Last week, U.S. District Judge Joshua D. Wolson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied summary judgment motions filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant Consumer Reporting Agency (“CRA”) in a fair credit dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiff filed his complaint after the CRA incorrectly reported him as deceased to a creditor that plaintiff had applied for a credit card with, which resulted in the plaintiff’s application being denied.

As a general rule, a bank or other financial institution is not required to produce full Social Security numbers in response to a N.Y. Information Subpoena. A bank/ financial institution should not do so unless directed by Court Order. Rather, when responding to an N.Y. Information subpoena, a subpoenaed financial institution should only provide the last four digits of a customer’s Social Security number (absent a Court Order specifically requiring the production of a customer’s complete Social Security number). We counsel our financial institution clients to follow this practice.

A panel of scientific experts met last week at the request of federal regulators to discuss the potential side effects of talc and cancer risks to consumers. Specifically, the independent panel discussed the safety of talc in food, drug, and cosmetic products. Talc litigation is rampant across the country, with plaintiffs’ lawyers and experts arguing that talc products can become contaminated with asbestos fibers, ultimately leading to disease and death. During the roundtable discussion, the panel of researchers, pathologists, and toxicologists reached a consensus that manufacturers “should move away from using talc” based on a risk-benefit analysis. With a recent mix of plaintiff and defense verdicts in talc litigation across the country, it will be interesting to see what impact, if any, the FDA’s recommendations have. Presumably, plaintiffs’ counsel will point to the FDA’s shift away from talc use as evidence of its risks, while defense counsel and their experts will cite the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis – instead of new definitive scientific findings and studies.

In 2019, New York enacted the Child Victims Act (CVA). The legislature ultimately opened a two-year window for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file claims that were otherwise time-barred and allowed future claims to be brought until a plaintiff turned 55. Since the enactment of the CVA thousands of lawsuits have been filed across New York, alleging that employers were negligent in their hiring, retention, and supervision of alleged abusers. A recent ruling from the New York Court of Appeals in Nellenback v. Madison County offers significant guidance for defendants in CVA cases, particularly in terms of the standard for summary judgment and the requirements for proving negligent supervision claims.

On May 6, 2025, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee announced its approval of two separate bills that would open a two-year window for victims of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits for claims that are currently precluded by the statute of limitations or sovereign immunity. Both bills will now advance to the full Pennsylvania House of Representatives for further consideration.

The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, provides as follows: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Why the reference to “apportionment”? Why the reference to a census? To answer these questions, it is necessary to turn to one of the most forgotten of forgotten Supreme Court cases, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The case was forgotten because it was rendered moot by the passage of the 16th Amendment. Few today remember that the Supreme Court invalidated an income tax statute passed by Congress in the 1890s.

When we think about a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming a criminal defendant’s right against self-incrimination, most of us think of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s famous opinion for the Court’s majority in Miranda v. Arizona, which gave us the well-known, “you have the right to remain silent” warning. However, I believe that the most eloquent statement of the reasons for the protection against self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was made by Justice Hugo Black in his opinion for a unanimous Court in the now largely forgotten case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940). The case is perhaps not entirely forgotten, as anyone who reads the Miranda decision will find Chambers v. Florida cited five times.

MKCI is proud to announce that our firm has achieved Mansfield Certification for 2023–24 and is reaffirming its commitment to Mansfield Certification for 2024-2025!

In Jones v. SEC, 298 U.S. 1 (1936), the Supreme Court considered the extent of the regulatory power conferred on the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 14, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Child Victims Act (“CVA”) into law. Among other things, the CVA permitted child victims of sexual abuse until age 55 to file suit against their perpetrators for any claims that arose after the law’s enactment. For claims that had expired, the CVA also created a “lookback window” which permitted lawsuits to be filed which may have previously been dismissed or would be subject to dismissal due to an expired statute of limitation. Another key element of the CVA was the removal of the Notice of Claim requirement for asserting claims against public entities which had been necessary pursuant to the New York State General Municipal Law.