Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Thompson Hine's Christopher Larus Named to Minnesota Lawyer's Inaugural Legal 250
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 20 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Thompson Hine's Christopher Larus Named to Minnesota Lawyer's Inaugural Legal 250
Thompson Hine LLP, a national law firm recognized for its innovative approach to legal services, is pleased to announce that Christopher K. Larus has been recognized in the inaugural edition of Minnesota Lawyer's Legal 250.
Larus is the partner in charge of the firm's Minneapolis office and the practice group leader of its Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice. For more than 25 years, he has helped clients
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 20 -- Thompson Hine, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Thompson Hine's Christopher Larus Named to Minnesota Lawyer's Inaugural Legal 250
Thompson Hine LLP, a national law firm recognized for its innovative approach to legal services, is pleased to announce that Christopher K. Larus has been recognized in the inaugural edition of Minnesota Lawyer's Legal 250.
Larus is the partner in charge of the firm's Minneapolis office and the practice group leader of its Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice. For more than 25 years, he has helped clientsprotect their innovation, trying complex patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and licensing cases. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in courts throughout the country, and in both national and international arbitration.
The Minnesota Legal 250 is Minnesota Lawyer's premier recognition program celebrating the most influential and accomplished attorneys throughout the state.
The publication selected lawyers who have experienced prolonged success and an ability to successfully navigate changing client needs, legal developments, technology, economic environments, and strong community engagement.
The full list can be found here - Minnesota Legal 250 (https://minnlawyer.com/minnesota-legal-250/).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.thompsonhine.com/insights/thompson-hines-christopher-larus-named-to-minnesota-lawyers-inaugural-legal-250/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Sonika Data and Tess Foley Named 2025 Payton and Pickering Fellows
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- WilmerHale, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Sonika Data and Tess Foley Named 2025 Payton and Pickering Fellows
WilmerHale is proud to announce the recipients of the 2025 Payton and Pickering Fellowships.
Counsel Sonika Data has been selected as the firm's Payton fellow. The Payton Fellowship commemorates John A. Payton's commitment to justice, equality and opportunity. Data will spend her fellowship at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in Washington, DC. Founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, LDF is the nation's first and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 20 -- WilmerHale, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Sonika Data and Tess Foley Named 2025 Payton and Pickering Fellows
WilmerHale is proud to announce the recipients of the 2025 Payton and Pickering Fellowships.
Counsel Sonika Data has been selected as the firm's Payton fellow. The Payton Fellowship commemorates John A. Payton's commitment to justice, equality and opportunity. Data will spend her fellowship at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in Washington, DC. Founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, LDF is the nation's first andforemost civil and human rights law organization. LDF's mission is to achieve racial justice, equality and an inclusive society through litigation, advocacy and public education. Data brings to this fellowship her active pro bono practice in the areas of racial justice, criminal justice and immigration law. She has been named to the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, recognizing lawyers who dedicate significant pro bono service to expanding access to justice in the District of Columbia.
Counsel Tess Foley has been selected as the firm's Pickering fellow. The Pickering Fellowship, named in honor of founding partner John H. Pickering, commemorates his lifelong devotion to public interest and pro bono work. Foley will spend her fellowship at the Victim Rights Law Center (VRLC) in Boston. Established in 2003, VRLC is the first nonprofit law center in the nation dedicated to serving the legal needs of sexual assault survivors. Through free legal services, VRLC helps survivors rebuild their lives--protecting their privacy, preserving their employment and housing, safeguarding education records and securing immigration status and victim compensation.
Foley brings to this fellowship her robust pro bono practice, with a focus on immigration, reproductive rights and the representation of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. She was a key member of the trial team honored as Litigation Team of the Year by the Human Trafficking Legal Center for their representation of a survivor of human trafficking in a precedential civil case. Foley also frequently represents survivors of domestic and sexual violence in Massachusetts state court to obtain protective orders.
WilmerHale commends Data and Foley as they embark on their fellowships and continue the firm's tradition of commitment to civil rights and public interest work.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/news/20260519-sonika-data-and-tess-foley-named-2026-payton-and-pickering-fellows
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Hunton Releases Interactive Tracker Mapping AI Legislation
DALLAS, Texas, May 20 -- Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hunton Releases Interactive Tracker Mapping AI Legislation
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has launched an interactive Enacted AI Law Tracker, a new online resource designed to monitor state laws that may be relevant to businesses that procure, deploy, or use artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
Users of the Tracker will be able to view bills passed over time, explore legislation on a state-by-state basis, and filter laws by subject matter, such as transparency, biometric data, generative AI, healthcare,
... Show Full Article
DALLAS, Texas, May 20 -- Hunton Andrews Kurth, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Hunton Releases Interactive Tracker Mapping AI Legislation
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP has launched an interactive Enacted AI Law Tracker, a new online resource designed to monitor state laws that may be relevant to businesses that procure, deploy, or use artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
Users of the Tracker will be able to view bills passed over time, explore legislation on a state-by-state basis, and filter laws by subject matter, such as transparency, biometric data, generative AI, healthcare,and a dozen other topics.
"As lawmakers continue to advance AI-focused legislation, businesses face growing compliance, governance, and operational challenges in the emerging technology space," said Jeffrey Harvey, chair of the firm's global technology, sourcing, and complex contracting practice group. "We hope the Enacted AI Law Tracker will help businesses stay on top of the patchwork of AI legislation that is out there and will serve as a resource to those that are exploring or adopting this emerging technology."
Hunton's highly recognized global technology, sourcing, and complex contracting practice is known for its depth and experience in the areas of technology, outsourcing, and commercial contracts. We help clients negotiate business critical outsourcing and technology deals, technology transactions that support the day-to-day operation of our clients' businesses, and revenue-driving commercial contracts that often link together the intangible world of technology with the more tangible world of product and services management and delivery.
Our work includes drafting and negotiating AI and emerging technology-related agreements, contracts, and licenses, and developing AI decision trees to assist in vetting the risks associated with applying AI to anticipated use cases.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hunton.com/news/hunton-releases-interactive-tracker-mapping-ai-legislation
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting - What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting: What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
The EEOC just sent a game-changing proposal to the White House to end the EEO-1 reporting requirement altogether, according to a May 14 submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This news comes as employers are waiting for the annual EEO-1 reporting portal to open, and we'll now wait to see if it will open at all for this reporting year. Under
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
Trump Administration Seeks to End EEO-1 Reporting: What This Means for Employers + 5 Steps While We Wait for More Info
The EEOC just sent a game-changing proposal to the White House to end the EEO-1 reporting requirement altogether, according to a May 14 submission to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This news comes as employers are waiting for the annual EEO-1 reporting portal to open, and we'll now wait to see if it will open at all for this reporting year. Underthe longstanding requirement, large employers must annually submit employee demographic data broken out by job category to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as by sex and race/ethnicity. The EEOC's proposal to eliminate the requirement will not be made public until it's reviewed by OIRA, but the move signals a potentially big change for covered employers. While it's unclear if or when the proposal will be finalized, and whether it will impact this year's reporting window, here's what we know so far - and five steps you should consider taking now.
What Happened?
Private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors with at least 50 must submit workforce data each year to the federal government during a designated reporting window. The mandatory annual report includes demographic data from the prior year about your employees broken out by job category, as well as sex and race/ethnicity.
We've been expecting the EEOC to announce the reporting window and open the portal any day now. Last year the portal opened on May 20, and employers had about a month to complete the process. But this year's process could be impacted by the agency's new direction.
The EEO-1 report is the most common reporting obligation the EEOC wants to eliminate, but the proposal also seeks to scrap reporting and information collection obligations related to:
* Forms EEO-2 through EEO-5
* Title VII of Civil Rights Act
* Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
* Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
* Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)
We expect to have more details after OIRA completes its review.
What Would This Rollback Mean for Covered Employers?
The annual EEO-1 reporting process is a time-consuming obligation for employers. Filers need to:
* Pick a payroll end date between October 1 and December 31 of the prior year as a "workforce snapshot period"
* Ensure job titles are categorized correctly and consistently
* Give employees an opportunity to self-identify their sex and race/ethnicity - and provide a statement about the voluntary nature of the inquiry
* Designate an employee as the "account holder" who will file the EEO-1 report through the EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System (OFS)
* File on time during a brief window
Notably, this reporting obligation also carries the potential for disclosure risks. Filers should be aware of a recent 9th Circuit decision that required disclosure of certain EEO-1 reports from federal contractors as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. This means employers that previously considered EEO-1 data confidential may need to revisit that assumption.
Eliminating EEO-1 reporting requirements would free up time and reduce exposure risks for employers, but state obligations would not change. Even if the EEO-1 is scrapped altogether, you should check for applicable state demographic and pay data reporting laws and consult with your FP counsel to ensure continuing compliance.
Should You Still Prepare for This Year's Reporting Window?
Yes. Although the EEOC is seeking to end EEO-1 reporting requirements, the proposal is in the very early stages of the process and there are a few more steps before things are finalized.
* OIRA must review the plan before a proposal can be published in the Federal Register.
* Then, the proposal will be open for public comment.
* The government will need to respond to comments and potentially revise the rule before it is finalized.
This process could take months, which means that the EEOC may still open the portal for 2025 reporting in the coming weeks or months. While the agency is not obligated to open the portal by a certain date each year, employers should be ready to comply unless and until you hear otherwise.
What Steps Should Employers Be Taking Now?
Although the future is unclear for EEO-1 reporting, you should consider taking the following five steps now to be ready in case the EEOC opens the portal for 2025 data:
1. Choose a workforce snapshot period: You should select a payroll end date between October 1, 2025, and December 31, 2025. The report must include all employees as of the pay period you choose.
2. Categorize your workforce: Ensure that job titles are categorized correctly and consistently, as each job title should only be associated with a single EEO-1 job category.
3. Let your employees choose: Be sure to give your employees an opportunity to self-identify their sex and race/ethnicity, and provide a statement about the voluntary nature of the inquiry. As with last year, if the data is collected, only binary options for reporting sex will be available on the EEO-1 reporting form.
4. Choose a point of contact: Designate an employee as the "account holder" who will file the EEO-1 report through the EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System (OFS). Note that there are separate instructions for new filers and for those who are changing their point of contact.
5. Track new developments: While we don't know if or when the portal will open, being prepared and tracking updates will help you stay compliant and ready to timely file your reports if needed. Be sure to subscribe to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to keep updated on the latest news.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information. If you have questions about your EEO-1 data or federal or state compliance, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any member of our Government Contracting, Compliance, and Reporting Practice Group.
* * *
Related People
Sheila M. Abron
Partner
803.740.7676
sabron@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Jennifer B. Sandberg
Regional Managing Partner
404.240.4152
jsandberg@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/trump-administration-seeks-to-end-eeo-1-reporting
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Fisher Phillips Issues Insight: FP PEO Snapshot - 4 Things PEOs Should Know About the New DOL Joint Employer Proposal
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
FP PEO Snapshot: 4 Things PEOs Should Know About the New DOL Joint Employer Proposal
The Labor Department's recent proposed joint employer rule is welcome news for the PEO industry. That being said, you've received similar welcome news every other time the DOL went through this same exercise in the past, only to see the helpful guidance unwound by a new administration. Watching the joint employer rule evolve is like watching a very slow and long tennis match with a volley returned every
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 20 -- Fisher Phillips, a law firm, issued the following insight on May 19, 2026:
* * *
FP PEO Snapshot: 4 Things PEOs Should Know About the New DOL Joint Employer Proposal
The Labor Department's recent proposed joint employer rule is welcome news for the PEO industry. That being said, you've received similar welcome news every other time the DOL went through this same exercise in the past, only to see the helpful guidance unwound by a new administration. Watching the joint employer rule evolve is like watching a very slow and long tennis match with a volley returned everyfour years. But while we have the benefit of a helpful rule, PEOs should incorporate the guidance into their risk management strategy. Here's a recap and a review of the four things all PEOs should know.
Quick Recap of New Joint Employer Proposal
The DOL's Wage and Hour Division released a proposal last month outlining a four-factor test to determine when two businesses are liable as joint employers under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA. With no single factor being dispositive, the test considers whether:
* a business hires or fires the employee;
* supervises and controls their work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
* determines their rate and method of payment; and
* maintains their employment records.
The proposal largely mirrors a 2020 Trump administration rule that was subsequently blocked by a court and later rescinded under Biden, though this version places greater emphasis on actual control over merely reserved control which is helpful for the PEO industry. You can read our full recap of the prior rule here.
Top 4 Things PEO Leaders Need to Know
Here's a review of the top four things PEO leaders need to know about this proposal.
The four-factor test plays well when it comes to how PEOs operate.
Three of the four factors in the new test favor PEOs, as long as your service agreements, policies, and practices are managed in a way that aligns with the factors. For example,
* While PEOs need the right to hire and terminate from the standpoint of onboarding and offboarding worksite employees, they generally do not make the decision for the customer.
* Similarly, PEOs don't supervise or control worksite employees to a substantial degree, or set their rate of pay, and it is important the PEO avoid the appearance of doing so.
The PEO's role in these things, or lack thereof, must be made very clear in the service agreement. Your other written materials also must align with the contract on these items.
Marketing related documents can be particularly thorny when it comes to keeping these things in synch because, compared to a contract, they are so informal.
When trying to give a potential customer a brief list of helpful services provided by your PEO, it is very easy to accidentally give the impression the PEO is responsible for things it merely supports by offering tools or guidance to the customer. For example, your service agreement probably says that only the customer is responsible for deciding who is exempt from overtime, even though the PEO may provide guidance or tools for that subject. That is a very important provision. If the sales department's marketing-oriented list of services includes a vague reference to "exempt / non-exempt status" that can work against what the service agreement is trying to do.
Make sure your legal team reviews any marketing materials to make sure they don't inadvertently create exposure.
The "reserved control" wrinkle shouldn't be overblown.
The proposed rule departs from the 2020 Trump administration standard in one notable way: it treats the mere right to control (even if never exercised) as relevant to the joint employer analysis. This is the provision that drew the most attention when the rule dropped, and it's worth understanding why it's there.
The new approach in the rule is likely there to enhance the ability of the rule to survive a challenge in court and not to actually expand joint employer liability. The 2020 rule's strict "actual control" standard was struck down in court, with the judge finding it conflicted with the FLSA. The new language hopefully fixes that problem, while practically speaking not significantly increasing the risk of joint liability. The proposed rule itself supports this directly, stating that actual control is "much more relevant" to the analysis than a mere reserved right.
Common PEO services are expressly insulated from the analysis.
One of the most significant wins buried in the proposed rule is what it excludes. The DOL explicitly states that certain business practices, standing alone, do not make joint employer status more or less likely. That list reads like a PEO service menu:
* providing sample employee handbooks
* offering association health plans or association retirement plans
* providing health, safety, or legal compliance services
* supplying sample workplace policies like anti-harassment programs
The third bullet point is the most useful for PEOs since you often provide all of those services and adversaries often point to them as evidence of joint employer status. The two mentioning "sample" documents are not as helpful because PEOs may do more than just provide samples when they assist customers with things like employee handbooks. But the factors will be helpful in that they acknowledge the difference between providing resources and controlling policy. The association health plan factor is inapplicable.
State law remains the wildcard.
The proposed rule would establish a uniform federal standard for DOL enforcement under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA, which is a welcome upgrade from the current patchwork of circuit-by-circuit tests. But it doesn't preempt state law. California, New York, and several other states apply broader joint employer standards, and PEOs with worksite employees in those jurisdictions will need to continue navigating state-specific analysis.
Some Steps PEOs Should Take Now
* Review service agreements to ensure they align with the proposed rule.
* Audit marketing and website content to ensure it aligns with the way the service agreement describes the PEO's responsibilities.
* Ensure legal counsel is familiar with the rule and how to use it in the PEO context, particularly in big-ticket cases like FLSA collective actions.
* Watch for the next version of the rule and adapt, again.
Conclusion
Fisher Phillips will continue to monitor the DOL's joint employer rulemaking and its implications for the PEO industry. Make sure you are subscribed to Fisher Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information directly to your inbox. For further information, contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the author of this Insight, or any member of our PEO Industry Team.
* * *
Related People
John M. Polson
Chairman & Managing Partner
949.798.2130
jpolson@fisherphillips.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/insights/insights/4-things-peos-should-know-about-the-new-dol-joint-employer-proposal
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Duane Morris Publishes the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, May 20 (TNSrep) -- Duane Morris, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Duane Morris LLP Publishes the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026
CHICAGO--Duane Morris is excited to officially announce the release of the all-new Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026, a desk reference resource designed to help legal professionals and businesses better understand the evolving landscape of class action law in this quickly evolving industry.
What once consisted primarily of isolated disputes over admissions practices or employment discrimination
... Show Full Article
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, May 20 (TNSrep) -- Duane Morris, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Duane Morris LLP Publishes the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026
CHICAGO--Duane Morris is excited to officially announce the release of the all-new Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026, a desk reference resource designed to help legal professionals and businesses better understand the evolving landscape of class action law in this quickly evolving industry.
What once consisted primarily of isolated disputes over admissions practices or employment discriminationhas evolved into a broad and sophisticated field of litigation touching nearly every aspect of institutional governance. Today, colleges and universities face class action claims involving tuition and fee refunds, antitrust allegations, Title IX compliance, financial aid policies, student privacy, labor and employment disputes, disability accommodations, consumer protection statutes, cybersecurity incidents and emerging educational technologies.
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated many of these developments, generating unprecedented litigation related to remote learning, campus closures, contractual obligations and institutional decision-making. At the same time, plaintiffs' attorneys increasingly recognized higher education institutions as uniquely suited for aggregate litigation due to their expansive data systems, substantial assets and policies affecting large populations.
Designed for in-house counsel, defense attorneys, HR professionals and business leaders, the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026 serves as both a strategic road map and a day-to-day reference guide. Written by Duane Morris partners Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley, with contributions from members of the Class Action Defense Team and the Education Industry Group, the new eBook provides a broad array of analysis and information from their extensive experience in defending class action litigation in this industry.
"The modern university now operates in an environment where a single institutional policy can trigger nationwide litigation involving thousands of individuals," explains Maatman. "Educational institutions face legal challenges unlike those confronting any other industry because courts must balance traditional principles of academic freedom and institutional discretion against evolving doctrines of consumer protection, employment law and mass tort procedure."
As educational institutions continue to navigate increasing legal scrutiny and operational complexity, the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026 provides a timely and authoritative examination of the risks, trends and legal principles defining modern education litigation.
Download or bookmark (https://online.flippingbook.com/view/770204034/) the Higher Education Class Action Review - 2026.
* * *
About Duane Morris
Duane Morris LLP provides innovative solutions to today's multifaceted legal and business challenges through the collegial and collaborative culture of its more than 900 attorneys in offices across the United States and internationally. The firm represents a broad array of clients, spanning all major practices and industries. Duane Morris has been recognized by BTI Consulting as both a client service leader and a highly recommended law firm.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.duanemorris.com/pressreleases/duane_morris_llp_publishes_higher_education_class_action_review_2026_0526.html
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Barnes & Thornburg Secures Appellate Win for Mood Rite in Wrongful Death Suit
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, May 20 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Barnes & Thornburg Secures Appellate Win for Mood Rite in Wrongful Death Suit
Barnes & Thornburg won an appellate victory for Mood Rite when a Georgia appellate panel affirmed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the product seller in a wrongful death lawsuit.
On May 15, 2026, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion upholding a DeKalb County judge's ruling that Mood Rite was not liable as a seller or manufacturer of a natural herb known as kratom
... Show Full Article
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana, May 20 -- Barnes and Thornburg, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Barnes & Thornburg Secures Appellate Win for Mood Rite in Wrongful Death Suit
Barnes & Thornburg won an appellate victory for Mood Rite when a Georgia appellate panel affirmed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the product seller in a wrongful death lawsuit.
On May 15, 2026, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion upholding a DeKalb County judge's ruling that Mood Rite was not liable as a seller or manufacturer of a natural herb known as kratomthat plaintiffs alleged caused the death of 27-year-old Brendan Taylor.
"Even viewed in the light most favorable to the Taylors, the evidence in the record does not support the position that Mood Rite is a manufacturer," stated the opinion written by Judge Jeffrey Davis. "Rather, Mood Rite is merely a product seller and not subject to the strict liability standard applied to manufacturers."
In May 2022, Brendan's parents filed a complaint seeking relief for the death of their son, who was a consumer of kratom and died in April 2021. They filed failure-to-warn claims based on theories of strict liability and negligence.
At the time, Mood Rite was represented by another law firm. Unhappy with its representation, Mood Rite decided to change counsel and retained BT based on a referral from a client of Atlanta partner Raanon Gal in February 2025. Discovery in the case had already closed, and the BT Mood Rite litigation team had just 45 days to get up to speed and file all dispositive and expert motions. The team was led by Atlanta partner Ariyike Diggs, and included partner Alejandra Reichard (Indianapolis) and associates Addison Smith (Atlanta) and Erin Gilmore (Los Angeles). Atlanta paralegals Lisa Wilkerson and Sonya McNeil also assisted.
In July 2025, the trial court dismissed the claims, finding that Mood Rite was a mere product seller and not strictly liable as a manufacturer, and that there was no evidence that Mood Rite had any knowledge of the dangers plaintiffs claimed were posed by the kratom Mood Rite sold. The Taylors appealed and, during oral arguments in February 2026, said that Mood Rite had a reasonable duty to make explicit the dangers of the product it was selling, based in part on federal health regulators' advisement about the hazards of using kratom.
Barnes & Thornburg partner Christopher Daniels (Atlanta) joined the Mood Rite litigation team to argue the appeal. Daniels countered that neither Georgia law nor federal law banned kratom as a product, but that Mood Rite explicitly included warnings on its labels that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not approved it for human consumption.
Daniels added that Mood Rite was not aware that kratom products were potentially lethal and, as a seller, had no duty to perform its own probe into the safety of wares it receives and repackages from a manufacturer without altering it.
"There's a serious risk, if we extend strict liability to product sellers, that many companies that simply package and label products could then be strictly liable for a product," he said.
The Georgia appeals court agreed, saying in its opinion: "We find the evidence in the record does not present a genuine issue of material fact as to whether 'by the application of reasonable, developed human skill and foresight,' Mood Rite should have known there was a danger that consuming kratom could result in death such that it needed to issue a warning to that effect on the label of its kratom products."
The decision made headlines in ALM's The Daily Report (https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2026/05/18/despite-sons-death-kratom-company-off-the-hook-in-product-liability-claim-ga-court-of-appeals-rules/?slreturn=20260519083954) and Law360 (https://www.law360.com/articles/2478432/ga-panel-backs-win-for-kratom-seller-in-wrongful-death-suit).
* * *
Original text here: https://btlaw.com/en/insights/news/2026/bt-secures-appellate-win-for-mood-rite-in-wrongful-death-suit
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
