The lawsuit was filed last year by around 200 American plaintiffs, including families of victims killed in the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The plaintiffs allege Masri knowingly facilitated Hamas operations through properties and infrastructure linked to companies under his control.

According to court filings, the plaintiffs claim tunnels used by Hamas militants were concealed beneath two Gaza beachfront hotels developed by Masri’s companies, the Ayan Hotel and the Blue Beach Resort. The complaint further alleges that electricity generated by solar panels in an industrial zone operated by Masri’s firms supplied underground Hamas fortifications.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, which allows American victims of terrorism to pursue civil claims in U.S. courts against individuals or entities accused of materially supporting designated militant organizations.

In a motion seeking dismissal of the case, Masri’s lawyers rejected the allegations and condemned the Oct. 7 assault, which triggered Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.“The defendants unequivocally condemn Hamas’ violence and the suffering it inflicted upon innocent civilians,” Masri’s attorneys wrote in the filing, arguing the plaintiffs failed to establish that Masri knowingly engaged in conduct intended to support Hamas operations.

The filing described the complaint as speculative and said the allegations were based on the premise that participating in Gaza’s economy under Hamas rule amounted to aiding the group.Masri declined additional comment. Lawyers representing the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Before the war, Hamas oversaw governance in Gaza and maintained an extensive tunnel network beneath the territory.

Foreign and Palestinian businesses operating in Gaza frequently navigated commercial and regulatory conditions shaped by Hamas’ control, even as the group remained designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

Masri is among the most prominent Palestinian business figures in the Middle East and is best known for developing Rawabi, the first master-planned Palestinian city in the occupied West Bank. The $1.4 billion project received international backing and U.S. development assistance grants.His companies also developed major commercial ventures in Gaza, including luxury coastal resorts and the Gaza Industrial Estate near the Israeli border.

Much of the enclave’s infrastructure, including those projects, sustained heavy destruction during Israel’s military offensive following the Oct. 7 attacks.Among the plaintiffs is Israeli technology entrepreneur Eyal Waldman, whose daughter was killed during the attack on the Nova music festival in southern Israel.

Waldman had previously partnered with Masri on technology initiatives employing Palestinian engineers in Rawabi and Gaza, ventures both men had publicly described as examples of economic cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.Waldman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Prominent U.S. law firm Hagens Berman is navigating two major legal challenges while reaffirming its ethical standards and commitment to justice amid scrutiny over its handling of class action suits involving Apple, Amazon, and historic thalidomide claims.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, one of America’s most well-known plaintiffs’ law firms, is facing heightened scrutiny in two unrelated cases that have drawn national attention.

The firm, known for championing consumer rights and large-scale class actions, now finds itself defending its conduct while maintaining that its actions were guided by ethical integrity and adherence to legal principles.

In Seattle, the firm is seeking to revive its high-profile case against Apple and Amazon.

The lawsuit, which accused the tech giants of conspiring to inflate prices of iPhones and iPads sold through Amazon’s platform, was dismissed last month after a judge ruled that Hagens Berman had not been fully transparent regarding its client’s intent to withdraw.

The court found that the firm failed to promptly disclose that the lead plaintiff, Steven Floyd, had informed his attorneys of his wish to drop the case.

This led to the perception that the plaintiff had become unreachable rather than unwilling. As a result, legal fees exceeding $223,000 were awarded to Apple and Amazon, with more sanctions potentially forthcoming.

In its defense, Hagens Berman filed a motion to amend the dismissal, asserting that it acted in compliance with professional confidentiality obligations under Washington law.

The firm emphasized that it was bound by its duty to protect client privacy while managing procedural requirements. Its latest filing includes expert testimony supporting its position that no ethical rules were breached.

Managing Partner Steve Berman stated that while there may have been alternative ways to handle the situation, the firm always acted with integrity.

“We have explained to the court how we properly disclosed what we could and followed all ethical rules,” Berman said, reaffirming confidence in the firm’s actions and ethical judgment.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the firm is entangled in another complex legal saga tied to the long-running thalidomide litigation.

Since 2011, Hagens Berman has represented clients who alleged that pharmaceutical companies failed to warn of the drug’s dangers when it was used by pregnant women decades ago.

Although the case aimed to secure justice for victims, it has faced repeated challenges. Judge Paul Diamond previously sanctioned the firm in 2015, citing “bad-faith advocacy” and accusing it of pursuing time-barred claims.

More recently, a special master’s report in 2023 recommended additional sanctions, alleging misconduct by a former firm attorney who altered an expert’s report.

Hagens Berman has strongly rejected those findings, describing the report as inaccurate and outside the special master’s jurisdiction.

The firm filed a motion seeking the recusal of Judge Diamond, arguing that his communication with the special master created an appearance of bias.

“The fact that the case has not succeeded is not grounds for sanctions,” Berman stated, emphasizing that losses in personal injury litigation do not equate to misconduct.

Despite these challenges, Hagens Berman continues to defend its reputation as a firm that takes on powerful corporations and fights for consumers.

Its track record includes securing billions in settlements in cases involving Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, Big Tech antitrust violations, and pharmaceutical pricing disputes.

The current cases, while testing the firm’s resilience, also highlight the complexities of class-action litigation where legal ethics, client confidentiality, and procedural rules often intersect.

Hagens Berman maintains that its conduct, though questioned, was rooted in good faith and professional responsibility.

Beyond its own cases, the broader legal landscape continues to evolve. In related developments, JPMorgan Chase is attempting to halt payment of what it describes as excessive legal fees in the Charlie Javice fraud case, and Google has agreed to significant payouts as part of a privacy settlement with Texas.

These cases collectively reflect how legal accountability and financial transparency are increasingly under public and judicial scrutiny.

For Hagens Berman, the focus now is on demonstrating that its approach was both ethical and in the best interest of its clients. The firm’s insistence on upholding transparency and fairness underscores its enduring role as a key player in complex consumer litigation.

As the legal proceedings in Seattle and Philadelphia continue, the outcome will likely influence broader conversations about ethics and professional conduct in large-scale class actions.

Yet, even amid scrutiny, Hagens Berman remains steadfast in its belief that principled advocacy—anchored in ethical practice—will ultimately prevail.