January 26, 2026

Several high-profile product liability and personal injury matters are expected to shape litigation strategy and risk assessment in 2026. Spanning artificial intelligence, consumer foods, pharmaceuticals, and digital platforms, these cases raise complex questions around causation, duty, and emerging theories of liability that attorneys and corporate legal teams should be tracking closely.

Below are five cases expected to have a notable impact in the year ahead.

1. Artificial Intelligence & Mental Health Litigation

A growing number of lawsuits allege that artificial intelligence chatbots contributed to mental health crises, including self-harm and suicide. OpenAI, Inc. and CEO Sam Altman face claims in California tied to GPT-4o, asserting wrongful death, product liability, negligence, and consumer protection violations. Nine cases are pending across Los Angeles and San Francisco Superior Courts, with a contested Motion for Coordination in JCCP 5431 (ChatGPT Product Liability Cases) scheduled for hearing on January 30, 2026.

Related litigation targets Character Technologies, Inc. (Character.AI), including private actions and a January 2026 enforcement lawsuit filed by the Kentucky Attorney General alleging violations of state consumer protection and data privacy laws.

Why It Matters

These cases test whether AI systems can be treated as consumer products and what duties developers owe to users, particularly minors and vulnerable populations. Procedural outcomes around coordination and early rulings on duty and foreseeability could shape how AI-related claims are litigated nationwide.

How Attorneys Can Prepare 

• Monitor coordination rulings and early dispositive motions closely. 
• Develop technical understanding of AI system design, safeguards, and content moderation. 
• Prepare for discovery disputes involving proprietary data, algorithms, and internal risk assessments. 
• Corporate counsel should reassess AI governance, warnings, and youth-protection measures.

2. Ultra-Processed Foods Litigation

A personal injury action against 11 major food manufacturers alleging that ultra-processed foods caused early-onset diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease was dismissed in August 2025 for failure to adequately plead exposure and causation. A motion for leave to amend and reconsideration remains pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Separately, in December 2025, the San Francisco City Attorney filed a government enforcement action against the same manufacturers, alleging deceptive marketing and unfair competition under California law and seeking injunctive relief.

Why It Matters 

Together, these cases signal increased scrutiny of food manufacturers through both private litigation and public enforcement. The viability of public nuisance and consumer protection theories, rather than traditional product defect claims, could expand litigation risk well beyond individual injury cases.

How Attorneys Can Prepare

• Track pleading and causation standards as courts evaluate amended complaints. 
• Review marketing, labeling, and health-related representations through a litigation lens. 
• Anticipate overlapping discovery demands across private actions and government enforcement. 
• Corporate legal teams should evaluate documentation tied to product development and advertising.

3. Acetaminophen Products Liability Litigation (ASD/ADHD)

In MDL No. 3043, the federal court excluded plaintiffs’ general causation experts and granted summary judgment for defendants, ending claims brought by more than 500 plaintiffs alleging prenatal acetaminophen exposure caused ASD or ADHD. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Second Circuit heard oral argument in November 2025. A decision is pending.

Why It Matters 

The appellate ruling may clarify standards for expert admissibility and epidemiological proof in pharmaceutical litigation. An affirmance could reinforce defense strategies centered on Daubert challenges, while a reversal could revive large-scale exposure claims.

How Attorneys Can Prepare 

• Assess how potential appellate outcomes could affect expert strategy in parallel cases. 
• Reevaluate causation frameworks and expert selection in pharmaceutical and toxic tort matters. 
• Corporate counsel should consider how warning labels and post-market surveillance are documented and defended.

4. GLP-1 Vision Injury Litigation (NAION)

In December 2025, the JPML created MDL No. 3163, consolidating federal cases alleging that GLP-1 receptor agonist drugs caused vision injuries, including non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The MDL was assigned to Judge Karen S. Marston in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who also oversees the related GLP-1 gastrointestinal injury MDL.

Why It Matters 

As GLP-1 drugs continue to see widespread adoption, the NAION MDL raises significant questions around rare adverse events, adverse event monitoring, and warning adequacy. Coordination between MDLs may influence discovery scope, expert development, and bellwether strategy.

How Attorneys Can Prepare

• Monitor early case management orders and leadership appointments.
• Prepare for complex medical causation disputes involving ophthalmology and epidemiology.
• Corporate counsel should closely review adverse event reporting and risk communication practices.

5. Roblox Child Sexual Exploitation & Assault Litigation

Roblox Corporation faces coordinated litigation alleging that its platform failed to protect minors from sexual exploitation and online grooming. In December 2025, the JPML established MDL No. 3166 in the Northern District of California. A parallel motion for coordination of California state cases is pending, and multiple state attorneys general have filed enforcement actions.

Why It Matters 

These cases challenge how courts evaluate platform safety obligations, child protection duties, and product liability theories in digital environments. Outcomes may influence compliance expectations for online platforms and technology companies more broadly.

How Attorneys Can Prepare 

• Track coordination and leadership developments at both the federal and state levels. 
• Anticipate discovery focused on platform design, moderation systems, and internal safety controls. 
• Corporate legal teams should reassess governance frameworks, reporting mechanisms, and escalation protocols.

Turning Litigation Complexity Into Strategic Advantage

As these matters progress, the volume and complexity of data will continue to grow. Effectively managing that information can be just as critical as the legal strategy itself.

Legal teams partner with LMI to:

• Maintain clear visibility across large, evolving case inventories
• Collect, organize, and access medical records efficiently and consistently
• Translate complex medical information into actionable insights for case strategy
• Analyze injuries, causation trends, and damages across matters
• Generate reliable, customizable reporting to support forecasting, settlement strategy, and  decision-making

For legal teams navigating high-stakes, high-volume litigation, having clear visibility into the data behind the claims is the key to faster resolution.

Have a case to discuss? Contact us today.