Class-Action Defense
Safeguarding your reputation and success.
Class-action complaints can threaten more than a company’s reputation—they pose a risk to its success.
Perkins Coie’s Class-Action Defense lawyers litigate dozens of class actions every year in both state and federal courts across the country. Combining individual and collective knowledge with an understanding of clients’ businesses and industries, we regularly achieve successful litigation outcomes.
In class actions of all sizes, we emphasize cost-effective and strategic staffing. Our national practice enables us to draw on the valuable experience of lawyers firmwide and provides the flexibility and capacity to quickly assemble a large litigation team when necessary.
From the inception of the case to its conclusion, our lawyers engage fully in all aspects of the case and work with clients to map out a proactive litigation strategy. Businesses need more than the best litigators—they require practical partners to navigate the management of large-scale, high-stakes litigation with the company’s long-term goals in mind. We partner with our clients at every step, including working with them after resolving a case to help develop and implement any changes necessary to stave off future litigation.
How we help clients
- Defense against price-fixing and monopolization claims
- Dismissal of class actions related to advertising practices and product labeling
- Resolution of wage-and-hour class actions, discrimination claims, and disputes over independent contractor status
- Handling of privacy cases involving biometric data, consumer data, and telecommunications
- Management of complex securities class actions, including merger disputes and securities fraud allegations
Areas of Focus
Antitrust
The stakes in antitrust class actions can be enormous. Our antitrust team is experienced in managing consumer protection litigation and counseling, including unfair competition claims involving price fixing, monopolization, market allocation, and false advertising. We represent technology companies, manufacturers, retailers, distributors, and research and development companies across the market spectrum. Our lawyers craft strategies and approaches that are targeted, cost-effective, and highly attuned to each client’s business needs.
Business Litigation
Business litigation often involves complex disputes that can significantly affect a company's operations and reputation. We have extensive experience in business litigation class actions, leveraging our substantial courtroom experience to resolve cases efficiently and reduce litigation costs. Our team, which includes fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers, represents clients in complex disputes across federal and state courts and arbitration forums.
Clients trust us to handle a wide range of business disputes, including contract rights, business torts, intellectual property infringement, and regulatory violations. We also offer proactive business advice and pre-dispute counseling to prevent conflicts and manage active litigation effectively.
Consumer Products & Services Litigation
Our Consumer Products & Services Litigation group specializes in defending food, beverage, and consumer goods companies against consumer class actions across the nation. We have decades of experience representing consumer goods companies, including those in the food and beverage industry, dietary supplements, online retailers, and other providers of products. We have successfully litigated numerous class actions involving claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and dozens of similar laws in other states. We have earned a reputation as one of the leading practice groups in this field . We have been so recognized by Chambers, Law360, and Super Lawyers.
We provide daily updates on legal developments, offer comprehensive quarterly and annual trend reports. We also host industry roundtables where in house practitioners network and gain valuable insights from peers and experts. We deliver robust and effective defense strategies tailored to each client's unique needs.
Consumer Protection
Consumer class actions are being filed more frequently throughout the United States each year. All companies that advertise and market directly to the buying public are at risk of being named a defendant in this type of class-action litigation. We are well-versed in challenges arising from major consumer protection laws, including in California, where consumer class-action suits are prolific. We protect consumer product company clients by taking prompt actions to reduce their liability and, when feasible, shut down class-action litigation early and efficiently.
Employment
In employment class-action litigation, meritless complaints can be just as costly as legitimate ones. Our Class-Action Defense team develops strategies that may help to quickly dispose of a putative class-action lawsuit before it gets off the ground. Our lawyers have proven track records of defeating the certification of complex putative class actions. And, although class-action trials are rare, our team has tried—and prevailed—in multiple employment class-action cases.
Insurance Recovery Law
Our firm’s Insurance Recovery Law practice represents policyholders in securing coverage for class-action defense and other high-stakes litigation. We help our clients maximize insurance recoveries under all lines of coverage, including commercial general liability (CGL), directors and officers (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), and cyber risk policies, helping to ensure they have the financial protection needed to mount a fulsome and effective defense against class-action claims. Our team has deep experience navigating and resolving insurer disputes over defense obligations, indemnity coverage, and bad faith denials, working strategically to enforce policyholder rights and mitigate financial exposure.
We also provide proactive insurance counseling to help clients assess their coverage for class-action risks, conduct policy audits, and negotiate enhancements during renewals to strengthen protection against evolving threats. In the event of a dispute, we leverage our negotiation and litigation experience to compel insurers to fulfill their obligations, whether through settlement negotiations, arbitration, or litigation. Our goal is to ensure that clients can focus on their defense while we handle the complexities of securing insurance coverage.
Product Liability
Perkins Coie’s Product Liability litigators have successfully handled product liability cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars. With more than 70 lawyers across the United States, our team’s depth and knowledge have helped national and international clients mitigate product liability risks. When liability claims go to court, we provide experienced, proactive counsel.
We have reimagined the scope of product liability law, providing counsel to manufacturers, retailers, distributors, technology companies, and more. Global leaders turn to our team for assistance, whether they are seeking to mitigate risk, handle high-stakes lawsuits and disputes, or anything in between. We foster strong relationships with our clients to gain a deep understanding of their needs, both inside and outside of the product liability sphere, to achieve favorable results.
Privacy Litigation
Our Chambers USA Band 1-ranked privacy litigation lawyers help clients respond to regulatory inquiries from the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and state attorneys general. Clients turn to us for defense in private-party class-action litigation, including claims based on privacy policy statements, consumer protection laws prohibiting deceptive or unfair practices, and collection and disclosure of user information. We are experienced in claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications Act, California Invasion of Privacy Act call recording claims, and California Song-Beverly Act claims, among others. Our lawyers coordinate the defense of both regulatory and class-action litigation stemming from the same occurrence, which requires careful navigation of different timelines and discovery requirements.
Securities
Mergers and acquisitions, regulatory changes, adverse business events, initial public offerings, and government investigations are just a few of the common events that may result in a securities class action, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, or other corporate governance litigation against a company or its officers and directors. Perkins Coie has extensive experience litigating securities class-action cases for companies and their officers and directors across the country. Our lawyers’ understanding of the applicable federal and state caselaw—and of clients’ needs and industries—leads to outcomes that mitigate the impact of litigation on our clients’ businesses.
White Collar
Our team is ranked nationally by Chambers USA for our breadth of experience and our outstanding results in sensitive investigations and matters. With a deep bench comprising former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff attorneys, and experienced trial lawyers, we have obtained exceptional outcomes for our clients, including declinations with no charge, reversals on appeal, non-prosecution agreements, and deferred prosecution agreements. Many of our best outcomes remain confidential because they resulted in no public disclosure.
Our lawyers handle matters including criminal and regulatory investigations and enforcement proceedings by the DOJ, SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Office of Foreign Asset Control, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, Internal Revenue Service, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, state attorneys general, and district attorneys. Our courtroom wins have spanned federal and state trial and appellate courts around the country.
联系方式
Notice
Before proceeding, please note: If you are not a current client of Perkins Coie, please do not include any information in this e-mail that you or someone else considers to be of a confidential or secret nature. Perkins Coie has no duty to keep confidential any of the information you provide. Neither the transmission nor receipt of your information is considered a request for legal advice, securing or retaining a lawyer. An attorney-client relationship with Perkins Coie or any lawyer at Perkins Coie is not established until and unless Perkins Coie agrees to such a relationship as memorialized in a separate writing.
洞察
代理经验
Antitrust
Alakayak v. All Alaskan Seafoods, et al.
State Courts of Alaska
Defended alleged price-fixing claims brought by class of Bristol Bay salmon fishermen.
Class 8 Truck Transmission Antitrust Litigation
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Counseled defendant truck manufacturer in class action antitrust litigation relating to heavy-duty truck transmissions.
Dental Works v. Vesta Corporation
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Lead trial counsel defending Vesta against putative class action in which named plaintiffs alleged they were charged for wireless phone services that they never authorized in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed action with prejudice after Vesta filed motion to dismiss.
Olean v. Tri-Marine International, Inc. and Mathews v. Tri-Marine International, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Representing Tri-Marine in multidistrict class action litigation alleging collusion between manufacturers of packaged seafood products to fix prices.
Stafford d/b/a Belvi Coffee and Tea Exchange Inc. v. Starbucks Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Successfully defended Starbucks in antitrust class action alleging monopolization of retail coffee store locations. Obtained an agreement by counsel to drop the class action claim, greatly narrowed the scope of e-discovery and ultimately resolved the case by mediated settlement.
Consumer Protection
Blue Moon / MillerCoors
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Achieved the dismissal of a consumer class action regarding the advertising and packaging of Blue Moon beer, alleging that MillerCoors falsely markets Blue Moon as an independently brewed, craft beer and charges a premium price. Plaintiff alleged that MillerCoors engaged in a number of practices to produce the “wholesale fiction” that Blue Moon is a craft beer produced by a small, independent brewery. Plaintiff alleged that the use of the term “craft” indicates Blue Moon is microbrewed and that use of the Blue Moon Brewing Company trade name, when the beer is brewed by MillerCoors, is false and misleading. MillerCoors’ motions to dismiss were granted on all claims.
Carnahan v. Big Fish Games
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defended Big Fish Games, Inc., in a purported nationwide class action alleging unfair and deceptive practices and fraud in connection with auto-renewal and free trial aspects of online subscription program. Achieved confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal, after filing motion to dismiss and prior to discovery.
Campbell Soup Company
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Obtained a dismissal in a putative consumer class action alleging violations of California’s CLRA, UCL and FAL in connection with representations of the Prego line of spaghetti and pizza sauces labeled as “100% Natural.”
In re Cheerios Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Served as national counsel for General Mills in defense of purported class actions alleging false and deceptive marketing of the health benefits of Cheerios. Obtained summary judgment dismissal of most of the individual plaintiffs' claims for failure to establish any damage and summary judgment dismissal of the class action allegations of the remaining plaintiffs.
Turek v. General Mills Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained affirmance of the dismissal of a putative class action against General Mills on grounds that the plaintiff’s deceptive advertising claims were preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which sets forth uniform standards for food labeling.
In re Nest Labs Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Nest Labs, Inc., a Google subsidiary, in consolidated class actions involving the cutting-edge Nest Learning Thermostat. These are a series of class actions alleging that the Nest Learning Thermostat was designed improperly and does not provide energy savings and other benefits promised.
First Data Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Represented First Data Corporation in multiple consumer class actions related to credit card and processing equipment and services in California, New York and New Jersey. Defeated class certification in New Jersey case.
In re T-Mobile Sidekick Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented T-Mobile in defense of putative nationwide class action alleging breach of warranty, consumer protection act and related claims in connection with alleged data loss in connection with Sidekick mobile devices.
Employment
Ginsburg v. Comcast
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Achieved denial of class certification in a putative wage-and-hour class action involving an alleged class of call center employees.
Sotelo, et al. v. MediaNews Group Inc., et al.
Superior Court of California, Alameda County
Won classwide summary judgment for MediaNews Group, finding independent contractor status for all class members. Trial court denied certification on the wage-and-hour Labor Code claims, resulting in limited claims for expense reimbursement, record keeping and unfair business practices section 17200, on which final judgment was entered for defendants.
Minter v. OfficeMax and companion case Gonzalez v. OfficeMax
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Achieved denial of class certification in a putative wage-and-hour class action and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) case related to alleged missed meals and rest periods.
Strange & Morris v. Les Schwab Tire Centers Inc. and EEOC v. Les Schwab Tire Centers Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defeated class certification of a private putative gender discrimination class action and negotiated a favorable consent decree in a consolidated pattern and practice discrimination case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Adolf v. Les Schwab
Superior Court of California, County of Butte
Defeated class certification and achieved PAGA claim dismissal in a putative wage-and-hour class action related to meals and rest periods.
Privacy
Rivera/Weiss v. Google, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Defended Google in landmark class action alleging that aspects of Google’s face clustering technology violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Following discovery, obtained full dismissal on the ground that Plaintiffs had not suffered an injury sufficient to establish Article III injury.
Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., et.al.
Circuit Court of Illinois, Lake County
Represent defendants in putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the alleged use of finger scan technology for season pass holders.
Shamblin v. Obama for America, DNC Services Corp., and New Partners Consulting, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Achieved denial of class certification for defendants Obama for America and DNC in putative class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for robocalls made during the 2012 campaign to reelect President Obama.
Maghen v. Quicken Loans Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Defended a putative class action alleging violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act for call recording. Appeal is pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Carroll v. Crème de la Crème, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Represent defendant in putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act for the alleged use of finger scan technology for secure access to its facilities.
In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Sprint in putative class actions asserting claims under federal and state privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Rudgayzer v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in the defense of a purported class action challenging settlement of In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, and alleging violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in connection with the launch of Google Buzz social networking application. Obtained dismissal of all claims.
Opperman, et al. v. Path Inc., Twitter Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Defending Twitter in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of federal privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and related state torts.
Securities
TriQuint Merger Litigation
Delaware Chancery Court
Oregon Circuit Court
Oregon Supreme Court
Represented TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. and its directors in five stockholder class action lawsuits filed in Delaware and Oregon following the announcement of its merger with RF Micro Devices. Plaintiffs alleged that TriQuint’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to TriQuint’s shareholders in conducting the merger process, approving the merger and making public disclosures to shareholders regarding the merger. In Delaware, the plaintiff’s efforts to seek an injunction with respect to the merger vote failed, and the lawsuits were dismissed. In Oregon, TriQuint sought to dismiss the claims based on TriQuint’s bylaw provision establishing Delaware as the exclusive venue for corporate governance litigation. After the trial court failed to enforce the exclusive venue provision, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in TriQuint’s favor and ordered that the Oregon cases be dismissed. The Oregon matters were of particular importance, as they resulted in the only state appellate court decision outside of Delaware addressing the enforceability of Delaware exclusive venue provisions in a company’s forum selection bylaw.
Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
King County Superior Court (Washington)
Represented all of the outside directors of Washington Mutual Bank and its holding company Washington Mutual, Inc. in all of the lawsuits, enforcement proceedings, investigations and other inquiries arising from the largest bank failure in United States history. The securities litigation began in the Southern District of New York in 2007, was consolidated by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with a number of related securities, derivative and ERISA class actions filed in the Western District of Washington and other districts, and was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933 related to a number of securities offerings issued by Washington Mutual and violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for securities fraud. The class alleged damages of more than $20 billion for those who purchased Washington Mutual securities between 2005 and 2008. After more than four years of litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a final order approving the settlement of the securities litigation, which was the largest federal securities class action litigated in the Western District of Washington and one of the largest securities cases resulting from the credit/financial market collapse. None of the lawsuits or any of the other matters resulted in any judgments or damages awards against the outside directors we represented.