Picture a high-stakes opioid reckoning where a powerhouse law firm gets sidelined mid-battle, and a tech titan scrambles to dodge privacy pitfalls in the video streaming age. In the latest twists shaking class actions and mass torts, Utah’s top prosecutor axes a controversial player, while LinkedIn braces for a federal showdown on data snooping—signaling escalating scrutiny on Big Law ethics and digital footprints.
In a bombshell move that’s rippling through the opioid crisis litigation landscape, Utah Attorney General Derek Brown terminated Motley Rice’s contract on October 16, 2025, yanking the firm from its role as co-counsel in the state’s multidistrict lawsuit against pharmacy benefit managers and opioid distributors. The abrupt firing came days after defendant OptumRx, a UnitedHealth Group unit, filed a motion to disqualify Motley Rice, citing alleged conflicts of interest tied to the firm’s lucrative deals with other state AGs and private settlements that could undermine Utah’s case. Motley Rice, a Charleston, S.C.-based heavyweight that’s pocketed over $1 billion in contingency fees from tobacco and opioid wins, had been hired in 2022 to spearhead Utah’s suit alleging racketeering and deceptive practices that fueled the epidemic’s toll—claiming over 2,000 overdose deaths in the Beehive State alone.
Brown’s decision echoes broader GOP-led crackdowns on “shady trial lawyer pipelines,” as National Review framed it, with the AG’s office pivoting to in-house counsel and undisclosed local firms to avoid further entanglements. This isn’t Motley Rice’s first brush with scrutiny; the firm faced similar ousters in Kentucky and Texas amid probes into fee-sharing pacts and undisclosed kickbacks. Utah’s opioid MDL, consolidated in Arizona federal court, now targets OptumRx alongside AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson for allegedly inflating prescriptions and suppressing generic competition—seeking billions in abatement funds for treatment and prevention.
Shifting gears to the tech front, a California federal judge on October 22, 2025, greenlit a proposed class action under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) against LinkedIn, rejecting the platform’s bid to dismiss claims it secretly shared users’ video-watching habits via Meta’s tracking pixel. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco ruled that plaintiffs—anonymous job seekers who binge-watched LinkedIn Learning tutorials—plausibly alleged “personally identifiable information” (PII) like Facebook IDs and viewing histories were disclosed to third parties without consent, violating the 1988 law born from VHS rental scandals.
The suit, filed by San Diego’s Bonny Sweeney, accuses LinkedIn of embedding the pixel on 50+ video pages, capturing data for ad targeting and potentially exposing sensitive career insights—like upskilling in layoffs or niche therapies. LinkedIn argued the info was too granular to identify individuals and that VPPA doesn’t cover “learning” videos, but Chhabria shot back: No reasonable user expects their professional development playlist to feed ad algorithms. This joins two related California suits against the Microsoft-owned site, amplifying a wave of VPPA claims against trackers from TikTok to The New York Times.
Legal eagles are dissecting both blows with fervor. Amanda Bronstad, Law.com’s class actions maven, spotlighted the duo in her October 29 “Critical Mass” briefing, calling the Motley Rice axing a “wake-up call” for contingency arrangements in public-interest suits. Opioid litigators at WSJ opined it’s a “long-overdue purge” of firms blurring public and private gains, while privacy advocates at the EFF hailed the LinkedIn ruling as a “pixel-popping precedent” that could net $2,500 per violation in damages. On X, #OpioidJustice threads buzz with plaintiff bar frustration—”AGs folding to Big Pharma pressure?”—and #VPPAWatch cheers the green light as a win for “data sovereignty.” Skeptics, per Bloomberg Law, warn VPPA’s VHS-era wording may falter in appeals, but for now, it’s fueling 500+ tracker suits nationwide.
For U.S. readers, these developments pack a punch across legal, economic, and everyday spheres. In the opioid arena, Utah’s shake-up could streamline recoveries for the $50 billion national settlement pool, funneling funds faster to rural clinics and addiction programs—but at the cost of specialized firepower, potentially dragging cases and hiking taxpayer tabs for in-house defenses. Economically, it spotlights the $10 billion contingency-fee machine, pressuring firms to tighten ethics amid FTC probes into AG-lawyer ties. On privacy’s turf, the LinkedIn suit turbocharges VPPA as a cudgel against surveillance capitalism, empowering users in a post-Roe world where health-related views (think fertility coaching vids) demand ironclad shields—aligning with Biden’s 2025 data broker regs and state laws like California’s CPRA. Lifestyle ripple? Job hunters, beware: Your LinkedIn scrolls could cost corps millions, nudging platforms toward opt-in tracking and boosting VPN adoption. Politically neutral yet pivotal, both stories underscore a judiciary clamping down on conflicts and overreach, from pharma lobbies to Silicon Valley silos.
As Utah’s opioid push recalibrates and LinkedIn’s pixel peril advances to discovery, these cases herald a fiercer era for accountability in crisis cash and clickstream secrets. Will more AGs follow Brown’s lead, or double down on deep-pocketed allies? And can VPPA evolve beyond Blockbuster ghosts to tame today’s trackers? The mass tort machine—and your metadata—hang in the balance.
By Sam Michael
Follow us for the latest class action breakthroughs and subscribe to push notifications for instant updates straight to your device!
Utah AG Motley Rice opioid litigation, Derek Brown fires law firm, opioid MDL disqualification, Video Privacy Protection Act LinkedIn, VPPA class action pixel tracking, LinkedIn Learning privacy suit, Amanda Bronstad Critical Mass, class action news 2025, mass tort ethics conflicts, federal judge VPPA ruling