Latest jury verdicts, settlements, and legal outcome analysis
A Santa Clara County woman won a $4.37 million jury verdict against BMO Bank after the bank placed her husband's mortgage on her credit report by mistake and failed to correct the error despite acknowledging it, causing her credit score to plummet and her business loan applications to be denied.
A North Carolina homeowner sued an HVAC company after it installed a 4-ton heat pump system she claimed was too large for her residence. The Plaintiff alleged the oversized unit caused short cycling, persistent moisture problems, and mold in every room. The Defendant denied the home required a smaller system and maintained it performed all obligations. On August 21, 2025, a unanimous jury returned a defense verdict, finding no negligence.
Mandaris Moore, a resident of Sacramento County, purchased a certified pre-owned 2019 Dodge Grand Caravan backed by a comprehensive manufacturer warranty. Shortly after purchase, the vehicle exhibited persistent transmission, electrical, climate control, and infotainment defects that authorized service centers failed to fix. Moore filed suit against automaker FCA US, LLC under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, alleging the vehicle was a "lemon" and seeking a full buyback or restitution. The manufacturer denied all claims, but the parties ultimately reached a conditional settlement on the eve of trial.
Wallace and Barbara Owen, a retired couple in their late sixties, lost their Salem, Oregon home to a wrongful foreclosure in September 2022 after American Advisors Group falsely declared them in default on their reverse mortgage — without ever inspecting the property. The couple had never left their home. Foreclosure notices mailed by Aldridge Pite LLP never left the state of Georgia and never reached the homeowners, yet Clear Recon Corp proceeded with the trustee's sale anyway. After the sale generated over $175,000 in surplus funds above the debt owed, both Clear Recon Corp and Aldridge Pite withheld that money from the elderly couple, demanding they sign a liability release before any funds would be returned. A Marion County jury sided decisively with the Owens on January 30, 2026, finding all three active Defendants liable for Unlawful Trade Practices and Financial Abuse of a Vulnerable Person, and awarding over $8 million in combined actual, non-economic, and punitive damages.
Kimberly A. Mattei brought a civil lawsuit against auto manufacturer FCA US, LLC, under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as California's lemon law. She alleged that her newly purchased 2021 Jeep Grand Cherokee harbored severe operational defects that the manufacturer's authorized service centers failed to repair despite multiple opportunities. Believing she was entitled to consumer protection remedies, Mattei demanded full restitution of the $58,317.08 purchase price, a civil penalty of up to two times her actual damages for willful misconduct, and compensation for incidental expenses. FCA US, LLC strongly contested the claims, maintaining that the vehicle did not present defects that substantially compromised its safety or value, and arguing that any repair delays did not result in harm to the owner. Following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the jury reached a complete defense verdict, finding that the vehicle's usage was not substantially impaired and that the owner had suffered no demonstrable harm from repair delays.
A New Mexico federal jury awarded $680,000 to an Alaska-based Uber driver after finding that SambaSafety, a consumer reporting agency, falsely reported her driver's license as withdrawn in reports sold to Uber. The jury found the company negligently failed to ensure accuracy and recklessly refused to investigate the driver's dispute.
On April 15, 2026, a federal jury in New York delivered a landmark verdict against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C., finding them liable on all counts in a sweeping civil antitrust lawsuit. The jury concluded that the Defendants willfully maintained monopolies in primary ticketing services and the use of large amphitheaters, utilizing a "flywheel" strategy to suppress competition. Key findings included the unlawful tying of artist promotion services to venue access and the use of exclusionary long-term contracts to lock out rivals. The jury awarded damages of $1.72 per ticket across 22 states, totaling potential hundreds of millions in penalties, and affirmed violations of various state laws, including the California Unfair Competition Law and New York’s Donnelly Act.
Alejandro Andrade leased a 2021 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited, expecting a reliable vehicle backed by comprehensive warranties. However, the experience quickly soured as mechanical defects began to surface, leading Andrade to file a lawsuit against FCA US LLC under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. He alleged that the manufacturer failed to repair the vehicle or offer a buyback after multiple attempts. The legal battle centered on whether the Jeep was truly "merchantable"—fit for ordinary use—and whether FCA had breached its implied warranty. After hearing the arguments and reviewing the repair history, the jury ultimately sided with the manufacturer. They determined that the vehicle was of acceptable trade quality and fit for its intended purpose, resulting in a take-nothing verdict for the Plaintiff.
A federal jury in Seattle delivered a stinging rebuke to a well-known patent licensing operation, awarding Valve Corporation $159,457 after finding that Leigh Rothschild, his network of shell entities, and their Seattle attorney repeatedly threatened the Steam platform owner over patents Valve had already paid to license back in 2016. Jurors found Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,221 invalid as obvious, ruled that Display Technologies materially breached the parties' Global Settlement and License Agreement by suing Valve in 2022, and concluded that every Defendant, including attorney Samuel Meyler and his firm, made bad-faith infringement assertions in violation of Washington's Patent Troll Prevention Act and Consumer Protection Act. The verdict marks one of the rare occasions a jury has tagged a prolific patent assertion entity with statutory bad-faith liability under state law, and increased damages on top.
