United States of America

Uber is facing one of the largest waves of passenger sexual assault lawsuits in U.S. history. Survivors across the country allege that Uber drivers sexually assaulted them and that the company is legally responsible because it failed to screen drivers properly, ignored prior complaints, and did not implement basic safety measures.

These claims are now consolidated in In re: Uber Technologies Inc., Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, MDL No. 3084, in the Northern District of California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized these lawsuits because they share common factual questions about Uber’s knowledge of sexual assault reports, driver screening, driver training, and safety measures.  This is not technically a class action lawsuit. It is an MDL where the cases are consolidated for discovery, but each victim maintains her own claim.

As of June 2026, more than 3,000 plaintiffs have joined the federal MDL, with hundreds more cases still pending in the California coordinated proceeding. The first MDL trial began in January 2026, and the jury returned an $8.5 million verdict in early February. Our lawyers believe these are exceptionally strong cases. The evidence points to a pattern: repeated warnings about dangerous drivers, no action from Uber, and preventable assaults that followed.

This page provides updates on Camp Lejeune lawsuits. Our lawyers are still working to give the latest update on the litigation, even though we are no longer taking new cases. Why? Because there is little information out there, and we are staying with victims, including those we do not represent, until the end.

We have also recently reopened the comments below to answer any questions you may have or simply give you a chance to share your thoughts.

Latest Camp Lejeune Lawsuit Updates for 2026

Between 2013 and 2024, contaminated Olympus duodenoscopes infected hundreds of patients at hospitals across the United States. At least 35 people died. The infections were caused by dangerous, drug-resistant bacteria that were extremely difficult to treat. The patients had gone into the hospital for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures involving the bile ducts or pancreas, including gallstone evaluations, pancreatic biopsies, and bile duct imaging. Some came out with infections that damaged organs, required months of intensive care, or proved fatal.

The remarkable part is not simply that it happened. Medical devices fail. Infections occur. What makes the Olympus duodenoscope litigation extraordinary is what plaintiffs allege Olympus knew. Olympus knew its scopes could not be reliably cleaned. Olympus knew that bacteria were surviving the reprocessing process and spreading from patient to patient. Olympus knew that patients were dying. And for years, the company failed to respond with the urgency patient safety required.

This page explains what went wrong, why it went wrong, and the legal options available to patients and families harmed by contaminated Olympus scopes. It is written for people who want to understand not just the claims being filed, but the science, the regulatory failures, and the corporate decisions that turned a solvable engineering problem into a public health catastrophe.

Breast mesh lawsuits allege that some manufacturers promoted or allowed their mesh products to become widely used in breast reconstruction, augmentation, and revision procedures despite the fact that FDA has not cleared or approved any surgical mesh product for use in breast surgery. The FDA has specifically stated that the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh in breast surgery, including augmentation and reconstruction, has not been determined.

These internal bra lawsuits allege that manufacturers of products such as AlloDerm, GalaFLEX, Phasix, AlloMax, FlexHD, Strattice, and DuroSorb marketed their devices for breast reconstruction, augmentation, and revision surgeries even though those breast-specific applications had not been adequately studied or cleared by the FDA. Patients were not warned. Surgeons were not given enough information. So when complications developed, including infection, mesh failure, chronic pain, implant loss, breast deformity, and the need for additional surgery, many women had no reason to connect their injuries to the mesh product placed inside them.

This page explains the internal bra mesh lawsuit. Our lawyers talk about what the legal claims are, who may be eligible, what complications may qualify, how to identify your mesh product, what evidence matters, and what these cases may be worth.

The Bard PowerPort (“BardPort”) is a port catheter device implanted just under the skin to allow for easy attachment to a catheter for the intravenous delivery of fluids or medication.

The Bard PowerPort has inherent design and manufacturing flaws that make the device prone to fracturing and migrating out of position. This can cause severe injuries, including internal vascular damage.

Individuals who suffered injuries due to a defective Bard PowerPort device are now bringing product liability lawsuits against the manufacturer of the PowerPort implants. Our firm is currently accepting new cases from anyone who had a Bard PowerPort port catheter device implanted and was injured due to a fracture, migration, or other implant failures.

Our lawyers are handling AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits around the country.

This page provides the most recent news and updates on the AFFF firefighting foam class action lawsuit and our prediction of the settlement amounts that plaintiffs with AFFF cancer lawsuits can expect to receive. You will not get more updated news on the AFFF litigation anywhere else.

Our AFFF firefighting foam lawyers believe the defendants will settle most of these lawsuits this year (2026) before a single trial.  Why? They will follow the same pattern as the water contamination lawsuits they settled for billions of dollars.  In those cases, we saw the defendants’ apparent preference for settlement over the uncertainties of a trial.  This makes sense; the AFFF lawsuits are strong cases.

Artificial intelligence has changed how people create, edit, and distribute images. But it has also opened a dangerous new frontier for exploitation and abuse. One of the most alarming developments is the rise of AI-generated sexual deepfakes: fake images or videos that can make it appear as though a real person was nude, sexualized, or involved in conduct that never happened.

The Grok deepfake lawsuit is one of the clearest early tests of whether AI companies can be held legally responsible when their tools generate or enable nonconsensual sexual images. These claims are not just about bad users. They are about product design, warnings, safeguards, profit, notice, and whether a company can release a powerful image-generation tool into the world and then blame victims when the predictable abuse occurs.

If your image, your child’s image, or someone you love was used in an AI-generated sexual deepfake, treat it like evidence in a serious civil case. Because it is. Screenshots help, but URLs, account names, timestamps, takedown requests, medical records, school records, employment records, and platform responses can all help. You do not need every piece of evidence to call, but the more we can preserve, the stronger the case may be.

Our lawyers are handling Similac and Enfamil infant formula lawsuits for families whose premature babies suffered or died from necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) after taking one of these formulas. Our law firm is reviewing NEC lawsuits in all 50 states.

Medical research links cow milk-based infant formulas such as Similac and Enfamil to a dangerous neonatal medical condition known as necrotizing enterocolitis. These newborn NEC formula lawsuits make many allegations. But at their core, they allege that the makers of these formulas knew of the risk of NEC and did nothing to warn families and give them a choice.

If your premature baby was diagnosed with NEC after being given Similac or Enfamil formula, you may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit against the formula companies and receive financial compensation for the harm that was done to your child.

Our lawyers are investigating gambling addiction lawsuits involving DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, ESPN Bet, Bet365, Fanatics Sportsbook, Hard Rock Bet, and other online betting platforms. The core allegation is that these companies had the data to see compulsive gambling behavior and, instead of slowing users down, kept pushing them with bonus bets, deposit matches, push notifications, VIP hosts, profit boosts, same game parlays, microbets, and personalized offers.

If you or your child suffered serious harm from online sports betting addiction, the first question is not whether gambling was legal. The first question is whether the platform used design, data, and marketing to keep a vulnerable user betting when a responsible operator should have stepped in.

If you or someone you love has suffered severe financial and emotional harm because of addiction to online gambling or sports betting, contact our lawyers at 800-553-8082 or get a free, no-obligation online consultation.

Contact Information