Commercial Litigation Update

A recent amendment to Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), scheduled to take effect on June 11, 2026, has prompted a surge of class action filings. The amendment revises the statutory standard for actionable violations and reduces statutory damages, spurring plaintiffs to file under the current, more plaintiff-friendly framework before the change becomes law.

Artificial intelligence is moving beyond standalone large language model wrappers toward collections of specialized AI agents that reason, act, and collaborate to achieve complex outcomes. This multi-agent vision, articulated in Google’s Introduction to Agents whitepaper,[1] marks a subtle, but seismic, shift in how businesses will deploy AI; and spotlights nuanced legal challenges that litigators and in-house counsel should start addressing now.

[1] https://www.kaggle.com/whitepaper-introduction-to-agents (last visited January 21, 2026).

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.

On October 30, 2024, in Alternative Global One, LLC v. Feingold, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial court’s orders denying a New Jersey litigant’s motion to quash a subpoena for his deposition in underlying Florida litigation to which he was not a party. This decision illustrates that a litigant, even a non-party, must do more than assert blanket, unsubstantiated objections to a subpoena ad testificandum.

The appeal arose from a Florida litigation. In Alternative Global One, LLC v. Feingold, No. 2023-000688-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. filed Jan. 17, 2023), plaintiffs Alternative Global Companies filed suit against defendants David Feingold and Michael Dazzo, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, conversion, replevin, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, accounting, and unjust enrichment. Along with Richard Cardinale, defendants served as co-managing members of the Alternative Global Companies. But after their resignation, defendants allegedly “attempt[ed] to convert [certain investments] from the Alternative Global Companies to their own benefit” and refused to surrender corporate books and records that they maintained. Pursuant to Rule 4:11-4(b), plaintiffs served a subpoena ad testificandum on appellant Daniel W. Amaniera, who was not a party to the litigation, seeking only to depose him in New Jersey.

Searching the internet for “AI and litigation” reveals tons of results about how AI will either replace lawyers or transform the legal profession. These results are unsurprising. Since the early 2010s, articles focusing on the potential impact AI may have on lawyers have popped up every few months. But these results miss the bigger and more important picture, which is that AI likely will spawn a myriad of litigation stemming from its use. This litigation will create the rise of AI lawyers who specialize in the complexities of AI.

In fact, this year we are already seeing the rise of AI lawyers as a handful of lawsuits surrounding AI have been filed. Below is a summary of current proceedings that have been filed this year and where they stand.

In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (June 27, 2023), the United States Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that enables a plaintiff to show general personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state corporation based only upon that company’s registering to do business in Pennsylvania. 42 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5301(a)(2). It is well established that general personal jurisdiction permits a court to adjudicate any and all claims against an out-of-state corporate defendant only where a plaintiff demonstrates that the defendant has substantial contacts with the forum state. The majority decision, however, rules that a plaintiff need not engage in a contacts analysis where a state, such as Pennsylvania, has a corporate registration law deeming corporate registration as consent to jurisdiction. Other states will now likely emulate Pennsylvania by adopting similar statutory provisions authorizing general personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations registered to do business in those states even where there has been no showing of substantial state contacts.

Thomson Reuters Practical Law has released the 2023 update to “Trade Secrets Litigation,” co-authored by our colleague Peter A. Steinmeyer.

In response to a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) request that all DOJ components write voluntary self-disclosure policies and “clarify the benefits of promptly coming forward to self-report [as] a good business decision,” on January 17, 2023, Assistant Attorney General (AAG) Kenneth Polite, Jr. announced updates to the DOJ Criminal Division’s Corporate Enforcement and Voluntary Self-Disclosure Policy (CEP). The updated CEP, policy 9-47.120, which was previously known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Corporate Enforcement Policy, expands the applicability of the CEP to now apply to all corporate criminal matters handled by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. The updated CEP, which is effective prospectively only, offers new, significant, and concrete incentives to corporations to have effective compliance programs, to voluntarily disclose allegations of criminal misconduct (including that of its officers, directors and employees), to fully cooperate with the government’s investigation of alleged misconduct, and to timely and appropriately remediate the misconduct. In announcing the updated policy, AAG Polite stated, “Our number one goal in this area – as we have repeatedly emphasized – is individual accountability. And we can hold accountable those who are criminally culpable—no matter their seniority—when companies come forward and cooperate with our investigation.”

Due to the large-scale shutdowns triggered by the Coronavirus pandemic (“COVID-19”), many businesses were unable to operate fully, or not at all. Litigants across the country have sought to be relieved of their obligations under contracts as a result of the pandemic-related disruptions, under legal theories including impossibility, frustration of purpose, and force majeure. As recently decided cases demonstrate, proponents of these theories have faced uphill battles.

Do plaintiffs’ attorneys smell blood in the water? A raft of class-action suits recently initiated against dietary supplement manufacturers, alleging deceptive practices in the sale of fish oil products, suggests that they might.

These suits, filed in California federal courts (a favorite jurisdiction for the plaintiffs’ bar), are nearly identical in that they allege that the manufacturers’ fish oil products do not actually contain fish oil. To date, plaintiffs’ class action lawyers have already targeted well-known dietary supplement products, such as Dr. Tobias ...

We are pleased to present Commercial Litigation Update, the newest blog from law firm Epstein Becker Green (EBG), which will offer engaging content about emerging trends and important developments in commercial and business litigation.

Commercial Litigation Update will feature thought leadership from EBG litigation attorneys and provide insightful and practical commentary and analysis on a wide range of timely litigation issues that affect businesses. Areas of interest will include trends and developments in antitrust, contract, defamation and product disparagement ...