[co-author: Sapir Shoshan]
The Product Liability & Mass Tort Monitor is a monthly newsletter delivering critical updates, data insights and actionable strategies for navigating the complexities of product liability and mass tort litigation. McGuireWoods’ team of experienced litigators defends leading companies in high-stakes cases, using a deep understanding of clients’ products, businesses and regulatory environments. The newsletter highlights key data and trends shaping the product liability landscape, offering valuable insights to inform litigation strategies and risk management practices aimed at helping clients stay ahead of evolving challenges and achieve favorable outcomes.
This month’s issue explores the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban of universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA, Inc., and its potential impact on class action lawsuits, and a recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York finding no personal jurisdiction over Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. despite a plaintiff being allegedly injured by Samsung’s product in New York.
I. SCOTUS Decision on Nationwide Injunctions to Affect Class Action Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. __ (2025) on June 27, 2025, held that federal district courts could no longer issue “universal injunctions.” This decision will likely impact class action lawsuits going forward.
The majority opinion, penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the Judiciary Act of 1798 did not authorize federal courts to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, which had become increasingly common over the past few presidential administrations. The Court’s reasoning, in part, was that seeking a universal injunction was a “class-action workaround” — i.e., a way to circumvent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which imposes requirements for when a class of plaintiffs may bring a lawsuit.
The CASA decision leaves open the possibility of still obtaining a broad injunction if— among other avenues — the plaintiffs bring a class action lawsuit under Rule 23. Indeed, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion expressly states how plaintiffs seeking to challenge the legality of a federal statute or executive action may obtain relief that is “statewide, regionwide, or even nationwide” depending on the makeup of the class. This means that plaintiffs challenging government actions and seeking broad relief will inevitably turn to class action lawsuits. This has already started — on July 10, 2025, a federal judge in New Hampshire certified a class of people challenging the executive action at issue in CASA. See Barbara v. Trump, No. 1:25cv244 (D.N.H.).
But reliance on class actions will come with hurdles. First, for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a class, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a constitutionally significant connection between the forum and underlying controversy for each plaintiff, not just for the proposed class as a whole. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Ct. of California, San Francisco Cnty., 582 U.S. 255, 264 (2017). Second, the plaintiffs must satisfy the procedural requirements of Rule 23 to certify a class: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy. With a higher volume of class action lawsuits challenging government action and the resulting challenges that will inevitably come with them, Rule 23 will likely come under greater scrutiny. Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence previewed this, warning district courts to not view CASA as “an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.”
Rule 23 will likely become an important tool to challenge the legality of government actions, post-CASA, so how to analyze Rule 23’s procedural requirements in this context will soon likely be a question before the Supreme Court. The Court has rigorously applied those requirements in private litigation in recent decades. Justice Alito’s concurrence forecasts that at least some Justices may look to further tighten those procedural requirements. Long term, the CASA decision may limit the types of class action cases that can be brought against all types of defendants, including corporate defendants.
If the challenges of bringing a class action lawsuit become too cumbersome to overcome, plaintiffs may turn to multidistrict litigations (MDLs). MDLs, unlike class actions, are not limited or governed by Rule 23. Plaintiffs could opt to bring suit in various federal district courts across the country, petition the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to put those similar lawsuits into an MDL and obtain broad relief through the MDL judge. This alternative route, however, is significantly more burdensome on the plaintiffs as they must file lawsuits in each jurisdiction — therefore, they likely will not choose this avenue absent a significant narrowing of Rule 23.
II. SDNY Case Demonstrates Implications of Marketing Decisions on Personal Jurisdiction
In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court held that specific personal jurisdiction existed over Ford in Montana and Minnesota despite the fact that Ford itself did not sell the particular vehicles at issue in those states. The Supreme Court held that marketing those products to those states was sufficient to support specific jurisdiction. A recent decision by U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York in Lewis v. Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Case No. 23-cv-6643, emphasizes how corporate defendants can still avoid personal jurisdiction under the Ford ruling.
On July 2, 2025, Judge Failla dismissed a lawsuit against Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The New York plaintiff had alleged that, while charging her battery-powered scooter, a fire ensued, causing her injury. She claimed the allegedly defective battery inside the scooter was manufactured by a Samsung entity.
Samsung is the world’s largest manufacturer of lithium-ion battery cells for electric bikes and scooters. More than 65,000 bikes equipped with these cells are used in New York City. Samsung is incorporated and has its principal place of business in South Korea, not New York, has no offices in New York, and is not registered to do business there. Thus, the court found that because Samsung could not be rendered essentially at home in New York, there was no general personal jurisdiction.
The court also found a lack of specific personal jurisdiction over Samsung. It held that Samsung did not “transact business” as required under New York’s long-arm statute. The court explained that New York courts define transacting business to be “purposeful activity.” Under that definition, even though Samsung held 31% of the market share and had approximately 65,000 bikes in New York, because Samsung, as a supplier and not an end-use manufacturer, did not distribute or sell battery cells directly into New York or direct its business to New York in any purposeful way, it could not be subject to specific jurisdiction under the long-arm statute.
The court also found that the plaintiff’s cause of action did not arise from Samsung’s transaction of business in New York. Because the plaintiff did not allege that she purchased the battery itself in New York, she could not prove her cause of action arose from a New York transaction.
Last, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery — despite her claim that she had no ability to show whether the Samsung battery was purchased in New York. The court found that that plaintiff lacked a “threshold showing” that would warrant jurisdictional discovery because the plaintiff pointed only to Samsung’s market share and prevalence of e-bikes in New York City. Most importantly, Samsung had filed a declaration asserting it had no distributors in the United States or serving the New York market and that it did not market its batteries in New York. Given the court’s finding that no personal jurisdiction existed under New York’s long-arm statute, it did not reach the question of whether exercising jurisdiction violated due process.
The Samsung case demonstrates that if the defendant can show it made no effort to purposefully avail itself to a jurisdiction, for instance that it did not market the specific product at issue to the state, it can potentially avoid jurisdiction in that state for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ford and Samsung emphasize the importance of being careful as to what jurisdiction to market certain products, as that marketing could subject a company to personal jurisdiction.
