Episode 64: Mandatory Arbitration Is Back! (Podcast)

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.

A federal court in Iowa denied summary judgment to Medicare Health Advisors after defense counsel failed to properly authenticate Jornaya lead records and establish hearsay exceptions in a TCPA class action. The ruling highlights critical procedural mistakes in presenting consent evidence and reveals how improper handling of third-party verification records can transform a potential defense victory into millions of dollars in litigation exposure.

Class action litigation filings under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) dropped 45% in July 2026 compared to the previous year, marking a potential turning point after years of rising cases. While year-to-date filings remain 9.7% higher than 2025, the cooling trend raises questions about what factors are driving this significant decline in TCPA lawsuits.

A North Carolina Superior Court denied class certification in an antitrust case involving indirect purchasers who alleged a hospital network's anticompetitive conduct inflated their health insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to demonstrate class-wide impact through common proof, particularly rejecting their expert's pass-through theory as insufficiently rigorous and excluding key portions of the expert report.

Since the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Old Navy, retailers and consumer brands have faced an unprecedented wave of CEMA subject-line litigation.  Each case threatens existential exposure. Many defendants initially pursued a familiar strategy: seek dismissal of these cases at the pleading stage. The problem?

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.

A federal court granted Disney's motion to compel arbitration in an antitrust class action, allowing the company to invoke fuboTV's subscriber terms of service after acquiring a 70% stake in the streaming platform. The ruling demonstrates how corporate mergers can fundamentally alter litigation strategy by enabling non-signatories to enforce arbitration agreements containing "future affiliates" provisions.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's denial of an employer's motion to compel arbitration in a wage and hour class action, finding the arbitration agreement procedurally unconscionable. The ruling examines how employers present arbitration agreements to employees and whether workers receive meaningful opportunity to understand terms before signing, with significant implications for class action litigation strategy.

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.