Charles C. Sipos
Charles is a class-action litigator with more than two decades of experience focusing on technology, consumer goods, and privacy issues.
Charles Sipos litigates class actions nationwide and has appeared and argued on behalf of defendants in federal courts, including in California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Charles' litigation successes have included dismissals and summary judgment based on lack of Article III injury, statutory standing under consumer protection laws, federal preemption, primary jurisdiction, failure to allege damages, First Amendment protection for commercial speech, the "reasonable consumer" standard, and related defenses.
In the privacy sphere, Charles has litigated claims involving the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the Wiretap Act, and alleged violations of privacy policies or related terms of service. He also has deep experience representing consumer goods companies, including the food and beverage industry, dietary supplements, online retailers, and other providers of direct-to-consumer products. He has successfully litigated dozens of class actions raising claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and parallel laws in other states. Charles also leverages this substantial experience to provide pre-litigation advice to clients on marketing and privacy issues and associated class-action risk.
Charles speaks and writes regularly on class-action issues and has presented for the Practising Law Institute, Perrin Conferences, CLE International, the Consumer Brands Association, and others. His writings and insights on consumer class-action issues have appeared in publications including Bloomberg News, The Washington Post, The Guardian, the New York Law Journal, and Law360.
Charles also maintains an active intellectual property (IP) litigation practice, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in disputes involving false advertising, copyright, trademark, patent infringement, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims.
Education & Credentials
Education
- Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., Order of the Coif, Associate Editor, Vanderbilt Law Review, 2002
- University of Puget Sound, B.A., Communications, 1994
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
-
California
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Related Employment
- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Associate, 2002-2007
- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Litigation Paralegal, 1997-1999
- Y.S. Chang & Associates, Seoul, South Korea, Director, International Operations, 1995-1996
Clerkships
- Hon. Betty Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Professional Recognition
Ranked in Chambers USA "America’s Leading Lawyers" for Food & Beverages: Regulatory & Litigation, 2024
Listed in Thomson Reuters “Stand-out Lawyers,” 2024
Listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers, 2024
Co-recipient, Washington State Bar Association Award of Merit, 2011
Co-recipient, Japanese American Bar Association Public Service Award, 2006
Co-recipient, National Law Journal Pro Bono Award, 2006
Co-recipient, King County Bar Association Outstanding Lawyer Award, 2007
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Class Action Defense
Lugo v. Amazon.com, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Represented Amazon.com in defense of action alleging unlawful retention of consumers’ video rental histories under state-based Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) statutes. Obtained Rule 12 dismissal of complaint based on lack of Article III injury, with court holding that mere retention of video rental histories does not constitute cognizable legal harm. 2023 WL 6241200 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2023).
Li v. Amazon.com Services LLC.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Obtained enforcement of mandatory venue clause in defendant’s terms of service, effecting transfer of action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. 2023 WL 8720669 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2023).
Carroll v. General Mills, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Obtained dismissal of putative class action alleging violation of the VPPA through the use of tracking pixel. Case dismissed on the pleadings based on failure to allege the defendant was a “video tape service provider” as required by the statute. 2023 WL 6373868 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2023).
Henry v. Campbell Soup Co.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Obtained dismissal of putative class action alleging that the labeling of defendants’ soup product was misleading. Applying “reasonable consumer” standard, court determined on the pleadings that the label, in full, was truthful and accurate. 2023 WL 2734778 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023).
Smith v. General Mills Sales, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Obtained dismissal of putative class action alleging that the labeling of defendants’ pizza roll product was misleading. Applying “reasonable consumer” standard, court determined on the pleadings that the label, in full, was truthful and accurate. 2023 WL 2349908 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2023).
Kim v. Blue Triton Brands, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Represented provider of online sales platform in dismissal of putative class action alleging that the labeling of co-defendant’s bottled water was misleading. Complaint dismissed on “reasonable consumer” grounds, with court separately holding that relationship between seller of bottled water and provider of sales platform did not constitute a RICO enterprise. 2022 WL 17061085 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022), aff’d 2024 WL 243343 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2024).
Caudel v. Amazon.com, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Represented Amazon.com in defense of action alleging breach of Amazon terms of service pertaining to ongoing availability of video rentals. Obtained Rule 12 dismissal based on lack of Article III injury as a result of showing that the plaintiffs’ video rentals all remained available to her. 2021 WL 4819602 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021).
Truxel v. General Mills, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Served as national counsel for General Mills in putative class action challenging the labeling of company’s cereal portfolio as misleading based on the presence of added sugar in the products. After multiple rounds of Rule 12 briefing, obtained complete dismissal on the merits. 2019 WL 3940956 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019).
Chuang v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Served as national counsel for Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Mott’s LLP, and General Mills in defense of putative class action challenging use of “Made with Real FRUIT!” and “Made with Real FRUIT & VEGETABLE [or ‘VEGGIE’] Juice” claims on Mott’s Fruit Flavored Snacks. Obtained Rule 12 dismissal of complaint on reasonable consumer, preemption, and other grounds. After dismissal, achieved confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal with prejudice. 2017 WL 4286577 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2017).
Svenson v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Obtained summary judgment and denial of class certification on behalf of Google in putative class action challenging Google’s compliance with its privacy policies. Summary judgment entered on Google’s behalf based on lack of Article III and statutory standing; plaintiff’s motion for class certification denied on typicality and adequacy grounds. 2016 WL 8943301 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2016).
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 autorenewal and free trial aspects of online subscription program. Achieved confidential settlement and stipulated dismissal after filing motion to dismiss and prior to discovery.
In re Kix Cereal Litigation
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Served as national counsel for General Mills in defense of multiple consolidated class actions challenging use of “natural” claim on Kix cereals. Obtained multiple stays under primary jurisdiction doctrine based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory activities concerning “natural” claims. 2016 WL 5110499 (D.N.J. Jun. 13, 2016); 2013 WL 5943972 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013).
Odom v. Microsoft and Best Buy
State Superior Court of Washington
Represented defendant Best Buy in nationwide class action alleging Consumer Protection Act violations. Included successful defense against electronically stored information (ESI) spoliation claims.
Appellate
Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, RB, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Served as lead appellate counsel in appeal of putative class action settlement challenging Article III standing of class plaintiffs and ability to seek associated injunctive relief. 65 F. 4th 1243 (11th Cir. 2023).
Doss v. General Mills, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Served as lead appellate counsel in appeal of putative class action challenging alleged “omission” from defendant’s labeling regarding the trace presence of substances used as part of the agricultural process. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal on Article III standing grounds. 816 Fed.Appx. 312 (11th Cir. 2020).
Turek v. General Mills, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Served as lead appellate counsel to obtain affirmance of dismissal of a putative class action against General Mills based on federal preemption under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA). Turek is the first federal appellate decision interpreting the NLEA’s express preemption provision, in particular the statute’s “not identical” language that ensures uniform national food labeling requirements. 662 F.3d 423 (7th Cir. 2011).
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court
Obtained U.S. Supreme Court ruling in pro bono habeas corpus litigation, striking down military commissions established to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004), rev'd, 415 F. 3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), rev'd, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). After Congress passed Military Commissions Act of 2006, defended prisoner was tried July 21 to August 7, 2008, before military commission in Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, resulting in acquittal on charge of conspiracy and conviction on lesser charge of material support. Obtained vacation of conviction by D.C. Circuit, which held that the material support charge was Ex Post Facto. 696 F.3d 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court
Defeated constitutional challenge to Interest on Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA) program that provides substantial funding for legal aid programs nationwide. Supreme Court affirmed that such programs are not unconstitutional. 538 U.S. 216 (2003), aff'd 271 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
Intellectual Property Litigation
Post Consumer Brands, LLC v. General Mills, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Successfully defeated motion for preliminary injunction in design patent infringement action as lead defense counsel on behalf of defendant General Mills. After transfer of the action from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the District of Minnesota, conducted two months of expedited discovery relating to plaintiff’s design patent infringement claim. The District of Minnesota denied the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that General Mills had raised a substantial question concerning the validity of plaintiff’s design patent. 2017 WL 4865936 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 27, 2017) (transfer order); No. 17-cv-4917 (Dkt. No. 245) (Dec. 7, 2017) (Ericksen, J.) (order denying preliminary injunction).
General Mills v. Chobani
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
Obtained preliminary injunction successfully halting competitor’s advertising campaign, which had falsely characterized plaintiff General Mills’ yogurt as unsafe. Successfully opposed defendant’s motion for reconsideration of entry of preliminary injunction. 158 F.Supp.3d 106 (N.D.N.Y. 2016); denying reconsideration 2016 WL 1639903 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2016).
Corbis Corporation v. Amazon.com Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Represented Amazon.com in Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) defense of copyright infringement claims and defense of trademark infringement claims related to celebrity portraiture photographs; successful summary judgment disposition. 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004).