, he wrote this part, in case that wasn’t obvious.
August 8, 2025