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, we provide risk management and litigation capabilities.
In class actions of all sizes, we emphasize lean and strategic staffing. Our national practice structure 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 inception to conclusion, our lead lawyers engage in all critical aspects of the case and spearhead material tactical issues and processes, and our lead trial counsel work with clients to map out a proactive strategy. Businesses need more than the best litigators—they also require experienced counsel to navigate management of large-scale, high-stakes litigation. We partner with our clients at every step, working with them after a case resolves to implement any changes needed to help 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 cases, including merger disputes and large-scale fraud allegations.
Our Team
Our antitrust team manages high-stakes class actions and consumer protection litigation, crafting targeted, strategies for a diverse range of clients including technology companies, manufacturers, and distributors.
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 strategic business needs.
Consumer Protection
Consumer class actions are on the rise throughout the United States. All companies that advertise and market directly to the buying public are at risk in this high-stakes area. 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 deploying decisive measures that 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, in some cases, quickly dispose of a putative class action 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 several employment class-action cases.
Privacy
We help clients respond to regulatory inquiries from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, U.S. 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 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 professionals 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 a just few of the common events that may result in a securities class action, a derivative lawsuit, or other corporate governance litigation against a company or its officers and directors. Perkins Coie has extensive experience litigating such cases for securities issuers. Our lawyers’ understanding of the applicable federal and state case law—and of clients’ needs and industries—leads to outcomes that mitigate the impact of the litigation on our clients’ businesses
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Digital. We not only defend digital accessibility cases; we also provide comprehensive compliance guidance on the laws designed to improve access to information and communications technologies, such as the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and standards adopted by the U.S. Access Board.
Workplace. We help employers understand the fundamental requirements and prohibitions of the ADA and how they apply to all aspects of the employment relationship. This can include hiring practices, training accommodations, evaluation process, promotions, leave circumstances, and termination.
Higher education and professional licensing. Our team handles lawsuits and government enforcement actions under Title II and Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and similar state laws involving requests for accommodations and disability-based challenges to policies or remedial actions. We frequently work with higher education institutions, standardized testing entities, professional licensing boards, and various other covered entities,
Construction. Our lawyers advise clients on construction accessibility requirements under Title III of the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and counterpart state laws, with respect to requirements for both new construction and for building renovations.
Insurance recovery. Our insurance recovery lawyers assist secure coverage for claims alleging discrimination under the ADA and related laws through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and litigation.
Insights
News
Professional Experience
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.
Nouri v. The Boeing Company
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Obtained a complete defense jury verdict in a case involving a class of Asian engineers and technical workers alleging discrimination in the company’s compensation and retention systems. We successfully limited the size and scope of the certified class, dismissed several claims before trial and then tried the remaining class case to a defense verdict before a federal jury. The verdict was affirmed on appeal.
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.
City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. The Boeing Company
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Represented Boeing and two of its senior executives in a securities fraud class action relating to the delay of first flight of the 787 Dreamliner. Plaintiffs' operative complaint relied on the alleged statements of a confidential source, who purportedly possessed high-level knowledge. After plaintiffs revealed the identity of their source, defendants secured a declaration and deposition from the source, in which he refuted the allegations attributed to him. Defendants subsequently moved for and won dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs' counsel failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry and made material misrepresentations of fact concerning the source's position and personal knowledge. Plaintiffs appealed and defendants cross-appealed, seeking sanctions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court affirmed dismissal and remanded for consideration of sanctions.
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.