Litigation

Litigation

Tracking Litigation legal and regulatory developments.

23 entries in Tech Counsel Tracker

LawSnap Briefing Updated October 8, 2026

State of play.

Apple's trade secret war with OpenAI is the dominant active litigation, with Apple's complaint, a preliminary injunction bid, OpenAI's dismissal motion, and a sealed evidentiary record all in play simultaneously before the Northern District of California (→ Apple sues OpenAI and two ex-employees for stealing trade secrets to build AI hardware, Apple sues OpenAI, alleging coordinated trade secret theft for AI hardware, OpenAI Rejects Apple’s Injunction Bid in Trade-Secret Fight, OpenAI seeks to dismiss Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit over hardware hiring).
California AG Bonta has escalated PFAS litigation against the DuPont corporate family, invoking fraudulent transfer theories under the UFTA and UVTA to reach across spinoff structures—including newly created Qnity Electronics—and consolidate liability that prior restructuring was designed to fragment (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
State AGs are deploying antitrust and environmental litigation as a check on federal enforcement gaps, with 12 states suing to block the DOJ-cleared Paramount/Warner Bros. Discovery merger and California separately pursuing DuPont spinoffs in South Carolina federal court (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger, California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
AI use in practice has crossed into a two-sided professional liability question: courts are simultaneously sanctioning lawyers for AI hallucinations and academics are raising whether non-use could itself constitute negligence—a doctrinal inflection point without a settled answer (→ Lawyer Faces Potential Negligence Claim for Failing to Use AI in Legal Work).
For counsel advising technology companies, platform operators, or litigators, the practical baseline is: trade secret exposure from AI-era talent mobility is now actively litigated at the preliminary injunction stage; corporate restructuring to limit environmental liability faces fraudulent transfer scrutiny; and AI tool governance in practice is a professional liability issue in both directions.

Where things stand.

AI-era trade secret misappropriation doctrine is being tested in real time. The Apple v. OpenAI case turns on whether institutional encouragement of employee poaching—combined with over 400 former Apple employees at OpenAI—can establish organizational knowledge of misappropriation, a high bar that will shape how courts police talent mobility in competitive AI hardware development (→ Apple sues OpenAI and two ex-employees for stealing trade secrets to build AI hardware, Apple sues OpenAI, alleging coordinated trade secret theft for AI hardware, OpenAI Rejects Apple’s Injunction Bid in Trade-Secret Fight, OpenAI seeks to dismiss Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit over hardware hiring).
Fraudulent transfer theories are the new frontier in environmental mass tort litigation. California's second amended complaint against the DuPont family invokes UFTA and UVTA to void spinoff transactions and an amended MOU that allegedly shifted PFAS liabilities onto Chemours while insulating New DuPont, Corteva, and Qnity Electronics—a theory that, if sustained, could consolidate liability across the entire corporate family (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
State AG coalitions are challenging federally approved transactions. Twelve state AGs filed a Clayton Act suit to block the $110 billion Paramount Skydance/Warner Bros. Discovery merger despite DOJ clearance, with a $650 million per-quarter ticking fee creating acute pressure on the injunction timeline (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
Social media platform liability for minor addiction has moved from theory to verdict. A New Mexico jury imposed $375 million in civil fines against Meta, a Massachusetts court allowed a youth addiction case to proceed, and more than 5,700 cases are pending in California courts alone—the litigation is transitioning toward settlement pressure and potential product-redesign injunctions (→ Meta Faces Wave of Social-Media Addiction and Safety Lawsuits).
AI sanctions for hallucinated citations are now a standard enforcement mechanism, with contempt as the next escalation. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have imposed financial penalties; a New Jersey court moved toward contempt for unpaid AI sanctions in the Combs civil litigation—signaling enforcement beyond mere monetary penalties .
The professional standard for AI use is bifurcating. Courts are sanctioning AI misuse while academics argue non-use may itself become a negligence theory—a California judge imposed $31,000 in sanctions for an AI-generated brief, a Georgia Supreme Court overturned an AI-hallucinated order, and a Western District of North Carolina judge now requires attorneys to certify non-use; simultaneously, a University of Houston law professor has framed AI adoption as a potential duty of reasonable diligence (→ Lawyer Faces Potential Negligence Claim for Failing to Use AI in Legal Work).
Firm disqualification for mid-litigation conflicts remains a live procedural weapon. Judge Marshall disqualified Quinn Emanuel from the CoStar/CREXi copyright and antitrust dispute for simultaneous representation without consent; the Ninth Circuit appeal and the question of whether the trial-level case proceeds in parallel are unresolved (→ CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).
AI privilege doctrine is unsettled and circuit-split. Judge Rakoff's SDNY ruling in United States v. Heppner holds that consumer AI platforms destroy privilege and work product protection; a Michigan magistrate reached the opposite conclusion—the question is ripe for appellate clarification .
BIPA damages exposure has been structurally reset. The Seventh Circuit's retroactive application of the 2024 per-person damages cap in Clay v. Union Pacific eliminates per-scan multipliers for all pending cases in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin .
DISCO is piloting a unified litigation platform integrating evidence management, legal research, and case-law analysis into a single AI-native workflow—currently live with five firms on active matters, with general availability targeted for early 2025 (→ DISCO launches AI-powered unified litigation solution for live law firm pilots).

Latest developments.

California AG Bonta filed a Second Amended Complaint in PFAS litigation invoking UFTA and UVTA to reach DuPont spinoffs including newly created Qnity Electronics, alleging corporate restructuring and an amended MOU shifted PFAS liabilities onto Chemours while insulating the broader DuPont family (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
OpenAI moved to dismiss Apple's trade secrets lawsuit, arguing Apple failed to identify protectable trade secrets or plausible misappropriation, while Apple simultaneously pressed a preliminary injunction to bar OpenAI and named individuals from accessing or using the alleged confidential information (→ OpenAI seeks to dismiss Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit over hardware hiring).
OpenAI publicly characterized Apple's suit as "careless" and "oddly personal", relying on sealed internal communications to rebut the allegations as Apple named Tang Tan, Chang Liu, and io Products as defendants and sought depositions of additional OpenAI staff (→ OpenAI Rejects Apple’s Injunction Bid in Trade-Secret Fight).
CoStar opposed CREXi's bid to stay their copyright dispute pending the Ninth Circuit appeal of Judge Marshall's order disqualifying Quinn Emanuel for simultaneous representation without consent—leaving CREXi to find new counsel while the appellate question remains open (→ CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).
Twelve state AGs filed a federal antitrust suit to block the $110 billion Paramount Skydance/Warner Bros. Discovery merger despite DOJ clearance, seeking a temporary restraining order before a closing deadline that carries a $650 million per-quarter ticking fee (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
Meta's social media addiction litigation crossed into verdict territory, with a New Mexico jury imposing $375 million in civil fines and more than 5,700 cases pending in California courts; Meta has halted plaintiff recruitment advertising as settlement pressure mounts (→ Meta Faces Wave of Social-Media Addiction and Safety Lawsuits).
Apple filed its initial trade secret complaint against OpenAI in the Northern District of California, alleging a coordinated scheme involving over 400 former Apple employees, candidate interviews used to extract proprietary information, and deception of Apple's manufacturing partners (→ Apple sues OpenAI and two ex-employees for stealing trade secrets to build AI hardware).
Practitioner commentary on the Apple/OpenAI filing flagged the institutional-knowledge theory—whether OpenAI's encouragement of poaching establishes organizational liability—as the case's central doctrinal challenge (→ Apple sues OpenAI, alleging coordinated trade secret theft for AI hardware).
A University of Houston law professor raised the question whether failing to use AI could itself constitute legal negligence, inverting the current judicial posture of sanctioning AI misuse and signaling a coming doctrinal tension over what "reasonable diligence" requires (→ Lawyer Faces Potential Negligence Claim for Failing to Use AI in Legal Work).
DISCO launched a unified litigation platform pilot combining e-discovery, legal research, and case strategy in a single interface—currently live on active matters at five firms including Quarles & Brady (→ DISCO launches AI-powered unified litigation solution for live law firm pilots).

Active questions and open splits.

Trade secret misappropriation via institutional talent poaching: what level of organizational knowledge is required? The Apple v. OpenAI case tests whether a company's systematic recruitment of a competitor's employees—combined with alleged encouragement to bring confidential materials—establishes the institutional knowledge needed for organizational liability, or whether liability attaches only to individual actors (→ Apple sues OpenAI and two ex-employees for stealing trade secrets to build AI hardware, Apple sues OpenAI, alleging coordinated trade secret theft for AI hardware, OpenAI seeks to dismiss Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit over hardware hiring, OpenAI Rejects Apple’s Injunction Bid in Trade-Secret Fight).
Fraudulent transfer as a PFAS liability consolidation tool: can post-spinoff restructuring be unwound? California's theory that an amended MOU and subsequent spinoffs—including Qnity Electronics—constitute voidable transactions under UFTA and UVTA has not been tested at this scale; the South Carolina federal court's treatment will influence parallel PFAS litigation nationally (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
State AG antitrust challenges to federally cleared mergers: what standard governs? The Paramount/Warner Bros. suit directly contradicts DOJ's June 2026 clearance—courts will need to address whether state Clayton Act claims can proceed on theories the federal agency rejected, and whether the ticking-fee structure creates irreparable harm sufficient for a TRO (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
AI privilege: tool or third party? Heppner (SDNY) and Warner v. Gilbarco (Michigan) reached opposite conclusions on whether inputting privileged information into a consumer AI platform destroys work product protection—the question is ripe for circuit intervention .
AI professional liability: negligence for non-use vs. sanctions for misuse. Courts are simultaneously punishing AI hallucinations and academics are framing non-adoption as a potential breach of reasonable diligence—the profession faces a narrowing window before bar authorities or courts impose affirmative AI competence standards (→ Lawyer Faces Potential Negligence Claim for Failing to Use AI in Legal Work).
Firm disqualification and appellate stays: does the trial proceed while the Ninth Circuit reviews? The CoStar/CREXi dispute presents the question of whether a disqualified firm's appeal automatically warrants a stay of trial-level proceedings—a procedural issue with significant practical consequences for complex commercial litigation mid-stream (→ CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).
Social media platform liability: product redesign as remedy. Meta's litigation has moved from theoretical harm to a $375 million verdict and 5,700 pending cases; the open question is whether any settlement or consent decree will require structural product changes—infinite scroll, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay—that would set industry-wide standards (→ Meta Faces Wave of Social-Media Addiction and Safety Lawsuits).

What to watch.

The Northern District of California's ruling on Apple's preliminary injunction against OpenAI—if granted, it materially constrains OpenAI's hardware development timeline and signals how aggressively courts will intervene early in AI-era trade secret disputes (→ OpenAI seeks to dismiss Apple’s trade-secrets lawsuit over hardware hiring, OpenAI Rejects Apple’s Injunction Bid in Trade-Secret Fight).
The South Carolina federal court's response to California's fraudulent transfer theory in the DuPont PFAS litigation—particularly whether it allows claims against Qnity Electronics and whether it treats the amended MOU as a voidable transaction (→ California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers).
Whether the 12-state AG coalition obtains a TRO in the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger challenge before the closing deadline—a successful restraining order would trigger the $650 million ticking fee and force renegotiation, establishing a template for state challenges to federally cleared deals (→ 12 State AGs Sue to Block $110B Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger).
Meta settlement discussions or consent decree negotiations as the 5,700-case California docket creates structural pressure to resolve rather than litigate individually—any framework requiring product redesign becomes the industry standard for minor-protection obligations (→ Meta Faces Wave of Social-Media Addiction and Safety Lawsuits).
Bar authority guidance on AI competence standards—whether any state bar formalizes an affirmative AI diligence requirement in response to the academic argument that non-use could constitute negligence (→ Lawyer Faces Potential Negligence Claim for Failing to Use AI in Legal Work).
Ninth Circuit ruling on the Quinn Emanuel disqualification appeal in CoStar/CREXi—and whether the Central District grants or denies the stay pending that appeal (→ CoStar Fights CREXi Bid To Stay Suit Over Quinn Emanuel DQ).

23 Contributing Entries

Litigation Fraud California Antitrust Environmental Regulation Law And Technology Privacy M & A Contract Negotiation Employment Law Energy Health Care Intellectual Property Contracts

Score

California expands PFAS fraud case against DuPont spinoffs over asset transfers

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a Second Amended Complaint in the state's PFAS litigation, alleging that DuPont-related companies executed fraudulent asset transfers designed to shield themselves from environmental liability. The complaint targets E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, DuPont de Nemours, Inc., Corteva, Inc., The Chemours Company, and newly created Qnity Electronics. Bonta contends that corporate restructuring and amended agreements shifted the bulk of PFAS-related liabilities onto Chemours while reducing exposure for New DuPont, Corteva, and Qnity Electronics. The filing invokes the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act and the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, and seeks relief in U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

August 6, 2026

23 Contributing Entries

mail Subscribe to Litigation email updates