Author: JGL Law

In an article published by Corporate Compliance Insights on November 18, 2025, Gia Grimm and Karan Manohar discuss the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA), which is effective as of October 1, 2025, and enforceable beginning April 1, 2026.

MODPA is a comprehensive state privacy law that regulates how businesses collect, process, use and share personal data of Maryland residents. Gia and Karan write that businesses that engage in e-commerce and retailers that collect names, addresses and payment information will need to comply with MODPA, as will subscription services businesses such as streaming platforms that keep consumer login, billing or preference details.

Gia and Karan add that under MODPA, personal data refers to any information that can be “linked or reasonably linked to an identified or identifiable consumer.” Examples of personal data include information relating to an individual’s address, email information or cookie ID.

They go on to explain that the act establishes affirmative rights for consumers, who now have the right to correct inaccuracies within their personal data and can opt out of having their personal data processed and used for targeted advertising.

With failures to comply resulting in fines of up to $10,000 per violation and $25,000 for repeated violations, it’s critical that businesses prepare for the act now, Gia and Karna said. Businesses should first determine if they are governed by MODPA, and if so, establish an implementation plan to comply with MODPA’s requirements before enforcement begins April 1, 2026.

Read the full article “What You Need to Know About Maryland’s New Data Privacy Law.” (PDF)

What does False Claim Act (FCA) enforcement look like nine months into President Donald Trump’s second term? It’s a mixed bag. Some cases the administration is pursuing are tried and true areas of fraud enforcement while others are brand new and still being developed. Some of the priority cases so far from 2025 are summarized below.

For whistleblowers and their counsel, there is some measure of consistency with previous policies and priorities in FCA cases. This includes continued prosecution of health care and cybersecurity fraud, both of which are priorities from past administrations that seem to be holding their places in this new dynamic. Several settlements and verdicts announced so far this year are the classic health care fraud the government has championed for decades – regardless of presidents – like unlawful kickbacks, charging for services not rendered, upcoding, and useless services. These cases are a fairly consistent through-line between administrations, and we are seeing them hold in 2025.

There are also new policies and priorities that differ or break from the past. This administration has made tariffs a focal point of not only international relations policy but also domestically for the Department of Justice. We have seen a flurry of FCA enforcement and settlement activity already involving allegations of failing to pay tariffs or other custom duties. Another new tactic announced by this administration is using the FCA for the first time to go after recipients of federal dollars who have any “illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion” practices, causing uncertainty and apprehension in the government contractor space about what constitutes illegal DEI.

While this article does not discuss every case or policy initiative relating to the FCA, it attempts to provide a snapshot of how FCA cases are faring so far under the new administration, as well as how both whistleblower counsel and the defense bar are litigating hot-button FCA issues in 2025.

Key 2025 Jury Verdicts and Appeals

Relatively speaking, most FCA cases do not get litigated. Most either settle before litigation or are declined by the government and dismissed by relators. However, more and more often whistleblowers and experienced FCA counsel are litigating declined cases and reaping the rewards of these hard-fought battles. Several high-profile jury verdicts made headlines this year, including in cases the government declined.

Is the qui tam provision unconstitutional? In January, several appeal briefs were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on both sides of U.S. ex rel Zafirov v. Physician Partners et al., Case No. 8:19CV-01236 (M.D. FL 2024), in which an outlier ruling from a district court in Florida that found the FCA’s qui tam provision to be unconstitutional. In that declined case, the whistleblower alleged that the providers submitted false risk adjustment data to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, resulting in higher reimbursement than was owed. Ending the case before trial, the district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defense, finding for the first time in over 200 years that the FCA’s qui tam provision is unconstitutional.

That provision is, of course, the unique aspect of the FCA that allows – and in fact encourages – ordinary citizens to file suit on the government’s behalf when they have personal knowledge of fraud. Last year saw the highest number of qui tam actions ever filed, according to the DOJ. This year, defendants are filing motions to dismiss citing Zafirov, though the majority are still denied around the country. The DOJ, the relators’ bar, and friendly parties (including Republican Sen. Charles Grassley) all weighed in to support the qui tam provision. Meanwhile, those arguing that it is unconstitutional include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Legal Foundation, and several large and influential industry groups, medical providers, and insurers. With heavy-hitting amici lining up on both sides of this issue, anyone interested in the FCA needs to follow this appeal closely as it appears destined for the Supreme Court.

SuperValu ends in a defense win. In March, an Illinois jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant SuperValu after a 14-year battle defending against a whistleblower’s allegations that the grocery store offered discounts to customers for generic drugs that it did not also offer to Medicare and Medicaid, thereby overcharging the government. Before the jury verdict, this case took a detour to the Supreme Court in 2023, which overruled the Seventh Circuit and confirmed that whether a defendant has scienter sufficient for FCA liability depends on the defendant’s subjective knowledge. While that opinion was a victory for whistleblowers and the FCA, the SuperValu whistleblower’s tortured saga ultimately ended in a defense verdict.

Omnicare faces trebling and penalties. In April, a unanimous jury in New York returned a verdict against Omnicare, the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy, and parent CVS Health Corporation in one of the largest damages verdicts ever returned by a jury in a FCA case. After a month-long trial, the civil jury found that Omnicare billed the government for over 3 million false claims, resulting in $135,592,814 in damages. Under the FCA, the government is entitled to three times that amount plus statutory penalties to be determined by the court.

Janssen seeks relief from billion-dollar judgment. In July, Janssen Pharmaceuticals appealed a $1.6 billion judgment from a federal court in New Jersey. After a six-week trial prosecuted by a whistleblower after the government declined to intervene, the jury had returned a verdict finding that Janssen submitted 159,574 false claims and awarding $120 million in damages. The district court upheld the award and added $360 million in treble damages plus $8,000 per claim, amounting to an eye-popping $1.63 billion judgment. Janssen’s appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals claims that the judgment is excessive and, echoing Zafirov, the qui tam provision of the FCA is unconstitutional. The appeal is now pending.

CVS Caremark tagged with $289 million judgment. In August, a federal court in Pennsylvania assessed post-trial damages after a $95 million verdict against CVS Caremark Corporation. The case was brought by a whistleblower who proved that Caremark knowingly caused certain Medicare Part D sponsors to misrepresent to the government the amount that Part D beneficiaries paid for prescription drugs at Walgreens and Rite Aid in 2013 and 2014. After applying statutory treble damages and civil penalties, the court entered final judgment for $289,873,500.

Jury hands Eli Lilly $183 million judgment. In September, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict of $61.23 million against Eli Lilly that was increased to $183.7 million after statutory trebling under the FCA. The appeals court concluded the jury had reasonably found that the company knowingly concealed having retroactively increased its prices on some drugs and thereafter failed to rebate Medicaid on the higher prices. Though it upheld the verdict, the court rejected the whistleblower’s argument that the judgment should have been higher because the trial court miscounted the number of FCA violations.

Settlements

FCA settlements are far more common than jury verdicts. This year has shown no sign of slowing down as several significant settlements were published.

Health care fraud

Health care fraud cases continue their prominence in FCA enforcement matters. In June, the United States announced the largest national health care fraud takedown ever, involving of 324 defendants charged with over $14.6 billion in alleged fraud. This historic takedown involved various allegations, including fraudulent wound care, prescription opioid trafficking, telemedicine fraud, fraudulent genetic testing, kickbacks and bribes, and services that were not delivered as billed.

Other large health care fraud settlements announced so far in 2025 include the following, with many involving unlawful kickbacks:

• A $17 million settlement with a group of medical supply companies to resolve whistleblower allegations of kickback-related fraud that involved providing free samples and discounts to encourage urology practice groups to use the defendants’ prescription form for prescribing catheters. As typical in kickback cases, DOJ warned of the “use of inducements to influence a physician’s medical decisions” as a risk to the physician-patient relationship.
• A $59.7 million settlement arising from whistleblower allegations that Pfizer gave health care providers kickback payments to encourage them to prescribe the migraine medication Nurtec ODT.
• A $29 million settlement stemming from a whistleblower suit against a New York hospital to resolve allegations that it knowingly retained erroneously received payment from the Department of Defense for services provided to retired military members and their families. This case represents a “reverse false claim,” which alleges that a company mistakenly received federal funds and identified the overpayment but nevertheless retained the funds without disclosing and returning them to the government.
• A $62 million settlement to resolve whistleblower allegations that a Medicare Advantage provider and its former president violated the FCA by causing the submission of false diagnostic codes for spinal conditions that its patients did not actually have in order to increase Medicare Advantage ( Medicare Part C) payments.
• A $350 million settlement with Walgreens related to whistleblower allegations that the pharmacy filled illegal opioid prescriptions.
• A $202 million settlement with Gilead Sciences stemming from whistleblower allegations that it paid kickbacks to doctors to induce them to prescribe Gilead’s HIV drugs. Uniquely, Gilead admitted to certain allegations, including paying for speaking fees, lavish dinner programs, and all-expense-paid trips.
• A $31.5 million settlement initiated by a whistleblower against a health system for allegedly paying kickbacks to physicians in the form of extravagant benefits to induce patient referrals. This settlement resolved allegations of violations of both the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law.
• A $9.2 million settlement stemming from three separate whistleblower lawsuits alleging that a hospice provider paid illegal kickbacks to medical directors, including monthly stipends and signing bonuses, to induce them to refer patients.
• A $18.5 million settlement involving a substance abuse treatment facility that allegedly compensated Medicaid patients for seeking addiction treatment in violation of the federal AntiKickback Statute and FCA.
• A $37 million settlement to resolve whistleblower allegations that a device company and its distributor falsely claimed that their devices were reimbursable by Medicare and marketed them as such, knowing they were not covered. The device company also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with HHS-OIG, requiring ongoing monitoring by the government and reporting by the device company.

Cybersecurity

In 2021, DOJ announced a Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative that would use the FCA to pursue government contractors and grant recipients who allegedly committed cybersecurity-related fraud. Since then, cybersecurity cases have been on the rise, getting the attention of DOJ and cyber companies alike. So far in 2025, DOJ has announced at least three cyber case settlements that are sure to pave the way for more cases in the future. Notably, while most – if not all – of these cases involve government contracts, they are not necessarily breach of contract matters but instead focus on alleged violations of Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations.

The first settlement, announced in May, involved an agreement by Raytheon, RTX Corporation, and Nightwing Group to pay $8.4 million to resolve allegations of noncompliance with cybersecurity requirements in federal contracts with the Department of Defense – specifically, that Raytheon used its noncompliant internal systems to develop, use, and store unclassified defense information.

The second involved Illumina Inc., which agreed to pay $9.8 million to resolve FCA allegations arising from cybersecurity vulnerabilities in genomic sequencing systems. Illumina stood accused of selling systems to the government that had inadequate security programs and insufficient quality systems. In its press release, the government noted that, “HHS-OIG and our law enforcement partners remain dedicated to ensuring that entities who do business with the government uphold their cybersecurity obligations.” Illumina’s former director for platform management was the whistleblower and received a $1.9 million relator share in the settlement.

Though a smaller settlement, the defense contractor Aero Turbine and private equity company Gallant Capital Partners agreed to pay $1.75 million to resolve allegations that they knowingly failed to comply with cybersecurity requirements in a contract with the Air Force. This settlement was fairly novel in that it did not stem from a whistleblower but appeared to be a result of Aero Turbine and Gallant’s cooperation, for which they received significant credit. This settlement also marked a rather rare instance of an FCA settlement against a private equity firm in addition to the contracting firm.

In August 2024, DOJ forged new ground with its first intervention in a cybersecurity FCA case against the Georgia Tech Research Corporation and related parties for work performed at the Georgia Institute of Technology. The government alleged that the defendants failed to meet cybersecurity requirements in connection with certain Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contracts. This included allegations of missing or antiquated antivirus and antimalware programs and the absence of a security plan. On September 30, 2025, DOJ announced a settlement of $875,000 to resolve these allegations.

Customs and Tariffs

DOJ announced a new Trade Fraud Task Force in August, bringing together its civil and criminal divisions and the Department of Homeland Security to pursue actions against parties who evade tariffs and duties and engage in smuggling. Before the announcement, DOJ had already settled at least four customs and tariffs cases during the first part of the year, including:

• An $8.1 million settlement brought by a whistleblower against an importer of multilayered wood flooring that allegedly evaded customs duties on imports from China.
• A $6.8 million settlement with an importer of plastic resin who voluntarily disclosed that it had failed to pay customs duties on products from China.
• A $4.9 million settlement brought by a whistleblower against a patio furniture company accused of violating the FCA by evading antidumping and countervailing duties on items made of extruded aluminum originating in China.
• A $12.4 million settlement brought by a whistleblower against a supplier of countertop and cabinetry products and its president to resolve allegations of evading antidumping and countervailing duties owed to the government on quartz surface products imported from China.

As a key priority for this administration, more customs and tariff settlements are expected in the remainder of this year, next year, and beyond.

Initiatives

In May, DOJ announced the establishment of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, which will use the FCA to eliminate so-called “illegal DEI” programs. This initiative seeks to use the FCA to investigate and prosecute recipients of federal money who knowingly violate federal civil rights laws, defined by this administration as antisemitism and “inherently divisive policies like DEI.” This is an unprecedented effort to use the FCA to enforce an administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights laws and one that has FCA, employment, and government contract practitioners seeking clarity and guidance. It follows Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, repealing previous decades-old executive orders that promoted antidiscrimination policies and encouraged DEI programs. Several entities voluntarily discarded or scaled back their DEI programs in immediate reaction to these orders. To date, no settlements have been announced under this new rubric, but this is certainly one to watch unfold in 2026.

In July, DOJ announced a new working group to combat health care fraud, largely using the power of the FCA. As has been typical of any new administration, this working group announced its top health care enforcement priorities:

• Medicare Advantage.
• Drug, device, or biologics pricing, including discounts.
• Barriers to patient access to care.
• Kickbacks.
• Materially defective medical devices that impact patient safety.
• Manipulation of electronic health records systems to drive inappropriate utilization of Medicare products and services.

Several of these areas, like kickbacks, have been a priority enforcement area for government attorneys for decades. This initiative touts interagency coordination in these enforcement efforts and also strongly encourages relators with knowledge of fraud to identify and report it. With this initiative, we can expect DOJ’s annual enforcement numbers to skew toward health care cases as they almost always do.

Key Takeaways

This administration so far appears to support the FCA and its qui tam provision. In the few months remaining this year and into 2026, we are certain to see more settlements in FCA cases, including in the health care, cybersecurity, customs and tariffs, and public-private partnership spaces, among others. There are no signs that any of these cases or administration priorities will ease up any time soon.

At the same time, however, we continue to see more FCA cases being litigated, including those prosecuted by whistleblowers without government intervention, and tried to verdict and appeal. It appears that both sides of the “V” in these cases are more willing to try their luck in front of a jury than was typically seen in previous decades. With these trial verdicts and appeals, we would hope to get some finality regarding familiar defense arguments that the FCA’s statutory damage and penalties are excessive under the Eighth Amendment and that the qui tam provision of the FCA is unconstitutional. A handful of cases that take up these questions are on appeal right now, and we will continue to watch for developments, including a possible Supreme Court showdown over the constitutionality of the qui tam provision.

Download the False Claims Act 2025 Update (PDF)

JGL was a Table Sponsor at the J. Franklyn Bourne Bar Association’s Annual Banquet “Guardians of Justice: Investing in Tomorrow,” which took place at the University of Maryland College Park on November 7, 2025.

For more than forty years, the annual banquet has supported deserving students and makes a difference in the lives of future African American lawyers and the communities they serve.

JGL attorneys Paul F. Riekhof, Timothy Maloney, Renee Blocker, Jonte M. Hunter, Reed Spellman and law clerk Mathew Seeburger attended.

Veronica Nannis, principal in the firm’s False Claims Act and Civil Litigation departments, moderated the session “Litigating False Claims Act Cases” at the Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) Coalition’s 25th Annual Conference, held November 5–7, 2025, in Washington, DC.

As a member of the TAF Coalition Conference Committee, Veronica helped shape this year’s program and moderated a dynamic discussion on the evolving landscape of False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. Panelists shared practical strategies for handling discovery disputes, motion practice, and complex factual records—core issues for both experienced and emerging FCA litigators.

JGL principal Jay Holland, chair of the firm’s Labor, Employment, and Qui Tam Whistleblower practice attended the event.

In an article published on LinkedIn Pulse on October 29, 2025, Michal Shinnar is quoted about the legal realities surrounding organizations’ efforts to scale back or redefine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Drawing on interviews with 16 leaders across multiple sectors, the piece explores how companies are adjusting their people management strategies amid evolving political and regulatory environments.

Michal notes that while some organizations are moving quickly to eliminate DEI programs, the underlying legal standards remain unchanged. “Title VII hasn’t been overturned,” she explains. “While people are rushing to get rid of DEI, robust Title VII compliance remains important.”

She underscores that anti-discrimination protections, investigation protocols, and equal opportunity requirements still apply. “Title VII (and other anti-discrimination laws) prohibit quota-based hiring practices, exclusionary programs, and providing favorable or less favorable treatment to employees because of protected traits like race or sex, and this applies to all races and sexes.”

Michal emphasizes that auditing for fairness remains a best practice: “Auditing your company to ensure there is not discrimination going on against anyone is a valuable thing for employers to do to ensure Title VII compliance, and should not be thrown out because it has been labeled ‘DEI.’”

Continue reading “The Psychology Behind Corporate DEI Pivots: Evidence vs. Emotion in 2025.”

The holiday season is just around the corner, and for many separated or divorced parents, that means excitement mixed with a bit of anxiety. With Halloween only a day away and Thanksgiving coming quickly after, this is the time of year when custody schedules, communication challenges, and emotional stress can easily collide.

As a Maryland family law attorney, I often see holiday disputes arise not out of bad intentions but from last-minute confusion or lack of planning. The good news is that a little foresight and flexibility can go a long way in keeping the holidays enjoyable for everyone, especially your children.

Start with Halloween: The First Test of the Season

Halloween tends to sneak up fast, and because it’s not always specifically addressed in custody orders, parents often don’t realize there’s a potential for conflict until it’s too late. Who takes the child trick-or-treating? Who attends a school event? What if both parents live in the same neighborhood?

Here are a few tips to get ahead of those issues now:

• Check your custody order to see if Halloween is mentioned as a holiday. If not, the regular weekday schedule usually applies.
• Communicate with the other in advance of the day to discuss plans, including where trick-or-treating will take place, who will handle costumes, and whether both parents will participate.
• Be flexible if possible. If the children want both parents involved, try to make it work.
• Sometimes alternating years or splitting the evening (one parent for early events, one for later) helps everyone enjoy the night.
• Put any agreements in writing (a short email is fine) to avoid confusion later.

Even if things don’t go perfectly, remember that kids are focused on fun and memories, not logistics. Keeping a positive attitude and making the evening about Halloween as opposed to parental conflict is key.

Thanksgiving: Plan Now, Avoid Stress Later

Thanksgiving is traditionally one of the major holidays addressed in Maryland custody orders, but problems still arise when parents assume instead of confirming. Whether your order calls for the holiday to alternate based on years or that a mixture of the holiday and the weekend alternates, make sure you’re clear on what the arrangement is.

Here’s how to stay ahead:

• Like Halloween, confirm the schedule early. Waiting until Thanksgiving morning to coordinate pickup and drop-off times opens you up to conflict.
• If you are traveling, discuss travel plans now. If your plans include out-of-state travel, your agreement likely has an itinerary disclosure requirement that includes a disclosure timing clause. Make sure you are complying with the terms of your agreement.
• Flexibility. While it is important to respect your agreement or the order, Courts appreciate it when parents cooperate and show flexibility, particularly in the context of holidays. If one parent’s extended family is unexpectedly gathering that weekend, consider swapping time if it benefits the child.
• Avoid putting kids in the middle. Don’t ask them to choose where they want to spend the holiday. Present a united front that reassures them both parents are happy they’ll have a good holiday.

If disagreements arise and can’t be resolved, don’t take matters into your own hands. In Maryland, violating a custody order, even for something as well-intentioned as keeping the child for an extra dinner, can have serious consequences. If your order or agreement is unclear or outdated, talk to a family law attorney before acting. Sometimes a simple modification or clarification can prevent larger problems later.

Looking Ahead: Building Better Traditions

While holidays can be stressful, they’re also opportunities to build new traditions. If you’re newly separated or still adjusting to co-parenting, keep your focus on what the children will remember, not custody logistics. Some parents find success by creating new traditions in each household, keeping consistent communication with the other parent about upcoming holidays through shared calendars or apps, and avoiding last-minute changes unless absolutely necessary.

However, holidays are also a time for understanding, and that includes flexibility. That does not mean you have to ignore your order or agreement or let the other parent dictate your holidays, but a bit of flexibility and understanding goes a long way. Your behavior now sets the tone for future cooperation, and Maryland courts consistently encourage co-parents to demonstrate flexibility and reasonableness, especially during the holidays. Showing that you can communicate effectively and put the child’s needs first not only benefits your family dynamic but can also reflect positively in future court proceedings if modifications or disputes arise.

A Final Word

The holidays don’t have to be a source of conflict. By planning early, communicating clearly, and keeping your child’s happiness front and center, you can make Halloween, Thanksgiving, and the rest of the season peaceful and memorable. If you have questions about your custody order, need help clarifying a holiday schedule, or find yourself in a dispute, reach out to discuss as soon as possible. Timely legal guidance can prevent unnecessary stress and allow you to focus on what really matters this season, making lasting memories with your children.

Major changes have reshaped how custody cases are decided in Maryland. In this episode of JGL LAW FOR YOU, attorneys David Bulitt and Christopher Castellano unpack newly enacted House Bill 1191, which establishes 16 key factors courts must now consider when determining what legal and physical custody arrangement is in the best interest of a child. They discuss how these rules create greater uniformity and what parents need to know when preparing for a custody case or modification. Whether you’re facing a potential custody dispute or simply want to understand Maryland’s evolving family law landscape, this episode offers essential insights and practical guidance.

Bethesda Magazine has recognized four attorneys from Joseph, Greenwald & Laake (JGL) on its Top Attorneys 2025 list.

To compile the list, the magazine surveyed attorneys who practice in Montgomery County, asking whom they would trust to represent them if they needed legal counsel. The publication received more than 2,700 nominations and ultimately selected 299 attorneys across a variety of practice areas for inclusion on this year’s list.

The following JGL attorneys were named to the list:

• Valerie Grove – Medical Negligence
• Jay Holland – Employment – Employee
• Timothy Maloney – Appellate and Civil Litigation
• Steven Pavsner – Medical Negligence

Children are more than twice as likely to be struck by a car and killed on Halloween than on any other day of the year.

On the 31^st of October each year, millions and millions of children in the United States celebrate Halloween by walking door to door in their neighborhoods collecting candy from neighbors.

Halloween is an enjoyable time of year; however, it poses significant risks when it comes to pedestrian accidents in Maryland, Virginia, and the District. While following safety tips helps keep young trick-or-treaters safe, injuries can still happen.

Most pedestrian fatalities on Halloween take place between 5:00 and 9:00 p.m. The riskiest hour is between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. as the sun sets and increasing darkness overlaps with children being out on the street.

October is designated National Pedestrian Safety Month by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Especially during this time of year, it is critical for drivers to be alert for pedestrians and cyclists. According to NHTSA, in the United States, 7,314 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes in 2023, a 4% decrease from the 7,593 pedestrian fatalities in 2022.

Halloween Specific Factors Influencing the Risks

Halloween activities occur at dusk, masks restrict peripheral vision, costumes limit visibility, street-crossing safety is neglected, and partygoers who are behind the wheel are impaired by alcohol, leading to Halloween being the most unsafe time of the year for children on our streets.

Weekend vs. Weekday

Friday is the deadliest day for Halloween, with 22% more fatal crashes compared to an average Friday. Halloween car accident statistics show the most dangerous days are also Tuesdays (2nd), Sundays (3rd), and Thursdays (4th).

While there is an increase in fatal crashes happening on Halloween nights versus those nights in general, the weekdays are incredibly more dangerous than the weekend.

Day of the Week	Avg. Daily  Fatal Crashes*	Fatal Crash Difference (+/-)	Fatal Crash Difference (%)
Monday-Friday	1,690	+275	16.3%
Saturday-Sunday	686	+36	5.3%
* Based on corresponding day of the week (Saturday, Monday, etc.) fatal crash average

Things to Remember

• 18% of the people who die in fatal crashes on Halloween are children.
• Pedestrians have a 50% higher chance of dying on Halloween than on the average day.
• Weekday Halloweens have 11% more fatal crashes than weekend Halloweens.
• Over 149,000 Americans signed a petition to permanently move Halloween to Saturday.

Statistics sourced from Auto Insurance.org.

Safety from the National and State Level

Multiple factors influence these numbers, including broad public awareness of Halloween, parental supervision of younger children, and improved safety practices. Halloween highlights the deficiencies on our roads, such as a lack of sidewalks, unsafe street crossings, insufficient areas for children to play in neighborhoods, and failure in traffic and automobile safety, such as excessive speed and alcohol. National Safety Council.

Event-specific interventions to prevent child fatalities include:

• Traffic calming and automated speed enforcement
• Improving pedestrian visibility by limiting on-street parking and incorporating reflective patches into clothing
• Improved media programs highlighting the dangers.

More cities have been designating traffic-free zones for Halloween night, barring cars entirely in a fresh sign the so-called “open,” “slow,” or “shared” streets programs.

Safety Tips for Parents

The state of Maryland offers these Halloween safety tips:

• Choose a costume that won’t cause safety hazards; check to be sure all costumes, wigs, and accessories are fire-resistant.
• Fasten reflective tape to costumes and bags, or give children glow sticks.
• Opt for nontoxic Halloween makeup instead of masks that can obscure vision; for makeup, always test a small area first to see if any irritation develops.
• Have a responsible adult accompany young children on the neighborhood rounds.
• If older children are going out alone, plan and review a route that is acceptable to you.
• Agree on a specific time children should return home.
• Instruct children to travel on and in familiar, well-lit areas and stay with their friends.

Safety Tips for Motorists

The National Safety Council offers these additional safety tips for parents – and anyone who plans to be on the road during trick-or-treat hours. Halloween Safety- National Safety Council

Watch for children walking on roadways, medians, and curbs.

• Enter and exit driveways and alleys carefully.
• At twilight and later in the evening, watch for children in dark clothing.
• Discourage new and inexperienced drivers from driving on Halloween.

Maryland and Virginia Are Contributory Negligence States

The contributory negligence rule can significantly affect the outcome of personal injury claims. From the perspective of a pedestrian, this means that if the pedestrian is found to be even 1% at fault for the accident, they may be completely barred from recovering damages, regardless of how much fault lies with the other party. This could mean the difference between a successful claim and a complete dismissal.

If a pedestrian crosses the street outside of a crosswalk and is struck by a vehicle, even if the driver was distracted or speeding, the fault of the pedestrian for failure to cross at the designated crosswalk might be considered enough to bar them from any compensation.

Speak to an Experienced Pedestrian Law Attorney

You can protect your legal rights and those of your children. Experienced attorneys know how to get you fair compensation if you are injured in a pedestrian accident in Maryland, Virginia or the District of Columbia.

Get the facts. Get educated.

Joseph Greenwald & Laake is pleased to announce that five of our attorneys have been recognized by Benchmark Litigation USA based on feedback from their clients and peers, strong case records and up-and-coming reputations.

Four attorneys received the “Litigation Star” ranking, acknowledging strong case records, positive client feedback and high esteem from their peers:

• Principal Timothy Maloney was previously ranked and has extensive experience with civil and criminal cases.
• Principal Jay Holland practices employment and qui tam litigation. This is his first year being ranked.
• Principal Brian Markovitz, ranked for the first time this year, has experience throughout the country with employment litigation and whistleblower cases.
• Principal Matthew Bryant, also ranked for the first time, practices civil rights and fiduciary litigation.

Principal Veronica Nannis has been recognized as a “Future Star,” highlighting her as one to watch for her leadership and experience in qui tam and fraud litigation.

The Benchmark Litigation USA guide is published by Benchmark Litigation, a globally respected law firm and lawyer ranking publication. These rankings are based on extensive interviews with lawyers, dispute resolution specialists and clients, as well as an analysis of significant cases and firm developments.

Veronica Nannis, principal in the firm’s False Claims Act and Civil Litigation departments, will moderate the session “Litigating False Claims Act Cases” at the Taxpayers Against Fraud (TAF) Coalition’s 25th Annual Conference, taking place November 5–7, 2025, in Washington, DC. JGL is a sponsor this year’s conference, which brings together leading voices in the fight against fraud on the government.

As a member of the TAF Coalition Conference Committee, Veronica brings her deep litigation experience and commitment to whistleblower advocacy to this highly anticipated session. The panel will explore the evolving landscape of FCA litigation, sharing practical insights on discovery disputes, motion practice, and managing complex factual records—critical tools for both seasoned and new FCA litigators.

The TAF Coalition is a public interest, non-profit organization dedicated to defending and empowering whistleblowers who expose fraud on the government and the financial markets.

By Gia Grimm and Karan Manohar

In an era where technology is woven into nearly every part of daily life, consumers often share personal information without realizing the full scope of what is being collected. In fact, a recent 2023 Pew Study confirmed that a staggering 67 % of consumers have little to no understanding about what companies are doing with their personal data. Therefore, in an effort to protect consumers and hold businesses accountable, the Maryland General Assembly passed, and Governor Moore signed, the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (“MODPA”) in May 2024. MODPA puts the power back into the consumers’ hands by establishing meaningful protections over personal data and holding businesses accountable for responsibly maintaining consumer data.

MODPA goes into effect October 1, 2025, but only applies to companies’ personal data processing activities occurring after April 2026. The six-month delay between the implementation of MODPA going into effect and affecting businesses is given to provide businesses with a grace period to review and adjust their data practices, thereby ensuring a smoother transition for compliance with MODPA. Businesses that either operate within Maryland or target Maryland residents and who process the personal data of at least 35,000 Maryland residents annually or process the data of at least 10,000 Maryland residents and derive more than 20% of their gross revenue from the sale of personal data must comply with MODPA. Business engaging in e-commerce and retailers that collect names, addresses, and payment information are among the types that would need to comply with MODPA. Subscription services businesses, like streaming platforms, that keep consumer login, billing, or preference details must also comply with MODPA.

MODPA establishes affirmative rights for consumers. Consumers will now have more control over how their personal data is used, processed, and maintained. For example, MODPA now requires businesses to provide consumers with access to copies of their retained personal data, if the consumer requests it. Consumers also now have the rights to correct inaccuracies within their personal data and can opt out of having their personal data processed and used for targeted advertising. This means that consumers can now refuse to permit companies to use their personal information to show them targeted ads based on their browsing history, interests, or other personal data.

It is critical that businesses prepare now. Businesses should first determine if they are governed by MODPA, and if so, establish an implementation plan to comply with MODPA’s requirements before enforcement occurs on April 1, 2026. As a result of MODPA going into effect:

1. Businesses are now limited to collecting only data that is “strictly necessary.” Although “strictly necessary” is not defined, MODPA states that data collected must be proportional to what is needed to maintain a specific product or service requested by the consumer.
2. Businesses are required to notify consumers if the usage or sharing of their consumer data changes. The notification must be in a manner that enables consumers to access, correct, delete, or opt out of the new use of their personal data.
3. Businesses must update their privacy risk assessments regarding sensitive protected information processes to comply with MODPA. In other words, businesses should be prepared to document all of their current uses of sensitive protected information and also train teams on how to handle this information in a way that complies with MODPA.
4. Businesses will now be banned from selling sensitive data related to a consumer’s racial or ethnic background, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, citizenship or immigration status. In fact, businesses are only permitted to collect and process sensitive data when it is strictly necessary to provide a product or service requested by the consumer.
5. Businesses must identify third party risks when dealing with sensitive protected information. In other words, businesses should review contracts with third parties to ensure that the sale of sensitive protected information aligns with MODPA’s requirements.

As a result of these new protections, businesses will likely need to adjust or update their policies to ensure compliance. Failure to comply could result in fines up to $10,000 per violation and $25,000 for repeated violations. Businesses are given some leeway and have up to sixty (60) days to rectify violations at the Maryland Office ATTY ETC’s discretion, but only until April 1, 2027.

MODPA represents a landmark step in consumer data protection and gives Maryland residents clear, enforceable rights while imposing stringent obligations on businesses. As this law takes effect on October 1, 2025, businesses should act now to review practices, assess risks, and implement systems that safeguard consumer information. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, MODPA transforms the collection of personal data from a largely unregulated commodity into a protected consumer asset. At Joseph Greenwald & Laake, we handle consumer law and data litigation matters of all kinds. If you have any questions about your rights as a consumer or obligations as a business owner, you should contact our experienced legal counsel to discuss your rights and available options.