The Impact of Mass Tort Lawsuits on Public Health and Safety Regulations

September 11, 2023

Mass tort litigation is a realm of law that seeks to address widespread harm caused by dangerous consumer products, environmental pollution, toxic substances, and other harmful agents. This form of litigation operates as an informal regulatory mechanism, particularly when governmental bodies fail to adequately protect consumers' safety. It's a powerful tool that can prompt significant changes in public health and safety regulations.


Product liability law plays a crucial role in this process. It imposes liability without fault on anyone engaged in the business of selling unsafe products. This means manufacturers can be held strictly liable if the risks of their products outweigh the benefits, irrespective of the level of care they exercised during the product's design phase.


This strict liability principle offers an effective alternative to government regulation. It enables quicker identification of risks and faster implementation of corrective action. It also creates a deterrent for businesses, discouraging them from releasing potentially harmful products onto the market.


In the pharmaceutical industry, private litigation can uncover superior epidemiological evidence, driving both the industry and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to improve safety measures. High-profile litigation can capture public attention, adding pressure on the industry, healthcare providers, and individuals to enhance safety protocols and improve communication.


A good example is the ongoing 3M Earplug lawsuit, where thousands of military service members and veterans are suing 3M for alleged hearing damage due to defective earplugs. This case, centralized under a Florida district court as a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for efficiency, is the largest in U.S history, highlighting the extensive impact of product liability on both corporations and consumers.


The effectiveness of tort law in promoting public health and safety is still a matter under scrutiny. Critics argue that mass tort litigation can lead to 'litigation crisis', with excessive costs and uncertainty. Yet, its potential to bring about corrective action and influence public health policy cannot be denied.


As we continue to observe the unfolding of cases like 3M, one thing remains clear: mass tort litigation has the potential to significantly impact public health and safety regulations for the better. It serves as a watchdog, holding manufacturers accountable and pushing for better policies to protect the public.


Ultimately, the goal of mass tort litigation is not just to provide compensation to those harmed but to create a safer and healthier society for everyone.


While this article provides general legal information, it does not constitute legal advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific legal issue is to contact a lawyer.


Contact Us

By submitting this form you agree to receive text messages.

By Rebecca Rivera December 9, 2025
As reported in the Washington Post December 5th, 2025 by Amudalat Ajasa A prominent scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, has retracted a widely cited 2000 study that previously concluded the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, posed no cancer risk to humans. The retraction was initiated after evidence emerged suggesting the study was heavily influenced by the herbicide's seller, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), in an apparent effort to disguise potential health risks. Specific concerns cited by the journal include the strong possibility that Monsanto employees contributed to the writing without proper acknowledgment, that the authors may have received undisclosed payments from the company , and that the findings were based solely on unpublished Monsanto studies. This misconduct, discovered through internal company emails during federal litigation, is significant because the faulty research served as a bedrock for regulatory decisions regarding glyphosate for decades. Summary of Alleged Faulty Study and Monsanto's Influence The Study and Its Conclusion: The retracted paper, published in 2000, was a "bedrock study" that concluded: "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans." The Retraction: The scientific journal retracted the study due to a loss of confidence in its results and conclusions, citing the need to "maintain the integrity of the journal." Evidence of Undisclosed Influence: The co-editor in chief cited evidence suggesting that Monsanto employees "may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co authors." Undisclosed Payments: The retraction also noted that the study's authors may have been paid by Monsanto without disclosing it . Basis of Findings: The journal stated that the study's findings about cancer risk were "solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto." Discovery of Influence: Monsanto's influence over the study was reportedly discovered through internal emails released during federal litigation against the company in 2017. Impact: The study "had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and Roundup for decades," and was one of the most-cited papers on glyphosate safety, underpinning federal regulations for the pesticide. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) even cited it in its 2016 review of glyphosate. Context and Aftermath Bayer's Defense: Bayer (which acquired Monsanto in 2018) defended the chemical's safety and argued that Monsanto's involvement was appropriately cited in the acknowledgments, stating that glyphosate is the most extensively studied herbicide and that the "vast majority of published studies on glyphosate had no Monsanto involvement." Regulatory Stance: The EPA stated the retraction would not affect its current stance —which is that glyphosate is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans"—because the agency does not directly rely on review articles like this one, but uses them to find other relevant individual studies. Litigation: Bayer has spent approximately $10 billion to settle lawsuits arguing the company did not warn customers about the negative health impacts of using Roundup. Read the full article in the Washington Post
By Rebecca Rivera November 14, 2025
In this series premiere episode, Founder & President of SOSCSA, Child Sexual Abuse Survivor & BSA Bankruptcy Claimant, Curtis Garrison interviews attorney Jason J Joy for an update on the BSA bankruptcy and discussing childhood abuse litigation for which Jason is an outspoken and experienced advocate. Jason's firm is actively litigating cases for many clients his law firm represents. This podcast is recommended for clients already represented, and for those who are still contemplating coming forward to establish a claim. Topics covered in this episode: Recent BSA Bankruptcy Trust report Lajun Claimants (Guam) v. Boy Scouts of America and their recent Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court The 1.5% initial payment, possible second payment time / total percentage Future Claims, BSA Councils, BSA Charters (churches, schools, etc) which there are over 100,000 entities possibly getting free of liability Mixed Claims explained We did not vote for this plan, they promised we would be paid in “Paid in Full” Plans to file an Amicus Brief Statute of Limitations 
By Rebecca Rivera November 6, 2025
The Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy case, involving tens of thousands of survivors of childhood sexual abuse, is among the largest and most contentious mass tort proceedings in U.S. history. In this podcast, Attorney Jason Joy breaks down the latest ruling from the Third Circuit Court, which leaves many survivors of childhood sexual abuse with drastically underfunded compensation.