HB Litigation News

Blog

  • The Cloud: Selected Benefits, Risks, and Insurance Coverage Issues (Part 1) — Barnes & Thornburg

    Cloud Risk: Do You Transfer Liability Along with Data?

    Many of us were using data clouds before we even knew what they were. Now, while most of us are comfortable with the concept, we may not be comfortable knowing who is liable when data is lost, damaged or breached. It’s not a given that your cloud provider absorbs any liabilities, and it’s not a given they can even afford the liability should it arise. Below are quotes from an article by Scott Godes, Kara Cleary, and Heidi Fessler of Barnes & Thornburg LLP on the subject, and a link to their complete article. 

    Godes, Cleary, and Fessler list several cloud-related risks: data breaches, data loss, interruption of access, compromised credentials and broken authentication, and denial of service.  But two other categories for concern are: 

    #1. BYOC, or Bring Your Own Cloud. Employees may be innocently using productivity applications that store work data on non-company clouds, in effect, “bringing their own clouds” to the workplace.

    #2. Multi-Tenancy. This involves risks posed when unrelated cloud users are sharing the same computing resources. 

    “Both the cloud provider and the user must be aware of system and data security to prevent a breach in the security. In addition, when a risk is realized, it may not always be clear who is at fault for the system or security failure.

    “There are a lot of misconceptions around the cloud and liability,” the Barnes & Thornburg attorneys write. 

    “Many companies assume that along with the transfer of their data, they have also transferred their risk to the cloud provider,” they say. “Absent a clear agreement that shifts liability to the cloud provider, the practical reality is that in most cases, there’s very little protection in terms of liability with cloud providers, unless parties are willing to engage in protracted litigation to determine otherwise. The shifting of liability is not nearly as easy as the transfer of data and often it may be the case that the responsibility for a data breach rests with the party that collected and maintained the data originally. Perhaps the most notable exception has been in the healthcare industry, where companies providing support often are classified as ‘business associates’ under HIPAA and might be subject to the same obligations for protecting data as the entity with the original patient relationship. Even here, one could argue that liability transfer does not occur, but rather a liability expansion that includes the cloud provider.” 

    Read the complete article, the first in a series, on the Barnes & Thornburg blog.

  • Anderson Kill’s 5th Annual Cyber Insurance Recovery Conference

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]Recent news of “Collection 1”, a cache of sensitive data now appearing for sale on the dark web and comprised of an astonishing 773 million records, is a grim reminder of the scope of cyber perils for most.  Last year’s staggering tally of serious data breaches and theft coupled with a spate of new legislation for companies gathering, hosting and selling consumer data means policyholders must rise to the challenge.  New state legislation compounds an already daunting federal and international regulatory landscape, and regulatory compliance will be a must to deal with the attendant fines, penalties and consumer claims that non-compliance can trigger.  New technology also continues to drive the evolving conversation about the legal relationships between parties transacting business electronically.  Risks range from anonymity that raises jurisdictional and collection issues to “immutable” record keeping that creates a permanent, public record of transactions. –Anderson Kill [/one-half]

    Find out more about this complimentary seminar from Anderson Kill here!

  • Spotify Tells EU Apple is Hampering Competitors as Apple Music Surpasses Spotify in U.S. — MoginRubin

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    “Apple Music recently surpassed Spotify in the U.S. market, according to the Wall Street Journal, signing up 28 million subscribers compared to Spotify’s 26 million. Spotify continues to have more total subscribers, however.

    “Spotify Founder and CEO Daniel Elk took to the company blog to make his case, saying, “Apple operates a platform that, for over a billion people around the world, is the gateway to the internet. Apple is both the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store—and a competitor to services like Spotify. In theory, this is fine. But in Apple’s case, they continue to give themselves an unfair advantage at every turn.”

    “In a recent statement, Apple says it revolutionized the distribution of music with iTunes, and did the same thing with the App Store, something that has created “many millions of jobs” and, it says, generated more than $120 billion for developers and new industries.”

    Read the complete post on the MoginRubin Blog here!

    [/one-half]

  • Philadelphia Jury Hits J&J with $120M Award in Mesh Injury Case — Law360

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    “Jurors credited claims from Susan McFarland that the negligent design of a mesh implant she received in 2008 caused the product to saw through the soft tissue in her pelvis and become exposed in her vagina. She was eventually forced to undergo a second surgery to remove a portion of the implant.

    “The pain she’s been left with as a result of the complications, she says, has prevented her from having sex with her husband for the last 10 years.

    “This is the second time jurors have been asked to determine whether McFarland and her husband should be awarded damages for injuries she attributes to alleged defects in a so-called TVT-O implant she received to treat urinary stress incontinence.”

    Read the complete article on Law360 here. [/one-half]

  • Top Class Actions: Vaccine Litigation Case Roundup

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]There have been numerous lawsuits filed alleging injuries caused by the shingles vaccine Zostavax. Cases have stated they were not warned of the adverse side effects of the vaccine alleging it caused the diseases it is meant to prevent, among other things.

    Here is what the CDC says to consumers: “Your risk of shingles and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) increases as you get older. CDC recommends that people 60 years old and older get shingles vaccine (Zostavax®) to prevent shingles and PHN. Shingrix (recombinant zoster vaccine) is the preferred vaccine, over Zostavax® (zoster vaccine live), a shingles vaccine in use since 2006. Zostavax may still be used to prevent shingles in healthy adults 60 years and older. For example, you could use Zostavax if a person is allergic to Shingrix, prefers Zostavax, or requests immediate vaccination and Shingrix is unavailable. Zostavax (zoster vaccine live) was licensed by the FDA in 2006. This vaccine reduces the risk of developing shingles by 51% and PHN by 67%. It is given in one dose as a shot, and can be given in a doctor’s office or pharmacy.“

    Read more: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/zostavax/index.html

    The vaccine is produced by Merck & Co.  Their product information can be found here: https://www.merckvaccines.com/Products/Zostavax

    Here is a roundup of the cases filed.

    [/one-half]

    1.Husband and Wife File Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit 

    “A North Carolina husband and wife recently filed a new Zostavax shingles vaccine lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., alleging the vaccine caused serious side effects.

    “The plaintiff, Cecilia S., says she was inoculated with the Zostavax vaccine on March 5, 2017, in order to prevent shingles (or herpes zoster). Unfortunately, the day after receiving this vaccine, Cecilia alleges she suffered from a number of problems, including herpes zoster, cellulitis, and postherpetic neuralgia.”

    2. Zostavax Lawsuit Says Vaccine Caused Shingles

    “West Virginia patient has filed a Zostavax lawsuit claiming the shingles vaccine gave her shingles instead of preventing her from getting it.

    “Shingles is a rash caused by a virus, and can have lasting effects, according to Science News. Shingles is more common in older people, and recently, Pharmacy Times reported that there has been a push to increase vaccination rates.”

    3. Can You File a Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit?

    “Some patients have come forward with reports of major complications after treatment with Zostavax, a popular shingles vaccine—and some have even filed a shingles vaccine lawsuit over these Zostavax side effects.”

    4. No Warning of Severe Reactions to Shingles Vaccine, Couple Claims

    “A couple from Illinois alleges they are suffering from severe reactions to shingles vaccine, complications that pharmaceutical company Merck allegedly failed to warn about.

    “The couple filed legal action after discovering other patients had reported similar adverse vaccine reactions soon after getting the Zostavax shot.

    “Plaintiffs Victoria and Earl V. filed this Zostavax lawsuit alleging Victoria developed shingles, or herpes zoster, despite having been vaccinated against it.”

    5. Lawsuit Alleges Hearing Problems Due to Zostavax Shingles Vaccine

    “Plaintiff Kim M. is the latest to lodge a lawsuit against Zostavax maker Merck and Company, arguing that the shingles vaccine causes preventable and dangerous Zostavax side effects such as hearing loss. She argues that she might have made a different decision about getting the shot if she had known about the risks.

    “The plaintiff alleges that she received the Zostavax vaccine for regular health purposes and prevention of shingles in February 2016 while a resident of California.”

    6. Lawsuit Alleges Shingles Vaccine Adverse Effects are Permanent 

    “A couple has filed a lawsuit alleging they suffer from shingles vaccine adverse effects.

    “Plaintiffs Kathleen H. and Joseph W. say Kathleen received the Zostavax vaccine in 2017 for the prevention of shingles, medically known as herpes zoster.

    “They allege she suffered severe side effects from the inoculation, including a stroke, physical limitations, mental and emotional distress and severe, permanent personal injuries.”

    7. Common Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Complaints Named in New Lawsuit

    “The Zostavax shingles vaccine emerged on to the market as a new option for people at risk for developing shingles to guard against it. The CDC recommends that individuals aged 60 and older get the shingles vaccine whether or not they remember having had chicken pox previously in their life. According to research studies, more than 99 percent of Americans 40 and beyond have gotten chickenpox even if they don’t remember getting the disease.”

    8. Growing MDL Alleges Serious Zostavax Shingles Vaccine Reactions

    “Merck & Co. is facing a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL) consisting of similar claims alleging patients developed serious side effects from the company’s Zostavax shingles vaccine.

    “One of the most recent Zostavax shingles lawsuits was filed by a woman from Tennessee, who alleges Merck failed to disclose the full scope of potential vaccine reactions.”

    9. Zostavax Lawsuit alleges Vaccine caused Permanent Cardiovascular Complications 

    “This Zostavax lawsuit is joining a growing multidistrict litigation (MDL), which consists of similar claims alleging Merck failed to warn them against the full severity of the potential side effects associated with their shingles vaccine.

    “Plaintiff couple Terrance and Brenda O. conjointly filed this Zostavax lawsuit, stating the side effects of the shingles has permanently impacted their marriage and their quality of life. Like numerous other patients in the United States, Terrance says he was prescribed the Zostavax injection to prevent shingles soon after he turned 60.”

    10. Lawsuit Claims Shingles Vaccine and Eye Problems Connection

    “Many consumers have already come forward to allege a connection between the Zostavax shingles vaccine and the development of shingles itself.

    “However, more patients are now arguing that the shingles vaccine and eye problems is another troubling connection about which the public is not aware.”

  • The Need for Real MDL Rules Will Only Grow More Acute — Drug and Device Law Blog

    By Bexis 

    [one-half-first].[/one-half-first] [one-half]”In the ensuing procedural gamesmanship, plaintiffs are in the process of losing one of the main ways they gamed the system to keep diverse cases in state court – the so-called ‘forum defendant rule’ whereby even a diverse action could be kept in state court by the presence of defendant domiciled in the plaintiff’s chosen forum. The forum defendant rule applies only to parties ‘properly joined and served,’ and technologically-savvy defendants have discovered that, by monitoring electronic dockets, they can remove diverse cases faster than plaintiffs can serve forum defendants. We call this ‘pre-service,’ ‘snap,’ or ‘wrinkle’ removal, and we’ve chronicled (and advocated) its rise since 2007.”

    Read the complete post by Bexis on Drug and Device Law Blog here. [/one-half]

    This is an excellent blog. One of my favorites. It’s unapologetically defense-oriented, of course. A phrase like “gamed the system” is practically an invitation for rebuttal! So if you would like to respond, rebut, or rebuke, please write to us at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. –Tom Hagy, HB

  • Product Liability in the Internet of Things — Schiff Hardin Product Liability & Mass Torts Blog

    [one-half-first]

    Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash [/one-half-first] [one-half]”Combining a physical object and an intangible technology also creates a novel issue when it comes to strict product liability principles, which typically hold that a product manufacturer may be strictly liable for a product’s defect. The first task in a strict product liability case is to identify the product. In the context of a device that has no internet connectivity, the answer is straightforward. If a ladder is defective and causes an injury, the ladder’s manufacturer may be held strictly liable because a ladder is the product. But when it comes to IoT devices, the line may be blurred. Almost always, the software part of the IoT device is ‘manufactured’ by a separate entity from the entity that manufactures the physical object. If the IoT device proves to be defective, the question becomes which entity may be held strictly liable.”

    Read the complete post by Schiff Hardin’s  Gregory Dickinson & Jeffrey D. Skinner  here. [/one-half]

  • National Geographic Disclosed Customer Info, Class Action Says — Top Class Actions Blog

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half]

    “The National Geographic class action states that prior to and at the time that he subscribed to the magazine, the company did not notify him that it discloses the personal reading information of its customers.

    “Markham also claims that he wasn’t provided with any written notice that National Geographic makes a practice of renting, exchanging, or otherwise disclosing personal reading information to third parties, and provides no means of opting out.

    “However, the National Geographic information disclosure class action lawsuit says that since subscribing to National Geographic and between Mach 26, 2016 andJuly 30, 2016, National Geographic disclosed Markham’s personal reading information to data aggregators, data appenders, and/or data cooperatives.”

    Read the complete post by Top Class Actions Editor Emily Sortor here.

    [/one-half]

  • A Generic Drug Failure to Warn Claim? –Michelle Hart Yeary

    [one-half-first][/one-half-first] [one-half] “Rather than focusing on what plaintiff’s off-label marketing claim really was – a claim that defendant’s label should have contained different information or warnings about off-label uses – an impliedly preempted claim, the court got distracted trying to fit the case in under Bausch and started talking about parallel violation claims.

    “The court found that because plaintiff was alleging a violation of federal regulations, his claims “run parallel to [defendant’s] state law duties,” and thus were not preempted. The problem with this is that Mensing is not an express preemption case.  It was an implied preemption case, and the district court had no business applying ‘parallel claim’ analysis to implied preemption, where a ‘parallel claim’ exception does not exist.  It makes no difference whether plaintiff’s off-label promotion claim is ‘parallel’ to federal regulations, defendant could not have offered any different warning so any claim that the warning or information it provided was inadequate is preempted under Mensing.  The court was trying to fit a square peg into a round whole – and the only way that works is to cut off the corners.”

    Read the complete post by Dechert’s Michelle Hart Yeary here!

    [/one-half]

  • One Stock for the Coming Marijuana Boom, Says The Motley Fool

    “This legal pot stock could be like buying Amazon for $3.19.”


    “Cannabis legalization is sweeping over North America – 10 states plus Washington, D.C., have all legalized recreational marijuana over the last few years, and full legalization arrived in Canada in October 2018. Legal marijuana is worth an estimated $50 billion for the U.S. today. And since experts have projected the U.S. industry to skyrocket to $80 billion by 2030, it’s time for investors to start paying attention. Because whether or not you’re planning on ingesting any THC, you can’t deny the monumental investing opportunity that a potentially $80 billion industry represents.” –Grace Phillips, in an article for The Motley Fool