Whether defending bet-the-company class action litigation or opportunistic no-injury actions, our litigators are leaders in the class action defense bar.
We have prevailed using innovative approaches, including using early summary judgment motions, affirmative motions to deny class certification and pursuing targeted absent class member discovery to defeat class certification. We partner with our clients to evaluate the likelihood of prevailing as compared to the costs of particular litigation strategies. When clients opt for settlement, we structure creative settlements that afford maximum global peace with minimal outlay.
Our litigators are also well-versed in the state and federal regulations and agency proceedings that often impact class action litigation. Our team members regularly appear before and petition agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and various state regulatory bodies. Our reputation and working relationships with these agencies allow us to utilize regulatory avenues such as petitions and ex parte meetings that save our clients from pending or threatened litigation.
Finally, we do much more than litigate. We proactively counsel clients on a host of complex employment, consumer, marketing and privacy issues. We advise companies on all consumer-facing disclosures, including drafting privacy policies, arbitration clauses with class waivers, product warnings and terms of use and service for websites and mobile applications. Similarly, we advise companies on how to conduct effective marketing campaigns within the bounds of state unfair competition and consumer protection laws.
Defeated class certification and prevailed on Daubert arguments dismissing the opinions of class plaintiffs’ damages and consumer survey experts, successfully arguing on behalf of telehealth company that plaintiffs' claims involved too many individualized questions regarding injury and damages, rendering class treatment inappropriate.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant in Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim on grounds that the consumer did not use a reasonable method of attempting to revoke consent.