{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"21","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"G","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":443890,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6348,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates),\u0026nbsp;sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California\u0026rsquo;s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, including as a \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eHall of Fame for \u003c/em\u003eIntellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dale-giali","email":"dgiali@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHusain v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647\u0026nbsp;F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Giali","nick_name":"Dale","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dale","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2377,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1990-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings","detail":"Chambers USA Guide, 2024"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2023"},{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigation Star \u0026 Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022"},{"title":"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Named Litigation Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-giali-972785/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates),\u0026nbsp;sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California\u0026rsquo;s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, including as a \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eHall of Fame for \u003c/em\u003eIntellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHusain v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647\u0026nbsp;F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings","detail":"Chambers USA Guide, 2024"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2023"},{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigation Star \u0026 Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022"},{"title":"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Named Litigation Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9732}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Giali{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns Top-Tier Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA Guide, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All-Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All-Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns Top-Tier Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigation Star \u0026amp; Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigation Trailblazer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Husain v. Campbell Soup Company, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.{{ FIELD }}Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., 739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. 592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Dale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.\nDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates), sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\nDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California’s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\nBenchmark Litigation has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by The National Law Journal as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by Law360 as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in Chambers USA and Legal 500, including as a Legal 500 \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to Legal 500’s Hall of Fame for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters). Partner Earns Top-Tier Rankings Legal 500, 2024 Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings Chambers USA Guide, 2024 Named Client Service All-Stars BTI Consulting, 2024 Recognized 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2023 Named Client Service All-Stars BTI Consulting, 2023 Earns Top-Tier Rankings Legal 500, 2023 Named Litigation Star \u0026amp; Local Litigation Star (Class Actions) Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022 Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters) Legal 500, 2020 Named Litigation Trailblazer National Law Journal, 2017 University of California  University of San Diego University of San Diego School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia Member, American Bar Association Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Husain v. Campbell Soup Company, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil. Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., 739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont. Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. 592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Dale Giali","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445743,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3914,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eIgor Gorlach is a partner in the firm's Data Privacy \u0026amp; Security and Healthcare groups.\u0026nbsp; He advises global companies on privacy and security issues, including government investigations, structuring global compliance programs, addressing incidents, and managing disputes.\u0026nbsp; He also advises innovative healthcare companies on models for the delivery of care, reimbursement, government program requirements, and relationships with payors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIgor manages government investigations focused on privacy, security, consumer protection, and healthcare regulatory requirements.\u0026nbsp; He leverages his deep experience with government investigations to advise clients on practical approaches to compliance, the deployment of business initiatives, and navigation of disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIgor advises clients on strategies that account for evolving regulatory requirements, including for structuring partnership arrangements, using information in innovative ways, and deploying novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence and other machine learning solutions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"igor-gorlach","email":"igorlach@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3308}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Gorlach","nick_name":"Igor","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Igor","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2021, 2022"},{"title":"Emerging Young Lawyers in Healthcare Award","detail":"American Bar Association, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Igor Gorlach is a partner in our Government Matters \u0026 Regulation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eIgor Gorlach is a partner in the firm's Data Privacy \u0026amp; Security and Healthcare groups.\u0026nbsp; He advises global companies on privacy and security issues, including government investigations, structuring global compliance programs, addressing incidents, and managing disputes.\u0026nbsp; He also advises innovative healthcare companies on models for the delivery of care, reimbursement, government program requirements, and relationships with payors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIgor manages government investigations focused on privacy, security, consumer protection, and healthcare regulatory requirements.\u0026nbsp; He leverages his deep experience with government investigations to advise clients on practical approaches to compliance, the deployment of business initiatives, and navigation of disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIgor advises clients on strategies that account for evolving regulatory requirements, including for structuring partnership arrangements, using information in innovative ways, and deploying novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence and other machine learning solutions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Ones to Watch","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2021, 2022"},{"title":"Emerging Young Lawyers in Healthcare Award","detail":"American Bar Association, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4220}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-11T20:13:09.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-11T20:13:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Gorlach{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2021, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Emerging Young Lawyers in Healthcare Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Bar Association, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Igor Gorlach is a partner in the firm's Data Privacy \u0026amp; Security and Healthcare groups.  He advises global companies on privacy and security issues, including government investigations, structuring global compliance programs, addressing incidents, and managing disputes.  He also advises innovative healthcare companies on models for the delivery of care, reimbursement, government program requirements, and relationships with payors. \nIgor manages government investigations focused on privacy, security, consumer protection, and healthcare regulatory requirements.  He leverages his deep experience with government investigations to advise clients on practical approaches to compliance, the deployment of business initiatives, and navigation of disputes.\nIgor advises clients on strategies that account for evolving regulatory requirements, including for structuring partnership arrangements, using information in innovative ways, and deploying novel technologies, such as artificial intelligence and other machine learning solutions.  Igor Gorlach lawyer Partner Ones to Watch Best Lawyers, 2021, 2022 Emerging Young Lawyers in Healthcare Award American Bar Association, 2020 Rice University  Harvard University Harvard Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit District of Columbia Massachusetts Texas American Bar Association","searchable_name":"Igor Gorlach","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443287,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3522,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eUlf Grundmann is a partner of the Government Matters Practice Group, and focuses on regulations and compliance regarding the pharmaceutical, medical devices, cosmetic and food industries, and on litigation in the European Union. For more than 28 years, Ulf has advised clients through all stages of the product life cycle, including product development, trademark clearance, labeling, advertising and promotion, product launch, distribution, licensing and compliance in the EU. He also handles all kinds of litigation related to the products, the distribution, intellectual property rights, competition and advertising. This includes aspects related to parallel imports, protection against falsified products, recalls, and product end-of-life. He litigates matters before German and European courts, including the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUlf counsels clients in the European Union on regulatory, unfair competition and compliance laws, and represents clients before national and European authorities, including the European Commission. He also works with life science companies on corporate and financial transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs frequent author, speaker and moderator at life sciences and food conferences, Ulf also serves as a lecturer at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management as well as the DeutscheAnwaltsAkademie.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences EMEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2023 named Ulf a\u0026nbsp;\"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\" for the second following year.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2023/24\u0026nbsp;named\u0026nbsp;him a \"Leading Name\" for pharmaceutical and medical devices law for the third\u0026nbsp;year in a row. \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Deutschland\u003c/em\u003e recommends him as leading lawyer in the categories Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Goods and Food Law and Intellectual Property: Unfair Competition. He has been recognized among Germany's leading lawyers for pharmaceuticals, medical devices and food law by legal directories such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500, Handelsblatt \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e best lawyers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Who's Who Legal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efor many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUlf is counseling clients from the Frankfurt office and temporarily from the Brussels office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ulf-grundmann","email":"ugrundmann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":81}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Grundmann","nick_name":"Ulf","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Ulf","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Life Sciences Law Firm of the Year Germany","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023 \u0026 2025"},{"title":"Law Firm Parallel Trade EMEA","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Life Sciences and Healthcare \u0026 Life Sciences","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"\"Quick and creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skillful tactician, especially in court hearings\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards 2022,2023 and 2024"},{"title":"Winner of the Life Sciences category in Germany, an award based on client nominations ","detail":"Client Choice Awards, 2022"},{"title":"\"Leading Name\" for Pharma- and Medical Devices Law","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21-2023/24"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Products and Food Law, IP: Unfair Competition","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023"},{"title":"\"Ulf Grundmann has a lot of experience and excellent expertise regarding patent and trademark law in the life sciences.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Solves complex issues with a lot of creativity and offers alternative perspectives that [...] lead to better results.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“first choice\"; \"very satisfied\", \"excellent trial lawyer\"","detail":" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products and Food Law","detail":"JUVE, 2014/15 - 2023/24"},{"title":"Recognized as National Leader for Life Sciences - Regulatory","detail":"Who's Who Legal, 2021"},{"title":"\"Reliable and excellent in terms of content\" ","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Very knowledgeable in life sciences and up to date on any developments on the market.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting Clients"},{"title":"\"Fast + creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skilled tactician especially in court proceedings.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting Clients"},{"title":"\"Direct, agile, assertive and client-oriented.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly experienced in pharmaceutical, competition, food, trademark and European law” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2020, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Stands out for his market-leading expertise in compliance to EU regulations in the life sciences sector\" ","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"de":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eUlf Grundmann ist Partner im Frankfurter B\u0026uuml;ro von King \u0026amp; Spalding und Mitglied der Life Sciences-Praxisgruppe. Als Kopf der in 2014 gegr\u0026uuml;ndeten deutschen Life Sciences-Praxis ber\u0026auml;t Ulf Grundmann Hersteller der Medizinprodukte-, Pharma-, Kosmetik- und Lebensmittelbranche und vertritt sie in Rechtsstreitigkeiten seit \u0026uuml;ber 28 Jahren in verschiedenen Phasen des Produktlebenszyklus einschlie\u0026szlig;lich Produktentwicklung, Etikettierung, Werbung und Promotion, Produktmarkteinf\u0026uuml;hrung, Vertrieb, Compliance, hinsichtlich Aspekte im Zusammenhang mit Parallelimporten, Schutz vor gef\u0026auml;lschter Ware, R\u0026uuml;ckrufaktionen sowie End-of-Life-Phase. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHerr Grundmann ber\u0026auml;t Mandanten in allen Bereichen von EU-rechtlichen Angelegenheiten, unlauterem Wettbewerb und Compliance und vertritt Unternehmen vor nationalen und europ\u0026auml;ischen Beh\u0026ouml;rden, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich der Europ\u0026auml;ischen Kommission. Ulf Grundmann ist seit vielen Jahren als Prozessanwalt, speziell in Berufungsverfahren, t\u0026auml;tig und vertritt Mandanten vor deutschen und europ\u0026auml;ischen Gerichten, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich dem Gericht der Europ\u0026auml;ischen Union und dem Europ\u0026auml;ischen Gerichtshof.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUlf Grundmann tritt regelm\u0026auml;\u0026szlig;ig bei verschiedenen Life Sciences und Lebensmittel-Konferenzen als Sprecher und Moderator auf. Au\u0026szlig;erdem ist er als Mitglied des \u0026bdquo;Corporate Advisory Board\u0026ldquo; und Dozent f\u0026uuml;r die Frankfurt School of Finance and Management und f\u0026uuml;r die Deutsche Anwalts Akademie t\u0026auml;tig. Er arbeitet dar\u0026uuml;ber hinaus als Herausgeber der Fachzeitschrift \u003cem\u003eLebensmittel \u0026amp; Recht\u003c/em\u003e, als Autor f\u0026uuml;r das \u003cem\u003eM\u0026uuml;nchener Anwaltshandbuch Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz\u003c/em\u003e und als Herausgeber und Autor f\u0026uuml;r die Publikation \u003cem\u003eGesundheitsbezogene Lebensmittel\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences EMEA\u003c/em\u003e 2023 hat Ulf Grundmann das zweite Jahr in Folge zum \"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\" ausgezeichnet. J\u003cem\u003eUVE \u003c/em\u003e2023/24 f\u0026uuml;hrt\u0026nbsp;ihn das dritte Jahr in Folge als \"F\u0026uuml;hrenden Namen\" im Pharma- und Medizinprodukterecht\u003cstrong\u003e. \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Deutschland\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;empfiehlt Ulf Grundmann unter den f\u0026uuml;hrenden Namen f\u0026uuml;r Branchenfokus: Gesundheit, Konsumg\u0026uuml;ter und Lebensmittelrecht sowie Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz: Wettbewerbsrecht. Er wird seit vielen Jahren als Experte in Publikationen wie \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500, Handelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;und best\u003cem\u003e lawyers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eund\u003cem\u003e Whos\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal \u003c/em\u003eempfohlen f\u0026uuml;r die Bereiche Pharma, Medizinprodukte und Lebensmittelrecht.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Gewinner der Kategorie \"Life Sciences\" in Deutschland; der Award beruht auf Nominierungen von Mandanten","detail":"Client Choice Awards, 2022"},{"title":"\"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\"","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards 2022 und 2023"},{"title":"\"Führender Berater\" im Bereich Pharma- und Medizinprodukterecht ","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21-2023/25"},{"title":"Empfohlen als Anwalt für die Bereiche Pharma- und Medizinprodukterecht sowie Lebensmittelrecht","detail":"JUVE, 2014/15-2023/25"},{"title":"Empfohlen als Anwalt für die Bereiche Branchenfokus: Gesundheit, Konsumgüter und Lebensmittelrecht sowie Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz: Wettbewerbsrecht","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023"},{"title":"\"Ulf Grundmann hat viel Erfahrung und ausgezeichnete Expertise bezüglich Patent- und Markenrecht in den Life Sciences.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023 - Mandant"},{"title":"Er löst komplexe Sachverhalte mit viel Kreativität und bietet alternative Sichtweisen, die regelmäßig zu besseren Ergebnissen führen.’","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023 - Mandant"},{"title":"Empfohlen unter den besten Anwälten Deutschlands für Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Pharmarecht","detail":"Handelsblatt und best lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"„erste Wahl“; „sehr zufrieden“; „exzellenter Prozessanwalt“","detail":"JUVE 2021/22 - Mandanten"},{"title":"\"führt sein Team effizient und bietet kreative Lösungsansätze. Sehr gute Kenntnisse in den Life Sciences und auf dem neuesten Stand über jegliche Neuerungen. Direkt, agil, durchsetzungsstark und mandantenorientiert.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2021 - Mandant"},{"title":"„zuverlässig u. inhaltl. ausgezeichnet“,","detail":"JUVE 2020/21 - Mandant"},{"title":"\"Sehr erfahren im Pharma-, Wettbewerbs-, Lebensmittel-, Marken- und Europarecht\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2020"},{"title":"\"Stands out for his market-leading expertise in compliance to EU regulations in the life sciences sector\"","detail":"Who is Who Legal, 2020"},{"title":"Empfohlen für Healthcare \u0026 Life Sciences - Regulatory","detail":"Lexology Index (ehem. Who's Who Legal) 2025"}]},"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eUlf Grundmann is a partner of the Government Matters Practice Group, and focuses on regulations and compliance regarding the pharmaceutical, medical devices, cosmetic and food industries, and on litigation in the European Union. For more than 28 years, Ulf has advised clients through all stages of the product life cycle, including product development, trademark clearance, labeling, advertising and promotion, product launch, distribution, licensing and compliance in the EU. He also handles all kinds of litigation related to the products, the distribution, intellectual property rights, competition and advertising. This includes aspects related to parallel imports, protection against falsified products, recalls, and product end-of-life. He litigates matters before German and European courts, including the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUlf counsels clients in the European Union on regulatory, unfair competition and compliance laws, and represents clients before national and European authorities, including the European Commission. He also works with life science companies on corporate and financial transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs frequent author, speaker and moderator at life sciences and food conferences, Ulf also serves as a lecturer at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management as well as the DeutscheAnwaltsAkademie.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLMG Life Sciences EMEA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2023 named Ulf a\u0026nbsp;\"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\" for the second following year.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;2023/24\u0026nbsp;named\u0026nbsp;him a \"Leading Name\" for pharmaceutical and medical devices law for the third\u0026nbsp;year in a row. \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 Deutschland\u003c/em\u003e recommends him as leading lawyer in the categories Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Goods and Food Law and Intellectual Property: Unfair Competition. He has been recognized among Germany's leading lawyers for pharmaceuticals, medical devices and food law by legal directories such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500, Handelsblatt \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e best lawyers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Who's Who Legal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efor many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUlf is counseling clients from the Frankfurt office and temporarily from the Brussels office.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Life Sciences Law Firm of the Year Germany","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023 \u0026 2025"},{"title":"Law Firm Parallel Trade EMEA","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Life Sciences and Healthcare \u0026 Life Sciences","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"\"Quick and creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skillful tactician, especially in court hearings\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year","detail":"LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards 2022,2023 and 2024"},{"title":"Winner of the Life Sciences category in Germany, an award based on client nominations ","detail":"Client Choice Awards, 2022"},{"title":"\"Leading Name\" for Pharma- and Medical Devices Law","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21-2023/24"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Products and Food Law, IP: Unfair Competition","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023"},{"title":"\"Ulf Grundmann has a lot of experience and excellent expertise regarding patent and trademark law in the life sciences.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Solves complex issues with a lot of creativity and offers alternative perspectives that [...] lead to better results.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2024-2025"},{"title":"“first choice\"; \"very satisfied\", \"excellent trial lawyer\"","detail":" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting clients"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products and Food Law","detail":"JUVE, 2014/15 - 2023/24"},{"title":"Recognized as National Leader for Life Sciences - Regulatory","detail":"Who's Who Legal, 2021"},{"title":"\"Reliable and excellent in terms of content\" ","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Very knowledgeable in life sciences and up to date on any developments on the market.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting Clients"},{"title":"\"Fast + creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skilled tactician especially in court proceedings.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting Clients"},{"title":"\"Direct, agile, assertive and client-oriented.” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly experienced in pharmaceutical, competition, food, trademark and European law” ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2020, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Stands out for his market-leading expertise in compliance to EU regulations in the life sciences sector\" ","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020"}]},"locales":["en","de"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":888}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-26T21:37:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-26T21:37:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Grundmann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Life Sciences Law Firm of the Year Germany\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023 \u0026amp; 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law Firm Parallel Trade EMEA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Lawyer for Life Sciences and Healthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Quick and creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skillful tactician, especially in court hearings\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards 2022,2023 and 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Winner of the Life Sciences category in Germany, an award based on client nominations \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Client Choice Awards, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Leading Name\\\" for Pharma- and Medical Devices Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2020/21-2023/24\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Lawyer for Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Products and Food Law, IP: Unfair Competition\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Ulf Grundmann has a lot of experience and excellent expertise regarding patent and trademark law in the life sciences.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Solves complex issues with a lot of creativity and offers alternative perspectives that [...] lead to better results.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized one of Germany's Best Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“first choice\\\"; \\\"very satisfied\\\", \\\"excellent trial lawyer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Lawyer for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products and Food Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2014/15 - 2023/24\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as National Leader for Life Sciences - Regulatory\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Reliable and excellent in terms of content\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very knowledgeable in life sciences and up to date on any developments on the market.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting Clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fast + creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skilled tactician especially in court proceedings.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting Clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Direct, agile, assertive and client-oriented.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly experienced in pharmaceutical, competition, food, trademark and European law” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2020, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Stands out for his market-leading expertise in compliance to EU regulations in the life sciences sector\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Ulf Grundmann is a partner of the Government Matters Practice Group, and focuses on regulations and compliance regarding the pharmaceutical, medical devices, cosmetic and food industries, and on litigation in the European Union. For more than 28 years, Ulf has advised clients through all stages of the product life cycle, including product development, trademark clearance, labeling, advertising and promotion, product launch, distribution, licensing and compliance in the EU. He also handles all kinds of litigation related to the products, the distribution, intellectual property rights, competition and advertising. This includes aspects related to parallel imports, protection against falsified products, recalls, and product end-of-life. He litigates matters before German and European courts, including the General Court and the Court of Justice of the EU.\nUlf counsels clients in the European Union on regulatory, unfair competition and compliance laws, and represents clients before national and European authorities, including the European Commission. He also works with life science companies on corporate and financial transactions.\nAs frequent author, speaker and moderator at life sciences and food conferences, Ulf also serves as a lecturer at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management as well as the DeutscheAnwaltsAkademie.\nLMG Life Sciences EMEA 2023 named Ulf a \"Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year\" for the second following year. JUVE 2023/24 named him a \"Leading Name\" for pharmaceutical and medical devices law for the third year in a row. Legal 500 Deutschland recommends him as leading lawyer in the categories Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Goods and Food Law and Intellectual Property: Unfair Competition. He has been recognized among Germany's leading lawyers for pharmaceuticals, medical devices and food law by legal directories such as JUVE, Legal 500, Handelsblatt and best lawyers and Who's Who Legal for many years.\nUlf is counseling clients from the Frankfurt office and temporarily from the Brussels office. Ulf H Grundmann Partner Life Sciences Law Firm of the Year Germany LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023 \u0026amp; 2025 Law Firm Parallel Trade EMEA LMG Life Sciences EMEA, 2023 Recommended Lawyer for Life Sciences and Healthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025 \"Quick and creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skillful tactician, especially in court hearings\"  Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting clients Parallel Import Lawyer of the Year LMG Life Sciences EMEA Awards 2022,2023 and 2024 Winner of the Life Sciences category in Germany, an award based on client nominations  Client Choice Awards, 2022 \"Leading Name\" for Pharma- and Medical Devices Law JUVE, 2020/21-2023/24 Recommended Lawyer for Healthcare and Life Sciences, Consumer Products and Food Law, IP: Unfair Competition Legal 500 Deutschland, 2023 \"Ulf Grundmann has a lot of experience and excellent expertise regarding patent and trademark law in the life sciences.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients \"Solves complex issues with a lot of creativity and offers alternative perspectives that [...] lead to better results.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2023, Quoting clients Recognized one of Germany's Best Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Lawyers Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2024-2025 “first choice\"; \"very satisfied\", \"excellent trial lawyer\"  JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting clients Recommended Lawyer for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Products and Food Law JUVE, 2014/15 - 2023/24 Recognized as National Leader for Life Sciences - Regulatory Who's Who Legal, 2021 \"Reliable and excellent in terms of content\"  JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting clients \"Very knowledgeable in life sciences and up to date on any developments on the market.\"  Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting Clients \"Fast + creative solutions, very good industry knowledge, skilled tactician especially in court proceedings.”  Legal 500 Deutschland 2025, Quoting Clients \"Direct, agile, assertive and client-oriented.”  Legal 500 Deutschland 2021, Quoting clients \"Highly experienced in pharmaceutical, competition, food, trademark and European law”  Legal 500 Deutschland 2020, Quoting clients \"Stands out for his market-leading expertise in compliance to EU regulations in the life sciences sector\"  Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020 Germany Frankfurt, Germany (Admitted 1/9/1995; Reg. # 127327)","searchable_name":"Ulf H. Grundmann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427109,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6310,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackson M. Grubbe\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on government investigations, internal investigations, crisis response, and compliance counseling. Jackson represents clients in investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, state attorneys general, and other domestic authorities. He also advises life sciences manufacturers and pharmacies on regulatory, compliance, and enforcement issues impacting their sales practices, growth strategy, and operations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore his legal career, Jackson developed his skills navigating complex policy and regulatory issues in politics, at a think tank, and as a compliance specialist.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackson graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a Karsh-Dillard Scholar and broke the all-time fundraising record for the school's annual softball invitational as a Co-Tournament Director.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jackson-grubbe","email":"jgrubbe@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 771 208 9673","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3707}]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Grubbe","nick_name":"Jackson","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jackson","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2410,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2023-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Makanikeoe","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe is a lawyer of our Special Matters \u0026 Government Investigations Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJackson M. Grubbe\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on government investigations, internal investigations, crisis response, and compliance counseling. Jackson represents clients in investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, state attorneys general, and other domestic authorities. He also advises life sciences manufacturers and pharmacies on regulatory, compliance, and enforcement issues impacting their sales practices, growth strategy, and operations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore his legal career, Jackson developed his skills navigating complex policy and regulatory issues in politics, at a think tank, and as a compliance specialist.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJackson graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a Karsh-Dillard Scholar and broke the all-time fundraising record for the school's annual softball invitational as a Co-Tournament Director.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11486}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:58:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Grubbe{{ FIELD }}Jackson M. Grubbe’s practice focuses on government investigations, internal investigations, crisis response, and compliance counseling. Jackson represents clients in investigations conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, state attorneys general, and other domestic authorities. He also advises life sciences manufacturers and pharmacies on regulatory, compliance, and enforcement issues impacting their sales practices, growth strategy, and operations.\nBefore his legal career, Jackson developed his skills navigating complex policy and regulatory issues in politics, at a think tank, and as a compliance specialist.  \nJackson graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a Karsh-Dillard Scholar and broke the all-time fundraising record for the school's annual softball invitational as a Co-Tournament Director.\n  Jackson Grubbe lawyer Associate Brigham Young University-Hawaii  University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law District of Columbia","searchable_name":"Jackson Makanikeoe Grubbe","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}