Eike v. Allergan
(7th Cir., filed October 18, 2016): Arguing that the plaintiffs’ speculative claim that they might have paid less for a medication if defendants had packaged it more efficiently does not describe a cognizable injury in fact, and therefore, they lack standing. Accepting plaintiffs’ theory would invite abusive class-action litigation. If plaintiffs’ novel standing theory were accepted, it would encourage lawyers to bring class-action suits over any business practice that could be portrayed as inefficient, based on conjecture that greater efficiency might have translated into savings for customers.
The Court ruled in favor of ATRA’s position on March 6, 2017. The Court reversed the grant of class certification and ordered the case to be dismissed for lack of standing.
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to review a landmark talcum powder case which loosely linked baby powder use to ovarian cancer and resulted in a multi-billion-dollar […]
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling that makes the state even more appealing to trial lawyers by removing the need to prove a business was fraudulent or negligent under the state’s consumer protection law. The Court […]
Excessive litigation costs Illinois businesses more than $18.9 billion annually, write ATRA President Tiger Joyce and John Pastuovic for the Chicago Sun Times.
Caroline Spiezio for Reuters reports on ATRA’s February 2021 legal services advertising report.
Trial lawyers’ spending on covid ads last year surpassed $400,000