Views
US Supreme Court: Judgment in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) – A few takeaways
Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University
In June 2025, the US Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico) 605 U.S. 280 (2025). The Opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here, here and here (on the hearing).
As previously indicated, this is a much-politicized case brought by Mexico against US gun manufacturers, alleging inter alia negligence, public nuisance and defective condition. The basic theory laid out was that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the trafficking of guns to Mexico causing harm and grievances to this country. In this regard, the complaint focuses on aiding and abetting of gun manufacturers (rather than of independent commission).
In a brilliant judgment written by Justice Kagan, the Court ruled that PLCAA bars the lawsuit filed by Mexico. Accordingly, PLCAAS’s predicate exception did not apply to this case. Read more
French Supreme Court upholds asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in Lastre follow-up
by Jean-Charles Jais, Guillaume Croisant, Canelle Etchegorry, and Alexia Kaztaridou (all Linklaters)
On 17 September 2025, the French Cour de cassation handed down its decision on the Lastre case. This followed a landmark preliminary ruling of February 2025 from the CJEU, which laid out the conditions for a valid asymmetric jurisdiction clause under article 25 of the Brussels I recast regulation.
Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses allow one party to initiate proceedings in multiple courts or any competent court, while the other party has fewer options or is restricted to a specific jurisdiction. Such clauses are common in financial agreements (read more in our previous blog post here).
In the latest development of the Lastre case in France, the French Supreme Court opted for a pro-contractual autonomy stance, favouring the validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses.
Using Foreign Choice-of-Law Clauses to Avoid U.S. Law
Can private actors utilize choice-of-law clauses selecting the laws of a foreign country to avoid laws enacted by the United States? In this post, I argue that the answer is a qualified yes. I first examine situations where the U.S. laws in question are not mandatory. I then consider scenarios where these laws are mandatory. Finally, the post looks at whether private parties may rely on foreign forum selection clauses and foreign choice-of-law clauses—operating in tandem—to avoid U.S. law altogether.
Read more
News
Conflict of laws in the South African courts: an(other) recent missed opportunity
Posted on behalf of Jason Mitchell, barrister at Maitland Chambers in London and at Group 621 in Johannesburg.
An Australian, Hannon, wants to book a Southern African safari with his partner, Murti, as a surprise birthday gift. He sees one he likes on an Australian travel website. Hannon fills in the online form.
It turns out that the website is just the agent for a South African company, Drifters Adventours. Drifters emailed Hannon the price and payment details. Attached to the email is a brochure. The brochure says, “Drifters do not accept responsibility for any loss, injury, damage, accident, fatality, delay or inconvenience experienced while on tour.” The brochure also says, “You will be required to complete and sign a full indemnity prior to your tour departure.” Read more
Part 4 of the Juridical Review for 2025
The recently published Part 4 of the Juridical Review for 2025 contains articles based on the International Perspectives on Scots Law seminar series held at the University of Stirling during 2023/2024. Some of these articles will be of interest to private international law aficionados:
‘The Pre-enactment Legislative Review Process in Scotland’ by Robert Brett Taylor and Adelyn L.M. Wilson (University of Strathclyde);
‘Taking the Transnational Nature of the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal Seriously: A Private International Law Perspective’ by Mihail Danov (University of Exeter);
‘The Evolution of Business and Human Rights Litigation against Multinational Companies’ by Mukarrum Ahmed (University of Lancaster);
‘Parties’ Intention and the Future Internationalisation of Scottish Arbitration – A Review of Scottish cases post 2010′ by Hong-Lin Yu (University of Stirling);
‘The Art of Persuasion: Embracing the Auld enemy and Beyond’ by Dr Mo Egan (University of Stirling).
JLMI – Call for Papers – Issue no. 3/2026
The following information was kindly shared with us by the editors of the JLMI.
The Journal of Law, Market & Innovation (JLMI) welcomes submissions for its third issue of 2025.
The Call for Papers for this 3rd issue is devoted to Digital markets, consumer autonomy and consumer welfare.
You can find the call with all the details at the following link:
Digital markets, consumer autonomy and consumer welfare
Prospective articles should be submitted in the form of abstract (around 800 words) or draft articles to submissions.jlmi@iuse.it within 25 february 2026. The publication of the issue is set for the end of November 2026.
For further information, or for consultation on a potential submission, you can contact us by email at editors.jlmi@iuse.it.
Visit our website to read the full announcement.