We published a 50-state survey on the widespread rejection of so-called market share liability back 2010, which we recently referenced in our post celebrating the demise of an “ultra processed” food strike suit in Pennsylvania.  As that post discussed, one of the liability theories that failed was market share liability.  That got us thinking that we should update our 50-state market share liability survey.  So that’s what we’re doing today.  This is an add on post to our prior survey, so these two posts should be consulted together.  We’re not repeating things here.

Federal Law

Nothing beyond previous rejection of market share liability.

Alabama

Alabama has passed a statute that, while aimed at innovator liability, has the added advantage of also precluding market share liability. 

In any civil action for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by a product, . . . the plaintiff must prove . . . that the defendant designed, manufactured, sold, or leased the particular product the use of which is alleged to have caused the injury on which the claim is based, and not a similar or equivalent product.  Designers, manufacturers, sellers, or lessors of products not identified as having been used, ingested, or encountered by an allegedly injured party may not be held liable for any alleged injury. . . .

Ala. C. 1975, §6-5-530 (emphasis added).

Alaska

Still nothing.

Arizona

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

Arkansas

In asbestos litigation, “Arkansas has not adopted alternative or market share liability, but has retained the traditional requirement of proximate cause in all tort cases.”  Thomas v. Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, 362 F. Supp.3d 610, 616 (E.D. Ark. 2018) (quoting Jackson); accord Tucker v. Southwest Energy Co., 2012 WL 528253, at *2 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 17, 2012) (“Arkansas has not recognized market-share liability”) (fracking chemicals).

California

While California has not repudiated Sindell, recent decisions have refused to expand the scope of market share liability.  See Wiersema v. Target Corp., 2025 WL 1594275, at *3 n.1 (C.D. Cal. March 10, 2025) (market share liability cannot apply to corner guards for shelving); Farris v. 3M Co., 2019 WL 1904206, at *4 (N.D. Cal. April 29, 2019) (yet another rejection of market share liability in asbestos litigation); Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (market share liability cannot apply to cigarettes).

Applying California law, In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices. & Relevant Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 3937414, at *8 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 4, 2010), held that market share liability could not lie against a distributor of prescription drugs absent proof that the distributor had in fact supplied at least some of the drugs at issue).

Colorado

Still nothing.

Connecticut

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Delaware

Market share liability “has not been applied in Delaware in any setting.”  Sherman v. Ellis, 2020 WL 30393, at *12 & n.74 (Del. Super. Jan. 2, 2020), rev’d, 246 A.3d 1126 (Del. 2021) (going further and requiring strict “but for” causation in legal malpractice cases).  Accord Robinson v. Union Carbide Corp., 2019 WL 3822531, at *10 (Del. Super. Aug. 15, 2019) (reiterating rejection of market share liability in asbestos litigation); State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Middleby Corp., 2011 WL 683883, at *3 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 8, 2011) (Delaware’s rejection of market share liability precludes burden shifting in fire case).

District of Columbia

Nothing new to add to the District’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Florida

An attempt to apply market share liability outside of product liability was “summarily rejected” under Florida law in In re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc., 2019 WL 11497632, at *32 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 5, 2019), and that rejection of percentage share causation was affirmed Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc., 47 F.4th 1278, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2022).

Georgia

Georgia passed a statute expressly prohibiting market share liability.  O.C.G.A. §51-1-11(d) (“Irrespective of privity, a manufacturer shall not be held liable for the manufacture of a product alleged to be defective based on theories of market share or enterprise, or other theories of industry-wide liability.”).  Williamson v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 1565474 (M.D. Ga. April 8, 2015), held that plaintiff could not get around that prohibition by suing only intermediate sellers.  Id. at *8 (plastic container case).

Hawai’i

Nothing new to add.

Idaho

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Illinois

The Illinois Supreme Court’s rejection of market share liability, even in DES cases, was cited in Anderson v. Anderson, 959 N.E.2d 1167, 1173 (Ill. App. 2011) (car crash case).

Indiana

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Iowa

A Delaware court, in an asbestos case, recognized that “Iowa has expressly rejected market share liability.”  In re Asbestos Litigation, 2014 WL 4180186, at *4 (Del. Super. Aug. 21, 2014) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 163 A.3d 709 (Del. 2017).

Kansas

Still nothing.

Kentucky

Kentucky law does not recognize market share liability in toxic chemical cases.  Brown v. Arch Wood Protection, Inc., 265 F. Supp.3d 700, 707 n.10 (E.D. Ky. 2017).

Louisiana

“Plaintiff cannot rely on alternative theories of liability, such as market share liability, because they are not recognized under Louisiana substantive law.”  Laurent v. New Orleans City, 2015 WL 846567, at *1 (E.D. La. Feb. 25, 2015) (asbestos case).  “Louisiana courts do not apply a market share liability theory of causation.”  Moore v. BASF Corp., 2011 WL 5869597, at *5 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2011) (benzene exposure).

Maine

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Maryland

Maryland’s highest court has rejected market share liability in the asbestos context.  Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch, 211 A.3d 1166, 1176 (Md. 2019) (“Maryland rejects such an approach [market share liability] in asbestos cases.”) (following Reiter); Reiter v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 8 A.3d 725, 730 (Md. 2010) (“market share liability . . . is not recognized under Maryland law”); accord Sherin v. Crane-Houdaille, Inc., 47 F. Supp.3d 280, 292 n.30 (D. Md. 2014).  Notwithstanding this precedent, a federal court predicted that Maryland would allow “comingled” market share liability in Maryland v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 406 F. Supp. 3d 420, 457-58 (D. Md. 2019).

Massachusetts

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

Michigan

Nothing new to add.

Minnesota

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

Mississippi

In Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc., 2019 WL 508074, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 8, 2019), an asbestos case, the court “agree[d]” that market share liability has “never been recognized in Mississippi.”

Missouri

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

Montana

Still nothing.

Nebraska

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Nevada

Still nothing.

New Hampshire

In the only adverse development since our original survey, the New Hampshire Supreme Court allowed “comingled” market share liability in an MTBE/gasoline case.  State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 126 A.3d 266, 298 (N.H. 2015) (“because the State could not identify the tortfeasor responsible for its injury, under market share liability the burden of identification shifted to [defendant]”).

New Jersey

A New Jersey appellate court rejected market share liability in a pelvic mesh case.  Kline v. Johnson & Johnson, 2020 WL 1082430, at *2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. March 6, 2020).  The same court also rejected market share liability in a vaccine case.  Moreno v. American Home Products, Inc., 2010 WL 4028605, at *5 (N.J. Super. App. Div. July 12, 2010).

New Mexico

Still nothing

New York

New York continues to limit market share liability to the now defunct DES fact pattern.  See S.F. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 594 F. Appx. 11, 13 (2d Cir. 2014), affirming 2014 WL 1600414 (W.D.N.Y. April 21, 2014) (market share liability does not apply to high-fructose corn syrup); Zeitlin v. Palumbo, 532 F. Supp.3d 64, 71 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) (market share liability does not apply to robocalls); Girau v. Europower, Inc., 2017 WL 4124340, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2017) (market share liability does not apply to hydraulic hose); Pace v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., 171 F. Supp.3d 254, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (market share liability does not apply in asbestos litigation); Moreno v. American Home Products, Inc., 2010 WL 4028605, at *6-7 (N.J. Super. App. Div. July 12, 2010) (New York would not apply market share liability in a vaccine case).

North Carolina

Market share liability continues to be rejected in North Carolina asbestos litigation.  Williamson v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., 625 F. Supp.3d 466, 469-70 (E.D.N.C. 2022) (“North Carolina law does not recognize alternative causation theories, such as market-share liability.”); Cox v. AGCO Corp., 2020 WL 3473636, at *4 (E.D.N.C. June 25, 2020) (market share liability is “not recognized in North Carolina”).

North Dakota

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Ohio

Rejection of market share liability in Ohio is so settled that even the Opioid MDL wouldn’t allow it.  In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, 2019 WL 4178617, at *2 n.6 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2019).

Oklahoma

In declaring a statute imposing collective tort liability unconstitutional, Steed v. Bain-Holloway, 356 P.3d 62, 67 (Okla. App. 2015), relied upon Oklahoma’s rejection of market share liability.  A bankruptcy court in Delaware confirmed that “[m]arket share liability is not allowed under Oklahoma law.”  In re Chaparral Energy, Inc., 2018 WL 818309, at *6 n. 49 (Bankr. D. Del. Feb. 9, 2018).

Oregon

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

Pennsylvania

As recently discussed, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2026 WL 1878602 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2026), market share liability cannot be applied in “ultra processed” food litigation.  The products aren’t fungible and it is essentially impossible to join most of the “market” where so many different products are involved.  Id. at *8.  Market share liability is also inapplicable to public nuisance claims.  Atlantic Richfield Co. v. County of Montgomery, 294 A.3d 1274, 1286 (Pa. Commw. 2023) (lead paint claims).  Pennsylvania’s rejection of market share liability was not limited to “product liability cases.”  Id.  In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products Liability Litigation, 2025 WL 1795126, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2025), refused to apply “comingled” market share liability under Pennsylvania law.  Market share liability was also rejected as a theory in a case involving medicated cream.  McKnight v. Amazon.com Inc., 2024 WL 2156223, at *3 (E.D. Pa. May 14, 2024) (“Pennsylvania courts are reluctant to apply market share liability.”).

Rhode Island

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejection of market share liability.

South Carolina

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

South Dakota

Nothing new to add.

Tennessee

Nothing new to add to this state’s previous rejections of market share liability.

Texas

Texas unequivocably rejects market share liability. 

[W]e have never embraced the concept of industry-wide liability on grounds that proof of causation might be difficult.  Instead, we have rejected such thinking and held firm to the principle that liability in tort must be based on proof of causation by a preponderance of the evidence.  In a mesothelioma case, we rejected theories of collective liability − alternative liability, concert of action, enterprise liability, and market share liability − and held instead: A fundamental principle of traditional products liability law is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendants supplied the product that caused the injury.

Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 439 S.W.3d 332, 340 (Tex. 2014) (footnotes and quotation marks omitted).  Accord Alarcon v. Alcolac, Inc., 488 S.W.3d 813, 828 (Tex. App. 2016) (toxic chemical case); Bezuidenhout v. Abbott Laboratories & Co., 918 F. Supp.2d 144, 147-48 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (Texas would not allow market share liability even in a DES case).

Utah

Still nothing.

Vermont

Still nothing.

Virginia

Still nothing.

Washington

Nothing new to add.

West Virginia

Still nothing.

Wisconsin

Of the states that jumped on the market share liability bandwagon in DES litigation, Wisconsin went for the worst and most expansive version, as discussed in our prior post.  The Wisconsin legislature thought so, too, and enacted a statute that specifically overruled Thomas v. Mallett, 701 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 2005), by name.  Wis. Stat. §895.046.  Section 895.046(4) allowed a last-resort (no other viable defendants) market share liability claim solely against manufacturers of “chemically and physically identical” “complete integrated products” that were marketed without any “distinctive” characteristic or labeling.  Id. at subsections (4)(a)(1) & (3).  The product must have been marketed in plaintiff’s “geographic market,” and the plaintiff must join manufacturers of an 80%+ market share.  Nonetheless, in a decision we criticized, Gibson v. American Cyanamid Co., 760 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2014), refused to give the statute its intended retroactive application.

Wyoming

Wyoming law remains silent as to market share liability.