The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Doe v. Lufthansa expands district courts’ jurisdiction over foreign airlines. The plaintiffs, a married same-sex couple, booked round-trip flights from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco through Lufthansa, headquartered in Germany but regularly operating flights in and out of California. The plaintiffs allege that Lufthansa staff in Saudi Arabia singled out the couple’s marital status, demanded personal documents, and disclosed their relationship to Saudi authorities, creating grave risks in a country where same-sex relationships are criminalized. The couple brought claims for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress in California. The district court initially dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, reasoning that the conduct alleged occurred abroad.Continue Reading Caution for Global Carriers: Specific Personal Jurisdiction Expanded in Doe v. Lufthansa
What’s The Contract? The Debate Continues In Michigan, with Consequences Beyond
Crowell has reported before on important ripples in commercial contract law centered on what counts as the enforceable contract between automotive product buyers and sellers. In its 2023 opinion in MSSC Inc. v. Airboss, the Michigan Supreme Court found that a master supply agreement was not enforceable, as opposed to the individual release orders issued under those agreements. Courts and industry have been left to grapple with the significant implications since.Continue Reading What’s The Contract? The Debate Continues In Michigan, with Consequences Beyond
Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Preemption Uncertainty
On October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, 124 F.4th 1053 (7th Cir. 2025), taking on the question of whether federal law preempts state negligent selection claims against brokers. This marks a significant development in the ongoing circuit split over the reach of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) and its “safety exception.”
The Supreme Court’s review signals that much-needed clarity may soon be available for brokers, carriers, and litigants nationwide. As discussed in our earlier post, the Sixth and Ninth Circuits have allowed negligent selection claims under the safety exception, while the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have found such claims preempted. The Court will now determine whether state-law negligence claims against brokers are barred by federal law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Preemption Uncertainty
Senate Confirms DOT Leadership Positions, Including NHTSA Administrator
Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed three of President Trump’s picks for Department of Transportation (DOT) administrator positions:
- Jonathan Morrison, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
- Sean McMaster, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
- Paul Roberti, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
The confirmations were considered “en bloc,” meaning that the administrators, along with 45 of President
CPSC Takes Another Step to Advance Draft Rule on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Micromobility Products
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC’s) proposed safety standard for lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products is back on the agency’s agenda.
On August 21, Acting Chairman and current sole Commissioner of the CPSC, Peter Feldman, issued a statement announcing several advancements of “critical safety standards” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) pursuant to Executive Order No. 14215, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” including the CPSC’s draft proposed rule on lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products. The lithium-ion micromobility product standard, and whether the CPSC would put it forward for codification, has been in flux for months. The CPSC originally introduced the rule on January 8, 2025 following the bipartisan “Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act” bill signaling Congress’s desire for the CPSC to issue a consumer product safety standard for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility devices. In April, the CPSC voted to move forward with the rule, but subsequently withdrew it following President Trump’s firing of three Democratic Commissioners. The proposed rule was most recently re-noticed by the CPSC on June 20, 2025, when those three Commissioners were temporarily reinstated, but withdrawn just days later, without explanation.Continue Reading CPSC Takes Another Step to Advance Draft Rule on Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Micromobility Products
Summer 2025 Autonomous Vehicle Updates
Automated vehicles (AVs) have received heightened attention from the automotive industry and regulators this summer when it comes to improving and expanding AV technology in the US. To learn more, please read our Client Alert Summer 2025 Autonomous Vehicle Developments.
Supreme Court Asked to Resolve Circuit Split on Freight Broker Liability
A recent Supreme Court petition in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II LLC et al. seeks to resolve a deepening circuit split over whether state-law negligence claims against freight brokers are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA). While courts broadly agree that the FAAAA preempts state laws “relating to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier,” they diverge on whether the statute’s “safety exception” —which provides in relevant part that the FAAAA “shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles”—permits claims for negligent hiring or selection against brokers.Continue Reading Supreme Court Asked to Resolve Circuit Split on Freight Broker Liability
Federal Micromobility Regulations – the Up and Coming
When will the CPSC regulate micromobility products?
On June 20, 2025, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) re-noticed a proposed rule (“the notice” or “NPR”) on “Lithium-Ion Batteries Used in Micromobility Products and Electrical Systems of Micromobility Products Containing Such Batteries,” which it withdrew just days later. The notice has had an unusually erratic past – it was (1) voted on by the five-person commission in April, (2) initially noticed in early May, (3) withdrawn, (4) re-noticed in June, and (5) again withdrawn. The first withdrawal in May was due to President Trump’s firing of the three Democratic CPSC Commissioners who voted to issue the notice (the two Republicans on the Commission voted against it). After the Democratic Commissioners were reinstated, and the notice was reissued, it appeared that a micromobility rule was finally on its way. However, it was again removed – this time without explanation.Continue Reading Federal Micromobility Regulations – the Up and Coming
Another Michigan Auto Parts Agreement Terminated Under Release-By-Release Doctrine
In Kiekert de Mexico S.A. de CV v. Brose Jefferson, Inc., another federal court in Michigan relied on the 2023 Airboss ruling regarding “release-by-release” agreements in an order allowing an auto parts supplier in Mexico to reject order-by-order purchase releases from a Michigan purchaser, finding that the “needs” of the buyer under the parties’ agreement were too vague to meet the statute of frauds.
At the heart of this issue is what amount of specificity exactly is required to spell out a “requirements contract,” which is enforceable under the statute of frauds and cannot be terminated on an order-by-order basis. In the absence of sufficient specificity, a release-by-release agreement allows either party to walk away from the “blanket” or “umbrella” supply agreement except as to specific release orders that are issued and accepted.Continue Reading Another Michigan Auto Parts Agreement Terminated Under Release-By-Release Doctrine
New Executive Order on English Language Requirement for Commercial Vehicle Drivers
On April 28, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order for Enforcing Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers. The EO declares it “the policy of [the] Administration to support America’s truckers and safeguard our roadways by enforcing the commonsense English-language requirement for commercial motor vehicle drivers and removing needless regulatory burdens that undermine the working conditions of America’s truck drivers.” Current Federal law provides that a commercial motor vehicle driver must be able to “read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records.” 49 C.F.R. § 391.11(b)(2). A June 15, 2016, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) guidance document describes circumstances in which that regulation will and will not be enforced. The new EO requires that the Secretary of Transportation rescind that guidance document within 60 days and issue new guidance with “revised inspection procedures necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. 391.11(b)(2).” Such guidance should ensure that “a violation of the English language proficiency requirement results in the driver being placed out-of-service.”Continue Reading New Executive Order on English Language Requirement for Commercial Vehicle Drivers