By Ken Fulginiti (September 2, 2025)
This summer has witnessed a cascade of high-profile recalls. On Aug. 27, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that Ford Motor Co. was recalling over 355,000 U.S. vehicles due to a software issue affecting instrument panel displays. Ssome will receive over-the-air updates, while others will need service at dealerships.[1]
About 197,000 of Ford’s Mustang Mach-E EVs from 2021 to 2025 were recalled in June, after a glitch that could trap rear passengers when the battery was low.[2]
Ford also issued a recall covering 312,120 Bronco, Ranger, F-150,
Ken Fulginiti
Expedition and Lincoln Navigator vehicles on Aug. 1, over a defective electronic brake booster module.[3] These are just a few examples from the auto industry, and they are far from isolated — they demonstrate that product recalls are now frequent, complex and high-stakes.
For attorneys, these developments raise immediate practice questions. Plaintiffs counsel must adapt to litigation driven by digital supply-chain data and public scrutiny. Defense attorneys must prepare for claims that involve AI, cybersecurity and rapid disclosure expectations.
For everyone in the bar, recalls aren’t just peripheral — they’re a central battleground in product liability litigation. This article dives into the data, trend drivers and what lawyers need to know to thrive in this environment.
The Numbers Tell the Story
In 2023, the U.S. recorded over 3,300 product recalls — the highest in seven years — while 2024 was nearly as elevated. Despite the rise in recall events, the number of units per recall is generally down.
Companies are acting earlier, before defects balloon into massive, multimillion-unit crises. Yet, more importantly, recall severity is escalating.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Class I recalls — the most serious, involving imminent injury or death — have surged since 2020. In food safety, while recall counts may have dipped, hospitalizations and fatalities tied to contaminated products doubled in 2024.
In the automotive space, Ford alone logged 88 safety recalls in the first half of 2025, setting a new record for an automaker.[4] The takeaway? Clients now face broader exposure, especially around safety-critical products.
What’s Driving the Trend
Several forces are converging to explain the surge in recalls — and together they paint a picture of a risk landscape that is broader, faster and harder to contain than ever before.
Stricter Regulation and Enforcement
Regulators are simply pulling the trigger more often. The FDA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, in particular, have shown a willingness to act quickly, even on relatively modest evidence of harm.
The Food Safety Modernization Act, passed in 2011, gave regulators expanded recall authority, and we’ve seen that play out in practice: Products that might once have flown under the radar are now flagged and pulled.
For attorneys, that means litigation is more likely to be layered atop a regulatory record — complete with findings, timelines and official warnings that can strengthen, or complicate, arguments in court.
Enhanced Detection
Technology has dramatically shortened the time between defect and discovery. With digital supply-chain tracking, barcode-level ingredient tracing and real-time performance monitoring, it’s harder for a dangerous product to slip through unnoticed.
For example, sensors in vehicles now report software and mechanical issues back to manufacturers almost instantly, forcing recalls that would have taken years to surface in the past.
The flip side? Those same systems generate an evidentiary trail that plaintiffs lawyers can subpoena, and that defense counsel must be prepared to contextualize.
Global Supply Chains
Products today are rarely born in a single factory. A mislabeled ingredient from Southeast Asia, a defective chip manufactured in Taiwan or a contaminated batch of biologic material from Europe can cascade across dozens of brands and product lines in the U.S.
That reality makes multidefendant litigation the rule, not the exception. It also complicates jurisdictional questions, cross-border discovery and insurance coverage disputes.
In effect, one weak link in a distant supplier can open liability doors for dozens of domestic companies at once.
Innovation and Complexity
Finally, products themselves are no longer simple. Cars are rolling computers with millions of lines of code, medical devices routinely integrate with apps and wireless networks, and pharmaceuticals increasingly depend on fragile biologics rather than stable chemicals.
Each new layer of innovation is also a new layer of potential liability. A defect may not stem from faulty materials, but from a cybersecurity vulnerability or a misfiring algorithm.
In this sense, product liability now encompasses risks that extend well beyond the tangible product into the digital and biological systems that support it.
Implications for Practitioners
Plaintiffs Counsel
Digital data enriches discovery and undermines “we didn’t know” defenses. Amplified by social media, reputational harm can boost punitive award potential.
Class actions are increasingly viable when a single supply chain failure affects multiple states. But strong proof of causation between recall and injury remains essential.
Defense Counsel
The old approach — delay regulators, treat recalls as isolated — no longer works. But proactive recalls and regulatory transparency can reduce litigation exposure.
Teams must now be ready for claims involving cybersecurity defects, software failures, AI misbehavior or cross-border liability.
Both Sides
Recalls alone don’t prove liability — but they shape narratives. Plaintiffs push rapidly after recall announcements, while companies must collate rapid consumer solutions.
Ultimately, causation remains linchpin: Plaintiffs must show the recall caused harm, or in nonrecall cases, demonstrate the defect itself caused the injury.
The Risk of Consumer Desensitization
There is another layer to this conversation — one that has less to do with statutes and case law, and more to do with culture. We live in what can fairly be called a disposable age.
Consumers have grown accustomed to products that don’t last as long as they once did, or that arrive with quirks and defects that we shrug off as the price of convenience. A glitch in your new phone? Swap it out. A streaming device that overheats? Toss it and buy the next version.
That cultural backdrop makes it easy to become desensitized to recalls. They start to feel like just another reminder that modern products are designed for speed and turnover, not longevity.
But the current wave of recalls — especially in industries like automotive and medical devices — crosses a very different line. These aren’t inconveniences or nostalgia-fueled laments for “better manufacturing” in the good old days. They are matters of life and death.
When a vehicle’s braking system fails, an infusion pump malfunctions or an infant swing poses a suffocation risk, the stakes are existential. A society that shrugs at recalls as if they were just another disposable hiccup risks overlooking the very real dangers these defects pose.
For lawyers, that means one more responsibility: not only litigating effectively, but also reminding juries, regulators and the public that recalls are not trivial — they are warnings about risks no one should have to accept.
The Role of Product Liability Law
Product liability law remains a vital consumer protection mechanism. Regulation can’t catch
every emerging hazard — think airbags, opioids, asbestos.
Litigation often drives systemic reform when compliance fails. Proactive recalls add clarity to legal narratives, offer stronger jury framing and sharpen arguments for systemic remedies.
Importantly, recalls serve a dual purpose: protecting current consumers and preventing future harm.
A Look Ahead
For Corporate Counsel
Prevention still beats litigation. Build rigorous supply-chain audits, tighten quality controls and design decisive recall strategies to defuse potential crises.
For Plaintiffs Attorneys
Stay ahead on science, regulatory frameworks and novel defect patterns. Understanding how software flaws propagate in cars or how a biologic mislabeling slips through global supply chains is now vital.
Another frontier: international coordination. Supply chains span continents, raising questions of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens and foreign judgment enforcement. Product liability is going global — and it’s happening now.
The message is clear: Both the frequency and severity of recalls will remain elevated. The role of lawyers — whether prosecuting, defending or advising to prevent recalls — has never been this critical.
Recalls are no longer niche, local events. They are global, fast-moving and high-stakes. For consumers, they offer a chance to avoid harm before it strikes.
For the bar, they present both a challenge — a more volatile liability landscape — and an opportunity to shape accountability when regulation lags behind innovation.
As product liability lawyers, we must do more than brace for the next recall. We must meet it head-on with foresight, strategy and a firm command of the evolving legal and technical terrain.
Ken Fulginiti is the founder at Fulginiti Law.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
[2] https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/35526025/car-brand-recalls-evs-fears-passengers trapped/.
[3] https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a65575770/ford-recall-bronco-ranger-brake booster-failure/.
[4] https://www.cbtnews.com/ford-sets-recall-record-in-the-first-half-of-2025/.
