Hunton Retail Law Resource

Recent product liability cases against A.I. companies are applying traditional product liability theories to a new technology. In February 2026, the California Superior Court for San Francisco County entered an order coordinating twelve cases pending against defendant OpenAI. See In re: ChatGPT Prod. Liab. Cases, Cal.Super. Ct., JCCP No. 5431. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI’s ChatGPT is unreasonably dangerous and caused psychological harm to plaintiffs or their family members by reinforcing delusional beliefs, endorsing suicidal ideation and providing information to decedents about how to harm themselves, and contributing to users’ psychological deterioration. 

The U.S. Department of Labor recently proposed a rule that would create a uniform standard for determining joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.  The proposed rule has significant implications for employers who share workers or rely on contractors, because a joint-employment finding may expand liability to multiple employers for wage-and-hour violations, leave obligations, and other statutory compliance issues.  The agency has said the proposed rule is intended to “reduce compliance and litigation costs, improve the Department’s ability to enforce the law, and help workers to better understand their rights and available remedies” while also promoting “greater uniformity in the analysis applied by courts.”

On March 12, 2026, we published a blog post discussing the implications of the U.S. Mint ceasing penny production and the various legal and tax implications for multistate businesses. As discussed, each state has legislative discretion on how to address these issues.

A recent decision from the Southern District of New York offers useful guidance for retailers defending website accessibility claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Jones v. Moscot.com, LLC, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s ADA claim as moot after concluding that the retailer’s remediation efforts and ongoing accessibility measures eliminated any live controversy. As background, Title III of the ADA provides a narrow remedial framework for private plaintiffs, only authorizing civil actions for preventative relief via injunctions and restraining orders. Monetary damages are not available to private plaintiffs for a past violation, so the success of a plaintiff’s ADA accessibility claim depends on a showing that the violation will continue.

California finalized its extended producer responsibility regulations effective May 1, 2026, requiring producers to register by June 1 through Circular Action Alliance or CalRecycle. CalRecycle also launched a new compliance system, while Circular Action Alliance issued non-binding illustrative fees ahead of final rates expected in October 2026.

Maryland’s Protection From Predatory Pricing Act, signed on April 28, 2026 and effective October 1, 2026, is the first state law to directly prohibit certain personalized grocery pricing practices by grocery stores and third-party grocery delivery services, barring the use of consumers’ personal data to set individualized prices or charge higher prices for groceries and restricting discriminatory uses of data relating to legally protected classes. Enforced exclusively by the Maryland Attorney General, the Act includes a guaranteed 45-day cure period, no private right of action, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation, or $25,000 for repeat violations, and it reflects a growing national trend toward tighter regulation of surveillance and algorithmic pricing.

In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (Jan. 20, 2026), the Supreme Court held that motions to vacate void judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) are subject to Rule 60(c)(1)’s requirement that they be filed within a “reasonable time.” This rejects the prior view in many circuits that void judgments could be challenged at any time. For corporate defendants, the decision makes prompt action critical: once a company learns of a default judgment it believes is void due to defective service or lack of personal jurisdiction, delay can forfeit Rule 60(b)(4) relief.

The FTC’s 2026–2030 Strategic Plan sets out a five-year agenda focused on three priorities: consumer protection, competition enforcement, and operational efficiency. It highlights enforcement against unfair or deceptive practices, anticompetitive conduct, and illegal monopolies, while also aiming to improve agency performance through tools such as AI and data analytics.

The plan restores traditional mission language stating the FTC will enforce the law “without unduly burdening legitimate business activity,” a change welcomed by business groups. Key enforcement priorities include telemarketing, children’s online privacy under COPPA, data privacy and security, and merger review in the technology, healthcare, and pharmaceutical sectors. The FTC also signals increased coordination with federal, state, and international enforcers, suggesting continued and potentially stronger scrutiny for companies in these areas.

California has introduced Assembly Bill 2244, proposing a pioneering “California Certified” labeling standard for foods not classified as ultra-processed. The bill relies on forthcoming regulatory definitions and imposes retail placement requirements for qualifying products. As California continues to advance UPF regulation, this initiative is expected to shape food law trends nationwide.

A recent ruling from a Texas federal court has confirmed that corporate bylaws can lawfully require shareholders to meet a minimum ownership threshold in order to initiate derivative actions. In its March 17, 2026 decision in Gusinsky v. Reynolds, the court upheld the right of publicly traded Texas corporations to restrict derivative lawsuits by establishing a minimum shareholding requirement for claimants—a development that could significantly impact the landscape of shareholder litigation in Texas.