Tuesday, August 18, 2026

Zantac Intake Leads a Concentrated Filing Day

Filing activity concentrated in established intake channels, with Zantac Products Liability Litigation (2924) drawing 26 filings, all from Keller Postman LLC, in a transfer-in and housekeeping stream rather than a revival of the dismissed federal merits docket. Uber Technologies, Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation (3084) followed with 12 filings, led by eight from Nachawati Law Group PLLC and four from Chaffin Luhana LLP. Municipal-water claims kept Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation (2873) at nine filings as Napoli Shkolnik filed two and Keefe Law Firm LLC filed one. Social Media Adolescent Addiction Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (3047) posted six filings through Levin Papantonio and Russell W Lewis IV Attorney at Law, while Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Products Liability (Gastroparesis) Litigation (3094) added four evenly split between Nigh Goldenberg Raso Vaughn PLLC and Seeger Weiss. See the full filing feed and firm-level breakdowns here.

Meta Youth-Harms Trial Opens

Opening arguments began Aug. 18 in the four-state federal trial against Meta, bringing youth-design and child-data claims into a live evidentiary contest alongside Social Media Adolescent Addiction Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation (3047). California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey are trying the first case arising from the broader 29-state action accusing Meta of designing Facebook and Instagram to maximize young users’ engagement while unlawfully collecting children’s data. The first federal trial forces the parties to test evidence concerning recommendations, autoplay, infinite scrolling and notifications rather than litigating solely through pleadings and threshold appeals. The court has not determined liability or remedies, but its treatment of platform-design proof will sharpen the leverage and discovery stakes across the youth-harms litigation.

Australian PFAS Case Puts 3M Knowledge at Issue

Australian Federal Court pleadings highlighted Aug. 18 allege that 3M concealed for decades the environmental and health risks associated with PFAS firefighting foam used at 28 Australian Defence bases. The Commonwealth seeks more than A$2 billion for investigation, management and remediation costs in its case against 3M and 3M Australia. The allegations focus on claimed withholding of risk information and safety representations; they remain unproven and do not constitute a liability finding. Still, the asserted corporate-knowledge record bears directly on warning, disclosure and remedial-cost theories confronting parties in Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation (2873).