Commercial Litigation Update

On September 11, 2025, General Dynamics Corporation (“General Dynamics”), along with other naval manufacturers and defense contractors, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to consider whether an unwritten “no-poach” agreement was sufficient to invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment and toll the Sherman Anti-Trust Act’s (the “Sherman Act”) four-year statute of limitations.

In May, the Fourth Circuit, in permitting an over-decade-old claim to proceed, held that an unwritten secret agreement was sufficient to toll the Sherman Act’s limitations period, noting that “neither logic nor our precedent supports distinguishing between defendants who destroy evidence . . . and defendants who carefully avoid creating evidence in the first place.” However, that decision conflicts with those of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits—all of which previously found that mere secrecy was not adequate to invoke a fraudulent concealment tolling theory.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) tools like ChatGPT, Scribe, Jasper, and others have catapulted exponentially in popularity in recent years, for widespread personal and professional uses supplementing, if not largely displacing, traditional search engines. Applications for AI interactions in the workplace, algorithmically simulating human reasoning and inference, are expanding as quickly as users can draft new prompts requesting designs, how-to guides, correspondence, and countless other outputs. AI tools have quickly transitioned from an amusing new technology to essential tools for professionals and businesses, driving innovation and efficiency. These tools are used by businesses for an ever-expanding list of purposes, including brainstorming ideas based on patterns and data analysis; creating and memorializing documents, procedures, manuals, and tutorials; generating marketing and other client-facing materials; drafting communications; summarizing documents; explaining concepts and processes; and even generating code.

As these tools become more integrated into workplace processes, courts and litigants are beginning to confront the question of whether and to what extent AI searches and “chats” are discoverable in litigation. As the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit broad discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, litigants may potentially be entitled to compel production of information and communications generated or processed by AI platforms related to the facts in dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); In re OpenAI, Inc., Copyright Infringement Litig., No. 23-CV-08292, 2025 WL 1652110, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2025). Just as local news headlines are replete with instances of internet searches as evidence in criminal cases[1], real-time AI “interactions” may likely be subject to the same disclosure requirements in civil litigation.

New episode of our video podcast, Speaking of Litigation: When a merger or acquisition closes, many executives assume the legal work is over.

But as this episode of Speaking of Litigation reveals, signing on the dotted line may be just the beginning.

Avoid post-closing litigation with these issues in focus:

• Earnout Disputes: Learn how a buyer’s actions can intentionally or unintentionally depress earnings, leading to legal battles over unpaid contingent payments.
• Indemnification Risks: Understand why a buyer’s “safety net” can become a legal landmine for sellers, especially when ambiguous deal language is involved.
• Regulatory Surprises: Discover the unforeseen challenges that arise when government investigations begin after a deal closes, forcing buyers and sellers to confront liability for past conduct.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jim Flynn, Bob Travisano, and Daniella Lee discuss how to spot the red flags in a deal, the main legal triggers of post-merger disputes, and, most importantly, how to protect your business—whether you’re the buyer or the seller.

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in United States ex rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. (No. 22-13340) addressing an important procedural question under the False Claims Act (FCA) and other fraud-based statutes: may a plaintiff rely on information learned during discovery to meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard in an amended complaint? The court concluded that the answer is yes.

Rule 9(b) requires that allegations of fraud be plead “with particularity.” Defendants frequently rely on this standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage, aiming to defeat weak FCA complaints before discovery begins. In 2019, an unpublished Eleventh Circuit decision, Bingham v. HCA, Inc., 783 F. App'x 868 (11th Cir. 2019), suggested that plaintiffs could not use discovery to cure a deficient complaint. The concern was that such an approach could incentivize speculative suits filed without adequate factual grounding.

Biometric technologies—such as fingerprint scanners, facial recognition systems, and retina scans—are now commonplace in modern business operations. From employee timekeeping systems to facility security and customer-facing applications, these tools offer efficiency and convenience for many businesses. But these same conveniences have sparked backlash in the form of privacy litigation. In Illinois especially, companies are facing a surge of class-action lawsuits under the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), a pioneering law that imposes strict requirements on the use of biometric data and hefty penalties for companies failing to adhere to the law. This trend is not confined to Illinois: a growing patchwork of similar laws in other states means that using biometrics without proper safeguards can expose companies nationwide to significant statutory damages and legal risks.

The discussion of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in the workplace typically focuses on whether the AI tool and model has a discriminatory impact. This means examining whether the AI output creates an unlawful disparate impact against individuals belonging to a protected category.

However, that discussion rarely centers on the types of training data used, and whether the training data itself could have a harmful effect on the workers tasked with training the AI model.

Last summer, in a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act (the “DTSA”) rebuts the presumption against extraterritoriality—i.e., the principle that federal statutes should not be applied to conduct occurring outside of the United States, unless Congress explicitly states otherwise. 108 F.4th 458, 483 (7th Cir. 2024).

The Motorola court held that the DTSA applies to individuals and entities who are not located in the United States insofar as an “act in furtherance” of the misappropriation “was committed in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 1837(2). In construing what constitutes an “act in furtherance” of misappropriation, the Motorola court determined that the defendant, a Chinese company, had committed an “act in furtherance” of the misappropriation by marketing products embodying defendant’s stolen trade secrets via road shows and advertising activities it conducted in the United States. Id. 480-88.

A recent decision from the Northern District of Illinois continues to develop the DTSA’s “act in furtherance” element. In GTY Technology Holdings Inc. v. Euna Solutions, the court considered whether the DTSA applied to a Canadian citizen defendant, who had worked remotely for a Chicago-based company before he and his codefendant allegedly misappropriated plaintiffs’ trade secret information. No. 24-CV-9069, *8 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2025). Plaintiffs alleged that defendant had engaged in conduct in the United States when, prior to his downloading the documents, he visited Chicago and discussed the documents with his codefendant. Id. Defendant moved to dismiss the DTSA claims, arguing that the statute did not apply to him because he was in Canada when he allegedly downloaded the plaintiffs’ documents, thereby allegedly committing the act of misappropriation outside of the U.S. Id.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, individual states were left to regulate or ban the procedure. A patchwork of state laws subsequently followed, with some states enacting total bans and others permitting abortion access, with considerable variations in between. In addition to regulating or restricting access to the procedure, certain states have criminalized seeking, providing, and helping others obtain or provide abortion, especially those providing telehealth services, but these actions are legal and protected in New York. New York’s “Shield Law” consists of several statutes, enacted and intended to protect providers and patients offering or seeking abortion in New York against the imposition of criminal and civil liability originating from outside the state. According to the New York State Office of the Attorney General, “[t]he Shield Law broadly prohibits law enforcement and other state officials from cooperating with investigations into reproductive health care (“protected health care”) so long as the care was lawfully provided in New York.”^[1] Moreover, “[w]ith respect to reproductive health care specifically, these protections apply even if the care was provided via telehealth to a patient located out-of-state, so long as the provider was physically present in New York.”^[2]

New York’s Shield Law creates substantive protections for reproductive health care, which can be summarized as follows:

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), together with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (“HHS OIG”) and other law enforcement partners, announced the results of the 2025 National Health Care Fraud Takedown—hailed as the largest in history.

This year, DOJ’s Health Care Fraud Unit reported that 324 defendants were charged for their alleged involvement in various health care fraud schemes that involved over $14.6 billion in intended loss—more than doubling the prior record of $6 billion set in 2020 during the first Trump administration. By way of comparison, last year, the 2024 Takedown charged 193 defendants with allegedly committing more than $2.5 billion in fraud. And two years ago, the 2023 Takedown charged 78 defendants with more than $2.5 billion. To say there was a significant increase between the Biden administration and the second Trump administration would be an understatement.  

That this administration would “follow the money” should not come as a surprise. As noted, the prior record was set during President Trump’s first term in 2020. In that Takedown, DOJ and HHS OIG reported 345 defendants allegedly submitted more than $6 billion in false and fraudulent claims to federal health care programs and private payers. The bulk of that 2020 Takedown, $4.5 billion, was related to telehealth.

In 2023, the Maryland General Assembly passed the Maryland Child Victims Act of 2023 (“CVA”) to expand claimants’ ability to file and seek damages for alleged child sexual abuse cases, following the trend initiated by other states like New York  and New Jersey.  The CVA was signed into law by Governor Wes Moore on April 11, 2023, and became effective October 1, 2023. The law removed the statute of limitation for claims of sexual abuse that occurred while the alleged victim was a minor. The CVA also placed high caps on non-economic damages from private defendants and monetary damages from public defendants.

The June 1, 2025 Amendment Drastically Reduces the Damages Cap

On April 22, 2025,  Governor Moore signed an Amendment to the CVA that reduced damages for public and private defendants.  The Amendment, which took effect on June 1, 2025, lowers the cap on noneconomic damages for CVA cases filed on or after June 1, 2025 in the following ways: