Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2025

Key Takeaways

• Crypto situs decisions shape digital asset jurisdiction
• Courts address e‑cigarette battery liability
• Antique tank sale raises historic artifact jurisdiction
• Urfi marriage recognized under choice‑of‑law analysis
• Email service under Hague Convention scrutinized for China

Summary

The 39th annual survey on choice of law in American courts has been published on SSRN, cataloguing the most consequential 2025 decisions on choice of law, party autonomy, extraterritoriality, international human rights, sovereign immunity, jurisdiction, and foreign‑judgment enforcement. Highlights include rulings on the situs of cryptocurrency, liability for exploding e‑cigarette batteries, the sale of an antique military tank, the validity of an Urfi marriage, email service under the Hague Convention in China, enforcement of a Philippine forfeiture judgment, and German expropriation claims from the Soviet era. The survey continues the three‑decade legacy established by Symeon Symeonides, now stewarded by new authors.

Pulse Analysis

The annual choice‑of‑law survey has become a barometer for how U.S. courts navigate the increasingly complex web of transnational disputes. By aggregating decisions across a spectrum of topics—from party autonomy to sovereign immunity—the report reveals a judicial trend toward nuanced, fact‑specific analyses rather than blanket doctrinal rules. This shift reflects broader pressures from digital economies and international human‑rights norms, prompting courts to reconcile domestic legal principles with global expectations.

Among the 2025 cases, several stand out for their potential ripple effects. The determination of cryptocurrency’s situs clarifies tax and regulatory exposure for digital asset holders, while rulings on exploding e‑cigarette batteries underscore emerging product‑liability concerns in the vaping market. The antique military tank dispute illustrates how courts treat historic artifacts under modern trade and cultural‑heritage statutes, and the recognition of Urfi marriages signals a willingness to respect non‑traditional marital arrangements within choice‑of‑law frameworks. Additionally, the scrutiny of email service under the Hague Service Convention for defendants in China highlights the tension between procedural efficiency and treaty compliance.

For practitioners, the survey offers actionable insights: anticipate jurisdictional arguments in fintech, consumer‑product, and cultural‑property matters; tailor service‑of‑process strategies to evolving international norms; and advise clients on the enforceability of foreign judgments amid shifting sovereign‑immunity doctrines. The continuity of Symeonides’ methodology ensures that the survey remains a trusted reference, guiding both courtroom tactics and academic discourse as cross‑border legal landscapes evolve.