Changing Anti-Terrorism Act Jurisprudence Increases Litigation Exposure

In Short

The Situation: Following the 2016 enactment of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act ("JASTA"), courts construed aiding-and-abetting liability narrowly, disallowing claims against defendants that did not deal directly with a terrorist organization or its proxy. Over the last year, however, courts have permitted claims that previously might have been dismissed to proceed to discovery. Plaintiffs meanwhile are increasingly filing JASTA claims against businesses whose services or products are further removed from any close connection to terrorist parties. 

The Result: More lawsuits can be expected against companies conducting business in parts of the world where terrorism occurs or that have customers connected to these regions, and a greater percentage of these cases are likely to survive motions to dismiss and move into discovery.