For plaintiffs’ firms, identifying the next major area of litigation is about more than following headlines. New products, technologies, and theories of liability can quickly develop into significant individual claims, and several areas are particularly worth watching right now.
1. GLP-1 Litigation Continues to Grow
The explosive popularity of GLP-1 medications has been accompanied by rapidly expanding products liability litigation.
Thousands of federal lawsuits involving GLP-1 receptor agonists including drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and others have been consolidated in MDL No. 3094 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that the medications caused gastroparesis and other serious gastrointestinal injuries and that manufacturers failed to provide adequate warnings; the defendants deny the allegations.
As of September 1, 2026, the MDL had 4,022 pending actions, up from 3,928 a month earlier.
GLP-1 litigation also isn’t confined to gastrointestinal injuries. A separate federal MDL is addressing claims involving non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a form of vision loss, demonstrating how litigation surrounding a single category of drugs can develop into multiple distinct liability tracks.
2. Digital Privacy Is Becoming a Major Class Action Battleground
Some of today’s fastest-growing class actions begin with something consumers encounter every day: a website.
Plaintiffs are increasingly challenging the use of tracking pixels, session-replay software, cookies, chat tools and other technologies that collect or transmit information about website visitors. Claims have invoked laws including the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) and similar state statutes.
The volume is notable. According to data discussed by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, more than 3,000 data-breach class actions were filed in 2025 alone. And the theories continue to evolve: an analysis of 128 federal website-tracking privacy class actions filed during Q1 2026 found that more than 10% targeted advertising-technology and data vendors themselves, rather than only the websites deploying the technology.
This area is especially interesting because plaintiffs are applying statutes written before today’s digital advertising ecosystem existed to modern data collection practices.
3. Social Media Litigation Moves Deeper Into Product Liability
Litigation over social media’s impact on children and adolescents has moved well beyond the theoretical stage.
Federal lawsuits alleging that social media platforms were deliberately designed with addictive features and contributed to mental-health injuries among young users have been centralized in MDL No. 3047 in the Northern District of California. As of September 1, the federal MDL contained 3,208 pending actions, an increase of more than 1,200 over the prior 12 months.
The cases are significant because plaintiffs are not simply challenging objectionable content. Many claims focus on product design itself, including recommendation algorithms, engagement mechanisms and features plaintiffs allege encourage compulsive use.
That distinction could have implications far beyond social media. It raises a broader question likely to recur as technology becomes more personalized: When does a digital platform stop being merely a conduit for content and become a product whose design can itself create liability?
4. PFAS Litigation Is Far From Over
PFAS, often called “forever chemicals,” have already produced enormous litigation involving drinking-water contamination. But the next chapters are increasingly focused on individual exposure and personal injury.
The AFFF firefighting foam litigation remains one of the country’s largest MDLs. As of September 1, 15,264 actions were pending in MDL No. 2873 in the District of South Carolina. Settlements involving billions of dollars have addressed claims by eligible public water systems, but those settlements are distinct from the individual personal-injury cases, which remain active.
PFAS have been used across a vast range of industrial and consumer applications, meaning the universe of potential exposure theories extends well beyond any single product.
5. AI Litigation Is Moving Beyond Copyright
The first major wave of generative AI litigation centered heavily on a straightforward question: Can companies train AI models on copyrighted material without permission?
That question remains very much alive. Authors, publishers, software developers, news organizations and other rights holders continue litigating claims involving AI training data, and major consolidated litigation is underway in federal court.
But the scope of AI litigation is already broadening.
Recent cases and legal analysis point toward claims involving privacy and biometric information, product liability, discrimination, child safety, deepfakes and allegedly harmful AI-generated interactions. At the same time, the focus is beginning to move beyond companies that build AI models to businesses that deploy AI in hiring, customer interactions and other operational decisions.
That evolution could be especially consequential for the plaintiffs’ bar. AI is rapidly being embedded into ordinary products and services, potentially creating fact patterns that fit within familiar legal frameworks even when the underlying technology is new.
The Bigger Picture
These five areas look very different on the surface, but they share a common theme: existing legal frameworks are being tested against new products, technologies and forms of exposure.
For plaintiffs’ firms, that makes staying ahead of litigation trends increasingly important. Today’s emerging theory can become tomorrow’s MDL, class action or new category of individual claims, and firms that understand where litigation is developing are better positioned to evaluate opportunities, allocate resources and plan for growth.
At RapidFunds, we work with plaintiffs’ firms at every stage of growth. When resolved cases create a gap between settlement and the receipt of attorney fees, post-settlement funding can provide firms with access to capital while they wait for those fees to be distributed.
Explore more insights and resources from RapidFunds: RapidFunds