Class Action Defense

Companies facing the threat of a class action turn to us to navigate the process and secure the best result. That’s no surprise given that we have handled over 200 threatened or filed class actions and are recognized by our peers as leaders in the field. We also regularly present to both in-house counsel and other class action lawyers on the latest developments in class action law.  

We have defended class actions across a variety of industries and subject matters, as indicated by our list of representative matters below. We have also litigated class actions in both California and federal courts throughout the country. 

Representing automobile manufacturer in a class action alleging false advertising and breach of warranty.

Representing Defendant, a hair care company, in a putative nationwide class action in which Plaintiffs argue Defendant has falsely advertised its entire product line. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant’s decades-long advertisement that its products are “not tested on animals” is untrue because Defendant sold products in China during a time period when China required animal testing of certain cosmetic products.

Representing large staffing company in putative class actions and PAGA suits alleging that company underpaid the employees it placed at biotech companies throughout California.

Representing automobile company in a putative class action in which Plaintiffs allege certain vehicles suffer from a safety defect. DTO was able to eliminate the nationwide class claims, limiting certification to three classes: one in California and two in Illinois. At summary judgment, DTO persuaded the court to enter judgment against one of the Illinois classes (the largest of the three classes). Trial took place in August 2023. DTO prevailed on the CA class claim. The matter is now pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

Defending automobile company in a putative class alleging false advertising under California’s consumer protection statutes. The putative class consists of California consumers who purchased certain Utility Terrain Vehicles (“UTVs”). Plaintiff alleges Defendant misrepresents that the rollover protection systems on the class UTVs meet the requirements of a particular OSHA standard because Defendant uses the wrong vehicle weight when conducting testing under the OSHA standard. Defendant is vigorously defending this case. This case is presently in discovery. Class certification will be briefed in Spring 2025.

Representing Defendant, a gift card retailer, in a putative class action filed by a class of small businesses who claim their goodwill and reputation were harmed and that the public believed they were affiliated with Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Lanham Act and New York consumer protection laws. This is an unusual case, as Lanham Act claims are very rarely brought as a class action. Defendant is aggressively defending the case.

Representing a biotech company in a representative action brought under California’s Private Attorneys’ General Act. The Plaintiff, a lab technician who alleges that the company did not provide adequate meal and rest breaks, itemized wage statements, or overtime compensation seeks to recover penalties on behalf of the other employees and the California Labor Commissioner.

Successful in consolidating two false advertising class actions for a subsidiary of a major CPG company in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended class action complaint alleges Defendant, a dietary supplement that promotes hair health and growth, is falsely advertised as “clinically proven” because scientific evidence does not support the product’s efficacy-related label claims. DTO has filed a motion to dismiss the allegations on the basis that they are implausible. In arguing that Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged Defendant’s efficacy claims were false, DTO also leveraged arguments that appeal to common sense, including that not all Products work the same way for everyone and just because the Products did not work for Plaintiffs does not mean they are ineffective. DTO also argued the California claims should be dismissed as lack of substantiation claims.

Represented manufacturer of supplements in a class action in the District of Oregon in which Plaintiff claims Defendant was falsely advertising dozens of vitamins/minerals because the front of the label does not make clear how many capsules/tablets/pills/etc. would be required to obtain the promised nutrient content. The case settled on an individual basis as to DTO’s client after the filing of a motion to dismiss and before an opposition was filed.

Secured a major victory for client, a tech company, in a putative class action when a court ruled that the Plaintiff could not represent a nationwide class. The Plaintiff, a New York resident, filed suit against Defendant for breach of contract based on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of New York General Business Law, and violation of the consumer protection statutes of 50 states and the District of Columbia. The allegations centered around Defendant’s subscription-based printer ink program. DTO argued Defendant’s choice-of-law provision–which specifies that the law of each consumer’s home state applies to their claims–applied to Plaintiff’s claims. DTO further argued that, as a New York resident who bought the printer in New York, Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims under the laws of 50 other jurisdictions on behalf of consumers residing in other states. The court adopted DTO’s argument, dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract and consumer protection claims for all states other than New York. The parties resolved the case on an individual basis thereafter on terms very favorable to client.

Represented automobile company in a putative nationwide class in which Plaintiffs claimed Defendant’s vehicles had a defective tow hitch wiring harness that was susceptible to catching on fire. After a series of Rule 12(b)(6) motions was able to reduce the scope of the case, a recall was issued which mooted Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs proceeded to file an Attorneys’ Fees Motion, arguing they were the “catalyst” for the recall, while Defendant opposed arguing that was simply untrue. Ultimately, the court denied the motion, finding, inter alia, there was no evidence to suggest Plaintiffs were, indeed, the catalyst for the recall. The decision is one of the few in which a court denied catalyst fees in the automotive context. Following the ruling on the Plaintiffs’ motion, all remaining claims were voluntarily dismissed.

Defended retailer and manufacturer in SD Cal in putative class action against allegations that its “keto-friendly” snack product was falsely advertised because it contained certain type of sugar. The matter was dismissed by the court after DTO filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Represented multiple Defendants in class actions alleging wiretapping violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act.

Defeated class certification in high-stakes wage-and-hour class action brought against app-based food-delivery company. The lawsuit, which alleged that delivery drivers had been misclassified as independent contractors, threatened to upend the client’s business model and the gig economy more generally.

Represented retailer in a class action in which Plaintiff alleged that retailer’s subscription program was falsely advertised. Reached an individual settlement prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss.

Represented Defendants in class actions across the country alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and state-specific mini-TCPA.

Secured summary judgment and the dismissal of the named Plaintiff in a putative class action brought against a national retail chain.

Advised tech company on automatic renewal law compliance.

Represented a major beauty products retailer in a lawsuit regarding a popular supplement. DTO’s strategic procedural maneuvers led the Plaintiff’s counsel to dismiss the case.

Defeated class certification on behalf of a nationwide retailer in an action alleging that the retailer had misclassified its store managers as exempt from overtime requirements.

Chambers USA 2024 Guide

“It’s the most responsive firm we have ever worked with; their ability to anticipate our issues and concerns is unparalleled.”

 

“DTO are excellent, aggressive, responsive lawyers with top-notch training and experience.”

 

“I really like their writing. It is creative and straightforward. They get their point across quickly.”