Second Circuit Vacates Daubert Exclusions in Acetaminophen MDL 3043
The most consequential plaintiff-side appellate ruling of 2026 landed July 13, when the Second Circuit issued a precedential decision vacating the Daubert exclusions that had doomed In re: Acetaminophen ASD/ADHD Products Liability Litigation, MDL 3043, pending before Judge Denise Cote in the Southern District of New York. The court reinstated three plaintiff general-causation experts and revived more than 550 dismissed cases linking prenatal acetaminophen exposure to autism spectrum disorder and ADHD.
The appellate panel's core holding turns on the line between gatekeeping and adjudication. Judge Cote had excluded all three plaintiff experts after finding their methodologies unreliable; the Second Circuit concluded she had crossed from policing the threshold of reliability into resolving legitimate scientific disputes that belong to the jury. The distinction matters across every MDL where defense teams deploy Rule 702 motions as dispositive weapons rather than filtering tools.
Defendants Kenvue and Walmart filed for en banc rehearing following the ruling. Whether the full court agrees to revisit the panel decision, or lets it stand as circuit precedent, will shape how district courts within the Second Circuit assess general-causation experts for years. Plaintiff counsel handling any consumer-product liability MDL nationally should study the opinion before the next Daubert round.
The Second Circuit's July 13 ruling in MDL 3043 restores the jury's role in resolving disputed science, making blanket Rule 702 dismissals of MDL plaintiffs meaningfully harder to sustain within the circuit.
K.G.M. v. Meta et al.: Social Media Addiction Bellwether Delivers $6 Million
On March 25, 2026, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury returned a $6 million verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta et al.: $3 million compensatory (apportioned 70 percent to Meta and 30 percent to Google) and $3 million punitive. The case is the first bellwether trial in California's coordinated social-media addiction proceedings under the Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP), with more than 2,000 cases awaiting disposition.
TikTok and Snap resolved their exposure before trial. The verdict against Meta and Google sets the damages floor for remaining defendants. Plaintiff counsel managing JCCP inventory should note the 70/30 platform allocation; the jury's implicit finding is that algorithm design and notification architecture contributed proportionally to injury, not merely aggregate time-on-platform metrics. That apportionment logic will be contested aggressively in subsequent bellwethers.
For medical providers treating adolescent patients whose records are material to these cases, lien structuring and expert support on neurodevelopmental harm timelines are already in demand from coordinating firms.
The $6 million K.G.M. verdict establishes a compensatory and punitive baseline across 2,000-plus California social-media cases, with platform-level apportionment emerging as the central contest in future bellwethers.
Haddad v. Lyft Florida: Appellate Court Extends Rideshare Immunity
Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a significant defense-side ruling on May 13, 2026, in Haddad v. Lyft Florida Inc. The court held that Florida Statute section 627.748(18) grants rideshare operators 'very broad' immunity from passenger injury and assault claims, provided the company met the statute's background-check requirements. The ruling is the first appellate-level interpretation of House Bill 1352 and forecloses a substantial category of ride-phase assault and negligent-supervision claims against network companies.
The practical effect for Florida plaintiff counsel is direct: pre-ride and post-ride incidents may retain viable theories, but claims arising from driver conduct during an active trip face a statutory immunity shield the Fourth DCA has now ratified. Counsel should immediately audit active Florida rideshare files to determine whether the incident falls within the HB 1352 ride phase and whether the defendant network company satisfied background-check obligations. Non-compliance with those requirements is currently the clearest avenue around the immunity provision.
After Haddad, Florida rideshare assault claims must be screened for HB 1352 compliance defects before filing; the Fourth DCA has signaled it will enforce section 627.748(18) immunity broadly for operators who met background-check requirements.
Premises Liability: $644 Million in Florida, $71 Million in Maryland
Two premises verdicts this cycle illustrate the upper range of jury exposure for commercial property owners.
In Orange County, Florida, a jury returned a $644,751,855 verdict against the owners and operators of Park Social bar in Winter Park after a patron suffered catastrophic injuries in a staircase fall. The award ranks among the largest single-plaintiff premises verdicts in Florida history. Post-trial motions and an appeal are near-certain, but the verdict signals that Orange County juries will hold hospitality venues to rigorous fall-prevention standards when injury severity is extreme.
In Prince George's County, Maryland, a jury awarded more than $71 million in Godlove Djapa v. the landlord entity after the plaintiff jumped from a second-story apartment window to escape a fire at a negligently maintained complex. Habitability failures and deferred maintenance on fire-safety systems formed the proximate cause theory that moved the jury.
Medical providers and surgical centers treating premises-liability plaintiffs in catastrophic cases should account for extended post-acute rehabilitation, spinal surgery, and orthopedic reconstruction when structuring liens. When the plaintiff is over 65 or on disability, Medicare Secondary Payer obligations require early coordination with plaintiff counsel before any settlement authority is reached.
The $644.75 million Florida verdict and $71 million Maryland award confirm that commercial property owners face severe exposure when structural hazards or deferred maintenance produce catastrophic injuries, and early lien coordination is essential on high-verdict premises files.
Virginia Med-Mal: Robotic Surgery and Nursing Home Verdicts on September 14
Two Virginia verdicts dated September 14, 2026 add to the state's plaintiff-side record in surgical and long-term care settings.
In Prince William County Circuit Court, a jury awarded $2.65 million to a plaintiff who suffered a rectal injury from an incorrect incision during robotic-assisted surgery. Robotic-platform procedures carry distinct liability exposure: limited haptic feedback and the surgeon's console distance from the operative field are recurring fault theories in this category of claim. Expert witnesses who can quantify the divergence between open and robotic operative standards will be critical as robotic-procedure volume continues to rise.
Campbell County Circuit Court returned a $2.2 million verdict against a nursing home for malpractice the same day. Skilled nursing facility litigation in Virginia increasingly centers on staffing ratios, care-plan compliance, and electronic records integrity. Plaintiff counsel can obtain targeted discovery through CMS inspection databases before retaining experts.
The $2.65 million Prince William County verdict underscores that robotic-surgery malpractice claims require specialized expert testimony on platform-specific operative standards, not generalist surgical standard-of-care analysis.
Mass Tort Watch: J&J Talc Bellwethers and Roundup Class Settlement
Johnson and Johnson's talc liability continued generating trial results in 2026. A Philadelphia jury returned a $250,000 verdict ($50,000 compensatory, $200,000 punitive) in the Emerson estate case in February, and a separate $32 million verdict followed on June 26. The $1.56 billion mesothelioma verdict from Baltimore in December 2025 remains the single largest talc award on record. Together, these outcomes sustain bellwether pressure on J&J's remaining case inventory as the company continues seeking a bankruptcy-linked resolution.
In Missouri, a circuit court granted preliminary approval to a $7.25 billion class action settlement resolving current and future glyphosate cancer claims against Bayer in the Roundup proceeding. Final approval was set for mid-2026; the outcome remains pending as of this date. Plaintiff firms holding Roundup files should confirm their clients received proper class notice and assess whether individual opt-out litigation is justified given the claimant's injury staging and cancer type.
With Roundup final approval unresolved and talc verdicts in 2026 spanning $250,000 to $32 million, the open question for inventory managers is whether J&J's bankruptcy strategy or Bayer's $7.25 billion class structure will set the actual per-claimant recovery floor.