Privacy Class Action Defense

Defending businesses and offering proactive strategies to mitigate the risk of lawsuits.

Companies that must coordinate defense of both regulatory and class-action litigation from the same occurrence must comply with different timelines and discovery requirements to achieve success.

Perkins Coie’s Privacy Class Action Defense lawyers have served as defense for the world's most innovative companies and industry leaders. Our experience spans all manner of privacy class actions, from alleged violations of specific federal and state privacy laws—like the California Consumer Privacy Act, Secure Communications Act, Wiretap Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and Biometric Information Privacy Act—to cases asserting more general claims involving consumers’ personal data, such as the common law intrusion upon seclusion and violation of constitutional privacy rights. Plaintiffs often bring these cases on behalf of putative classes that number in the thousands or even millions, so they bring potential exposure in the millions of dollars and the risk of business interruption from threatened injunctive relief.

We aim for a swift and efficient disposition of the case. When that is not desired or achievable, we have the breadth and depth of experience necessary to litigate privacy class actions from beginning to end. We have successfully obtained summary judgment dismissal of claims, defeated class certification, negotiated walkaways or favorable individual and class settlements, and obtained court approval of class settlements.

Our practice is anchored and informed by our lawyers’ subject matter experience in both privacy law and numerous other practices, including artificial intelligence, biometric law, retail, fintech, and more. We are ranked among the leading firms globally and nationally in Privacy & Security: The Elite and Privacy & Security: Litigation by Chambers Global and Chambers USA.

Our Litigation team includes more than 70 lawyers focused exclusively on litigating and advising clients in privacy matters. And because we recognize that the best defense is to avoid being sued in the first place, our litigators also counsel companies on steps they can take to mitigate litigation risk.

How we help clients

Alleged violations of specific federal and state privacy laws.
Claims involving consumers’ personal data, such as common law intrusion.
Counseling companies on steps they can take to mitigate litigation risk.
Litigating privacy class actions from beginning to end.

联系方式

浏览相关专业人员信息

Susan Fahringer

Partner

SFahringer@perkinscoie.com

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.

Todd M. Hinnen

Partner

THinnen@perkinscoie.com

Notice

James G. Snell

Partner

JSnell@perkinscoie.com

Notice

Blog

Perkins on Privacy: Perkins Coie Brings You the Latest on Privacy

Updates and insights on emerging privacy and data security issues across an increasingly complex legal, regulatory, and technical landscape.

Visit Blog

Publication

Security Breach Notification Chart

Perkins Coie's Privacy & Security practice maintains a comprehensive chart that summarizes state laws regarding security breach notification.

View Chart

奖项

Ranked among the leading firms globally and nationally in Privacy & Security: The Elite and Privacy & Security: Litigation by Chambers Global and Chambers USA

洞察

更多见解

Update

January 23, 2025

Privacy Law Recap 2024: Class Actions and Mass Arbitrations

代理经验

Privacy Class Action Defense Experience

Barnes v. Hanna Andersson et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successful defense of Hanna Andersson in the first data breach putative class action filed under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), also alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 17200 and for negligence. Obtained preliminary approval of class settlement with terms very favorable to Hanna Andersson, pending final approval.

S.A. and P.B. v. University of Washington

Superior Court for the State of Washington, King County
Defense of the University of Washington in putative class action arising from an alleged data breach involving the personal information and protected health information of approximately one million patients of UW Medicine. Plaintiffs asserted multiple statutory and common law claims, including for violation of Washington’s Breach Notice Statute, Uniform Health Care Information Act, AIDS Omnibus Act, and Release of Records for Research Act, as well as for Negligence, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Express and Implied Contract, and Unjust Enrichment. Perkins Coie achieved dismissal of all claims with statutory damages at the pleadings stage, then twice defeated class certification, after which Plaintiffs stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of all remaining claims.

Defense of Google, Inc. in Multiple Putative Class Actions re: BIPA and Google Photos

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District court for the Northern District of California
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Circuit Court of Illinois, Will County
Defense of multiple putative class actions alleging that aspects of Google Photos violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In the first of these cases, Rivera v. Google, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, our team obtained summary judgment dismissal on the ground that the plaintiffs had not suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing; the case was renewed following the Seventh Circuit’s ruling regarding Article III standing for BIPA claims in Bryant v. Compass.

Opperman v. Path, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defense of Twitter Inc. in putative class action asserting invasion of privacy and related claims against Apple iOS application developers that allegedly copied iPhone users’ mobile address books without consent. Motion to dismiss granted on virtually all claims, damages limited to nominal damages, and case settled favorably.

Svenson v. Google Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defense of putative class action asserting multiple violations of the Stored Communications Act, breach of contract, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. Obtained dismissal of Stored Communications Act claims for at the pleadings stage, then achieved summary judgment dismissal of remaining claims based on lack of Article III and statutory standing and denial of motion for class certification on typicality and adequacy grounds.

Rushing v. Disney, et al. and New Mexico AG v. Apple, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
Defense of Twitter Inc. in putative class action asserting intrusion upon seclusion and related claims against mobile app publisher and SDK defendants, including Twitter’s MoPub service, related to claims of unlawful data collection relating to children, and allegations by the New Mexico attorney general of violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and intrusion upon seclusion. Prevailed on a motion to dismiss the New Mexico AG action with prejudice and favorably settled the putative class action with no damages.

Archer-Hayes v. ToyTalk, Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
State Superior Court of California
Defense of ToyTalk, Inc. (now PullString, Inc.) and Mattel, Inc., in a nationwide putative class action asserting claims for unfair competition, negligence, unjust enrichment, common law invasion of privacy and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act based on allegations that the “Hello Barbie” product violated the Children’s Online Protection Privacy Act. Achieved voluntary dismissal with prejudice following our removal of the case to federal court and filing of motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration on behalf of ToyTalk and Mattel.

In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defense of Google in nationwide putative class actions challenging Google Buzz social networking application and asserting claims under Stored Communications Act, Federal Wiretap Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and state law claims for Public Disclosure of Private Facts, California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Civ. Code 17200 et seq.), based on alleged violations of Gmail user privacy. Obtained court approval of class settlement, over multiple objections from class members.

Rudgayzer v. Google Inc., Amalfitano v. Google Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Defense of Google in putative class action challenging class-action settlement post final approval, and asserting claims under the Stored Communications Act in connection with the launch of Google Buzz social networking application. Obtained transfer of the case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, then successfully defended that order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following transfer, the Northern District of California court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, a decision that was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals., and cert. denied by the United States Supreme Court.

Patel v. Zillow

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained dismissal of putative class action alleging that Zillow’s Zestimate® was an unlawful unlicensed appraisal under Illinois law and that its description and use of the Zestimate® violated consumer protection laws and was an intrusion upon seclusion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing the case with prejudice on all counts.

Allen v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Defense of Quicken Loans in putative class action alleging violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and related claims relating to purported unlawful interception of website browser information. Prevailed on motion to dismiss all claims.

Shamblin v. Obama for America, DNC Services Corp., and New Partners Consulting, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Successfully defeated class certification in putative class action against Obama for America and DNC alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for robocalls made during the 2012 campaign to reelect President Obama.

Maghen v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Successful defense of appeal of a victory on summary judgment in putative class action brought under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, for alleged unlawful call recording.

Pine v. A Place for Mom, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defense of senior care referral provider in putative class action alleging millions of calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Obtained court approved settlement on very favorable terms for the defendant.