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 specializes in defending 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 recent changes in lithium-ion battery class actions, a 10-figure jury verdict against a Fortune 500 company and a notable PFAS appellate win for Lightfoot.
I. Increase in Mass Tort Filings
On the Rise — Lithium-Ion Battery Putative Class Actions
Following a December 2024 recall of the SKIL 40V 5.0Ah lithium-ion battery that affected over 63,000 units in the United States and Canada, a putative class action was filed against SKIL Power Tools’ parent company, Chervon North America in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the suit and filed in St. Clair County, Illinois, adding Lowe’s Home Centers as a defendant. The addition led Chervon to remove the lawsuit to the Southern District of Illinois under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Desparrios v. Chervon North America and Lowe’s Home Centers alleged 10 claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent concealment, strict liability failure to warn; strict liability design defect; negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect and negligence. The lawsuit alleged that “the Products are defective because they can catch fire.” It further stated that consumers suffered injuries and financial losses due to the failure to disclose the dangerous fire hazard associated with the recalled batteries.
Similarly, following a February 2025 recall of the RYOBI 40-Volt Battery-Powered Brushless 21” Cordless Walk-Behind Mowers that affected nearly 250,000 units in the United States and Canada, a putative class action was filed against RYOBI Technologies and its parent company, TTI Outdoor Power Equipment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Lilly v. RYOBI Technologies and TTI Outdoor Power Equipment alleged the same 10 claims and made the same allegation that “the Products are defective because they can catch fire.” It further stated that anyone who purchased the “worthless and dangerous” products suffered damages, including risk of injury, and that the named plaintiff would not have bought the machine, or paid as much for it, had he known of the defect.
Another February 2025 recall of the Swagtron SG-5 Swagger 5 Boost Commuter Electric Scooters that affected almost 18,000 units in total led to a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York. Alvarez v. Hoverton d/b/a Swagtron alleged seven claims for unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, negligent failure to warn, negligent design defect and violation of New York General Business Law § 349. The lawsuit, again, alleged that “the Products are defective because they can catch fire.” It further alleged that the defendant prioritized sales over consumer safety and that the associated risk was “demonstrably avoidable.”
This pattern demonstrates a link between product recalls listed on the Consumer Product Safety Commission website and the subsequent product liability putative class action filings.
Continued Increase in Mass Tort Filings
These putative class actions follow an increasing trend of mass tort actions and multidistrict litigations (MDL) alleging product liabilities. Last year saw the filing of litigation regarding:
- Suboxone Tooth Decay: In re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine/Naloxone) Film Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (filed Feb. 3, 2024)
- Baby Food: In re: Baby Food Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of California (filed April 15, 2024)
These cases gain more plaintiffs as they progress. This year, the heavily publicized Depo-Provera MDL was filed on Feb. 7, 2025, In re: Depo-Provera (Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate) Products Liability Litigation in the Northern District of Florida. The MDL, alleging a link between the birth control injection and meningioma brain tumors, doubled in size in March 2025 alone with 130 total cases, and in April 2025, new lawsuits were filed in Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida and Utah.
II. Product Liability Verdicts Trending Higher
Jury Awards Over $2 Billion in Trial Against Monsanto
On March 24, 2025, a jury in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, ordered Monsanto to pay more than $2 billion to a man who alleged his cancer was caused by the company’s weedkiller Roundup. Experts are now calling Barnes v. Monsanto Company one of the largest single-plaintiff injury verdicts in the state’s history.
John Barnes claimed he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in March 2020 after using Roundup regularly for 20 years. At trial, Barnes’ counsel presented evidence to the jury indicating that Monsanto knew of the cancer risks associated with the weedkiller’s ingredients. The plaintiff’s evidence showed that the company was aware that chemicals in Roundup contained a heighten risk of cancer and that these scientific findings were knowingly suppressed from the public for nearly four decades. Monsanto filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, remittitur, on March 25, 2025.
Monsanto faced over 100,000 lawsuits alleging injuries caused by Roundup. This most notable 10-figure award is the latest in a series of jury verdicts stemming from cases alleging that Monsanto and its parent company Bayer hid the cancer-causing effects of Roundup from consumers. Nonetheless, the company remains committed to trying cases, having secured favorable outcomes in recent jury trials. The largest verdict to date, a $2.25 billion judgment in Philadelphia, was deemed “unconstitutionally excessive” by a judge last year and reduced to $404 million.
III. Important Appellate Ruling Limits to Alter PFAS Litigation
In a monumental decision for PFAS defendants, on April 4, 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus ruling that claims asserted by Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden against DuPont De Nemours and The Chemours Company and Daikin America were entitled to dismissal pursuant to the statute of limitations.
The ruling in Ex parte DuPont De Nemours clearly signals that the continuing tort theory for contamination cases is alive and well. It also provides a case study in utilizing appeals to seek review when a trial court denies a motion to dismiss that includes a dispositive statute of limitations defense.
At base, the Alabama Supreme Court disregarded the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants’ acts constituted a continuing trespass and an ongoing/continuing nuisance, extending the court’s 2021 ruling in Ex parte Abbott Lab’ys that “ ‘[a] cause of action accrues as soon as the claimant is entitled to maintain an action, regardless of whether the full amount of the damage is apparent at the time of the first legal injury.’ ”
Importantly for defendants, the Alabama Supreme Court noted that while it does recognize the theory of continuing tort, it is limited to cases in which a repetitive act occurs or explicit ongoing wrongdoing continues — not, as many plaintiffs routinely assert, when a single act is followed by multiple consequences. To date, no other courts have adopted DuPont, but its clear signal that defendant manufacturers can and should seek to dismiss claims early pursuant to statute of limitations grounds cannot be understated.
McGuireWoods continues to track the adoption and application of similar limitations across the country, as the ruling should see substantial defense costs savings and foreclose additional claims given newly adopted contamination standards.
