|
Entering 2026, Wilson Sonsini litigators see a landscape defined by AI‑driven disputes, continued tightening of patent‑review standards, renewed securities and governance litigation, stronger consumer and influencer enforcement, and escalating Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) exposure—trends that require companies to align legal strategy with technical and operational controls.
|
|
AI and the law will continue to exert transformative forces upon each other: lawyers will use (and misuse) AI to assist in litigation, from drafting briefs to preparing for oral argument, but practitioners must be wary, as courts’ patience for hallucinations has worn out; meanwhile, litigation over copyright, defamation, and negligence claims will exert pressure on how AI models are trained, maintained, and presented to consumers, and in-house counsel should carefully consider how terms of use and disclaimers can help inform users about their platforms. 2026 will likely see further precedent-setting decisions in this space, as major trial-court victories and defeats wend their way through the appellate process.
|
|
We continue to see a significant focus in governance litigation on challenging related party and conflict transactions. Meaning Delaware's newly adopted Section 144, which provides for cleansing such transactions through disinterested board/committee or stockholder approval, is an important tool to ensure transactions get business judgement level deference and to minimize litigation risk accordingly.
|
|
The use of AI to screen individuals both for purposes of hiring and termination decisions has already spawned employment discrimination-related claims and is likely to result in not only more litigation, but more regulation at the state and federal levels. We also expect to see disputes based on errors and inaccuracies in AI-generated employment documents, such as employment agreements, employee handbooks, commission plans, and separation agreements. While AI can be a useful tool in the workplace, it should be paired with appropriate human oversight, including coordination with counsel to ensure that the technology complies with applicable law.
|
|
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has started denying inter partes reviews on a new "settled expectations" discretionary ground as seen in iRhythm v. Welch Allyn, where longstanding awareness of a patent and delay in seeking review can weigh against institution, creating timing tradeoffs with statutory bars, litigation stage denials, and Federal Circuit standing rules. Institution rates at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have tightened significantly, but the PTAB will still institute well supported petitions. Wilson Sonsini's recent success securing institution in five petitions for Azurity after surviving discretionary review shows that rigorous prior art presentation, focused claim charts, and a clear factual record on timing can overcome heightened scrutiny. Petitioners should therefore do prompt diligence, document when they learned of challenged patents, and build airtight prior art and timing records.
|
|
In September 2025, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a policy statement confirming that mandatory arbitration provisions in a company's governing documents will not, by themselves, impact the staff's willingness to accelerate the effectiveness of a registration statement. This policy statement represents a strong about-face by the SEC, which for decades suggested that mandatory arbitration clauses could potentially violate the anti-waiver provisions of the federal securities laws. This now leaves open the possibility of companies—both those filing for an offering as well as existing public companies amending their governing documents—adopting such provisions and potentially reducing the burden and expense of shareholder litigation. However, questions remain that make the adoption of such provisions less than straightforward, including whether challenges to such provisions could still be levied under state and/or federal law, whether investors (and proxy advisory firms) will be receptive, and whether such provisions may create unintended consequences. Nonetheless, given their strong theoretical appeal, we might see issuers test the boundaries of these provisions in 2026, even if they are required to weather the storm of litigation challenging their validity.
|
|
Influencer, endorsement, and consumer review programs need meaningful disclosure and monitoring controls. The Federal Trade Commission broadened endorsement definitions to include virtual influencers, tags, and insider reviews. Moreover, click-through or hard-to-see disclosures will not cut it. Brands that do not actively monitor partners, that facilitate undisclosed paid reviews, or that otherwise disincentivize negative reviews may face potential enforcement referrals. Companies should implement standard influencer agreements with mandatory disclosure language, conduct periodic audits of partner posts, and have an escalation playbook for undisclosed activity. Read our practical guidance one-pager for leveraging influencers.
|
|
TCPA litigation surged in 2025—class actions nearly doubled year over year—making wireless outreach one of the fastest growing litigation risks for consumer facing companies, but also for platforms facilitating that outreach. Even routine text campaigns and small technical lapses (e.g., delayed opt-out handling, poor consent records, or reassigned number errors) can result in multimillion-dollar settlements and costly class action litigation. Companies engaging in wireless outreach should treat TCPA compliance and exposure as a top operational risk and are well advised to set up airtight consent flows, audit and centralize consent records, establish instant opt-out handling, integrate reassigned number screening, and preserve immutable logs.
|
