December 1 marks an important and long-awaited change to Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The Rule, pertaining to the testimony of expert witnesses, has not received a substantive update since 2000, when it was amended in the wake of the Daubert decision. Now, more than 20 years later—and after years of study—the Rule has been amended to make two issues clear: (1) that the proponent of an expert’s testimony must establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of his or her methodology to the case. These changes reinforce the key gatekeeping role that courts play in ensuring that only helpful, reliable expert testimony is heard by the factfinder.
California Federal Court Throws Out Carbon Offset Class Action Against Etsy
We are seeing a growing number of class actions alleging consumer harms from corporate carbon offset policies. On October 13, a California federal court threw out such a case (albeit with leave to amend) against e-commerce site Etsy.
The lawsuit, Blackburn v. Etsy, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-05711 (C.D. Cal. 2023), stemmed from a number of carbon offset promises Etsy has made since 2019—that the company engages in “100% offsetting [of] all carbon emissions from shipping[,]” that it was “the first major online shopping destination to offset 100% of carbon emissions generated by shipping[,]” and that its “goal [is] to run a carbon neutral business[.]” Dkt. No. 20 at 1. Plaintiffs alleged that the carbon offset promises were false “due to endemic methodological errors and fraudulent accounting on behalf of offset vendors.” Id. Plaintiffs claimed that Etsy’s false promises caused them harm because they paid more for products on the site than they otherwise would have under the mistaken belief that Etsy’s shipments were carbon neutral.
Continue Reading California Federal Court Throws Out Carbon Offset Class Action Against Etsy
California Federal Court Clamps Down on ‘En Masse’ Class Claims Identified by AI
Courts and litigants continue to grapple with the new frontier of artificial intelligence (“AI”). One recent case in California demonstrates a new wrinkle in this evolving landscape—the use of AI to aggregate class claims.
Because class settlements bind absent class members who do not object or opt out, Rule 23 requires courts to carefully review and approve them as “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” An important part of this inquiry is making sure class members are given adequate notice of the terms of the proposed settlement and their rights. When class members are required to submit claims to access settlement benefits, parties often turn to professional claims administration companies to assist in providing notice and facilitating the claims process. Under Rule 23, courts closely monitor the information that flows from class counsel and claims administrators to putative class members to make sure it complies with due process.
Continue Reading California Federal Court Clamps Down on ‘En Masse’ Class Claims Identified by AI