On January 16th, 2026, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Durnell v. Monsanto Co., a landmark case that has the potential to reshape one of the largest mass tort litigations in American history. Bayer AG (“Bayer”), the German pharmaceutical and agrochemical giant that acquired Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) in 2018, has faced over 200,000 claims alleging that its widely used Roundup weedkiller causes cancer, some such claims predating the acquisition. (David A. Lieb, AP/STAT News). The central question before the Court now is whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state-law failure to warn claims when the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has approved a pesticide’s label without requiring a cancer warning. (LDM Law). Put simply, after the EPA has approved a label lacking a cancer warning, can failure to warn claims still be brought? This post will examine the history of the Roundup litigation, analyze Bayer’s use of the preemption argument and its potential effects on consumer protection, and consider the implications for American agriculture if the Court rules in Monsanto’s favor.

Texas Senate Bill 13 ("SB 13"), enacted in June 2021 and authored by State Senator Brian Birdwell, was among the first U.S. laws targeting Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") investing practices. (Mollie Duckworth, Latham & Watkins LLP). At its core, SB 13 prohibited Texas public entities from investing in or contracting with companies deemed to "boycott" the fossil fuel industry. (Texas Policy Research). ESG policies “aim to promote sustainable and responsible business practices” in addition to the previously paramount financial bottom line. (Deloitte). ESG practices trace their roots back to the early 1960s, led by social activists and religious groups seeking to spark corporate responsibility on ethical investing. (Thomas J. Billitteri, CQ Press). Sustainability pioneers like John Elkington popularized the “triple bottom line,” or the ideas that corporations must account for their societal and environmental impacts in addition to their profitability. (John Elkington, Harvard Business Review). Today, ESG practices are performed across industries, focused on issues, “ranging from human capital and compensation issues, to climate change, deforestation, and water and waste management, to supply chain management.” (Jurgita Ashley, Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance). In the energy context, ESG policies condition investing on environmental and social criteria, threatening states like Texas by disfavoring their core oil and gas industries based on ideological grounds. (Ayden Runnels, The Texas Tribune). Thus, the law represented a “high profile” effort to combat ESG practices that the Texas Senate viewed as a threat to the state’s energy sector. (Texas Policy Research). This discussion explores SB 13’s implications, the recent ruling of its unconstitutionality, and the market’s incipient response to SB 13’s discontinued enforcement.

Creators, sellers, and doom-scrollers can rest easy knowing that TikTok has found a new home on U.S. soil. (David Shepardson, Reuters). Following an executive order and subsequent landmark Supreme Court ruling, TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, had no choice but to divest TikTok so that the app’s data could be stored and controlled by U.S. entities. Id. Several prominent investors, including Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX, have emerged as potential stakeholders seeking to acquire an ownership interest in the company. Id. This post discusses the acquisition of and changes to the app and further examines whether this divestiture will address the Trump administration’s security concerns.

Deep seabed mining is a lucrative enterprise aimed at extracting nodules of valuable mineral deposits embedded in the ocean floor. (Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times). These nodules contain critical minerals, such as cobalt, manganese, copper, and nickel, which are essential to the manufacturing of modern batteries used in smartphones or electric vehicles. (Steven Barringer & Courtney Shephard, Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Sachi Mulkey, N.Y. Times). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) regulates the exploration and recovery of these critical minerals and issues permits for deep seabed mining. (15 C.F.R. 904.1). This post examines the (i) concerns of deep seabed mining; (ii) NOAA’s mandate and regulation focusing on the original two-step sequential process for exploration and recovery permits; (iii) the new "consolidated application process"; (iv) how the procedural shift fits into the “America First” agenda; (v) and the public concerns aligned with consequences of the accelerated application process.

The emergence of cryptocurrencies has revolutionized the way people hold and invest their money. For example, numerous cryptocurrencies and other digital assets now allow investors to store value in intangible forms on distributed ledger technology, commonly known as a blockchain. (U.S. Government Accountability Office). These digital investment tools, known as tokenized securities, offer several advantages to investors due to their blockchain-based structure. (CFTE). Tokenization enables decentralized investing by reducing reliance on intermediaries and giving investors greater control. Id. It also ensures clear ownership through immutable blockchain records, strong cryptographic security, and pseudonymous investing that protects investor identities. Id. Despite these benefits, there are several pitfalls to investing in digital assets, primarily regulatory uncertainty. Id. Due to the abstract and technical nature of the digital world, as well as its rapid evolution, regulators and courts have struggled to find the best way to categorize and oversee these forms of investments. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has grappled with this issue and has recently issued several statements and guidance attempting to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets. (SEC). This post discusses the SEC’s latest statement addressing whether a tokenized security qualifies as a security under the SEC’s longstanding legal framework and what that determination means for investors going forward.

CaaStle, Inc. (“CaaStle”) was originally founded in 2011 as Gwynnie Bee, a subscription service that allowed customers to rent clothing from more than 150 brands. (Aurore Borsi, et. al., Circle Economy). In 2018, the company evolved into a business-to-business technology and logistics platform that enabled leading fashion companies, including Ann Taylor, Express, and Vince, to rent portions of their inventory to consumers. Id. CaaStle collaborated with these brands to build and operate their rental programs while managing inventory and logistics, including returns, dry-cleaning, quality check, restocking, and shipping. Id. The company developed a clothing-as-a-service platform that attracted executives from Yahoo, Microsoft, Cole Haan, and Goldman Sachs, bringing together significant experience from both the fashion and technology industries. (Mary Sterenberg, ColumbusCEO).

On paper, CaaStle appeared poised for substantial success. However, on March 4, 2026, Christine Hunsicker, CaaStle’s founder and Chief Executive Officer, pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) (SDNY). (Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg Law). The case raised a central question: what went wrong?

The rapid growth of the gig economy has prompted U.S. cities to consider how existing labor protections apply to app-based workers who can be removed from a platform, or “deactivated,” without notice or explanation. (Helen McFarland, Seyfarth Shaw LLP). Seattle moved to address that gap directly. Id. In August 2023, the Seattle City Council passed Ordinance 126878, the App-Based Worker Deactivation Rights Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which took effect on January 1, 2025. (Seattle City Council, Ordinance 126878). Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart (“Instacart”), sued to block the Ordinance on First Amendment grounds, but on March 4, 2026, a divided Ninth Circuit panel rejected the companies’ appeal of a denied preliminary injunction. (Rachel Riley, Law360). This post examines what the Ordinance requires, the companies’ constitutional arguments, and the implications of this decision for Seattle and gig economy regulation nationwide.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX acquired his artificial intelligence (“AI”) startup xAI on February 2, 2026. (Samantha Subin, CNBC). The merger deal was structured as a share exchange, which converted one share of xAI into 0.1433 shares of SpaceX stock. Id. xAI started out as a segment of X, after Musk acquired X. (Kali Hays & Lily Jamali, BBC). xAI’s main product is Grok, the generative AI chatbot primarily used on X. Id. Musk explained the main reason for the merger was to “better build orbital data centers,” while also aimed at providing more capital to xAI and its cash-intensive Grok chatbot. (Samantha Subin, CNBC). This post will discuss the strategic business motivations underlying the merger, the corporate governance issues it raises, and the implications for future mergers across sectors.

Since the rise of artificial intelligence (“AI”), legislatures have grappled with its rapid advancement and potential risks it poses to consumers. In May 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 24-205, the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (“CAIA”), making it “the first United States law to comprehensively regulate the development and use of high-risk AI systems.” (Tatiana Rice, Keir Lamont & Jordan Francis, FPF Legislation Policy Brief - The Colorado AI Act). CAIA is set to go into effect on June 30, 2026. (Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP). This post examines the impetus driving CAIA, the rebuttable presumption of reasonable care for developers and deployers adhering to recognized AI risk-management frameworks like NIST or ISO/IEC 42001, available exemptions, and the act’s broader implications on the tech industry and state-level legislation.

A California jury recently delivered a landmark verdict in K.G.M. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., finding Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) and Alphabet Inc.’s Google LLC (“Google”) negligent for designing products that harmed a young user’s mental health. (Cecilia Kang, Ryan Mac, & Eli Tan, N.Y. Times). The case is especially significant because it was selected as one of three scheduled bellwether trials, a representative test case used in large-scale litigation to help courts and parties evaluate how juries may respond to the core legal and factual issues that appear across thousands of similar lawsuits. (Bobby Allyn, NPR; Simmons & Fletcher). K.G.M. was chosen from a pool of more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and 250 school districts, all alleging harm from social media platforms. (Quynh Hoang, The Conversation). As a representative case, the verdict may shape settlement strategy, litigation posture, and the trajectory of similar lawsuits nationwide. This post examines the arguments raised at trial that led to the verdict, considers the issues Meta and Google will likely raise on appeal, and explores how the verdict could reshape liability for social media companies going forward.