{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"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 / 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"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 Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"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":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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 Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"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":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"19","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"G","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":443282,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5125,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarter George focuses his practice on\u0026nbsp;representing Fortune 100 and other entities\u0026nbsp;in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive,\u0026nbsp;and other product liability and tort cases.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and\u0026nbsp;he frequently\u0026nbsp;secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Carter has\u0026nbsp;extensive deposition,\u0026nbsp;motion practice, alternative dispute resolution\u0026nbsp;and case management\u0026nbsp;experience, and he regularly\u0026nbsp;prepares company representatives for deposition.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to\u0026nbsp;summer associates,\u0026nbsp;and previously served on the Firmwide\u0026nbsp;Associates Committee.\u0026nbsp; Carter is a member of the Law Council\u0026nbsp;for Washington and Lee University School of Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation\u0026nbsp;and white collar matters involving\u0026nbsp;cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger\u0026nbsp;in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"carter-george","email":"cgeorge@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epop culture collectibles company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained time served sentence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epro bono client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in supervised release revocation proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal industrial entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Viking Group, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecomputer security researcher\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in criminal matter involving malware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edigital agency\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInternet-based television provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pioneering\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ee-cigarette company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3307}]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"George","nick_name":"Carter","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Honorable Robert Bruce King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","years_held":"1/13-5/13"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Irene C. Berger, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia","years_held":"9/13-9/15"}],"first_name":"Carter","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2484,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2026"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Carter L. George is a partner in our Product Liability \u0026 Mass Torts Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarter George focuses his practice on\u0026nbsp;representing Fortune 100 and other entities\u0026nbsp;in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive,\u0026nbsp;and other product liability and tort cases.\u0026nbsp; He\u0026nbsp;has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and\u0026nbsp;he frequently\u0026nbsp;secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Carter has\u0026nbsp;extensive deposition,\u0026nbsp;motion practice, alternative dispute resolution\u0026nbsp;and case management\u0026nbsp;experience, and he regularly\u0026nbsp;prepares company representatives for deposition.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to\u0026nbsp;summer associates,\u0026nbsp;and previously served on the Firmwide\u0026nbsp;Associates Committee.\u0026nbsp; Carter is a member of the Law Council\u0026nbsp;for Washington and Lee University School of Law.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation\u0026nbsp;and white collar matters involving\u0026nbsp;cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger\u0026nbsp;in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eforum non conveniens\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epop culture collectibles company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained time served sentence for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epro bono client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in supervised release revocation proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal industrial entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Viking Group, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecomputer security researcher\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in criminal matter involving malware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edigital agency\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInternet-based television provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pioneering\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ee-cigarette company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026"},{"title":"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5762},{"id":5762}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-26T18:35:48.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-26T18:35:48.000Z","searchable_text":"George{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of forum non conveniens motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented pop culture collectibles company in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad.{{ FIELD }}Obtained time served sentence for pro bono client in supervised release revocation proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Represented General Motors in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented global industrial entity in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented The Viking Group, Inc. in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading computer security researcher in criminal matter involving malware.{{ FIELD }}Represented global digital agency in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution.{{ FIELD }}Represented Internet-based television provider in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms.{{ FIELD }}Represented pioneering e-cigarette company in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.{{ FIELD }}Carter George focuses his practice on representing Fortune 100 and other entities in a wide range of complex litigation, including commercial disputes, toxic tort, automotive, and other product liability and tort cases.  He has been a part of multiple trial teams in cases that have gone to verdict, and he frequently secures dismissals and summary adjudication in high-stakes civil litigation.  Carter has extensive deposition, motion practice, alternative dispute resolution and case management experience, and he regularly prepares company representatives for deposition.  \nCarter also maintains a diverse pro bono practice, is a mentor to summer associates, and previously served on the Firmwide Associates Committee.  Carter is a member of the Law Council for Washington and Lee University School of Law.  \nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Carter practiced at a Los Angeles litigation boutique handling all aspects of general commercial litigation and white collar matters involving cryptocurrency, corporate fraud and copyright disputes.  Following law school, he clerked for the Honorable Irene C. Berger in the Southern District of West Virginia, and during law school he externed at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Robert B. King.   Carter George lawyer Partner Rising Star Super Lawyers, 2024 Ones to Watch, Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Best Lawyers in America, 2023-2026 Ones to Watch - Commercial Litigation  Best Lawyers in America, 2024-2026 Ones to Watch, Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Best Lawyers in America, 2026 University of Mississippi University of Mississippi School of Law Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 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 California New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California Intern, Honorable Robert Bruce King, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Law Clerk, Honorable Irene C. Berger, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Represented Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson in talc-related litigation. Obtained several dismissals and summary judgment of personal injury claims, including grant of forum non conveniens motion. Helped secure complete defense verdicts at trial and successfully opposed subsequent motion for new trial. Represented pop culture collectibles company in commercial dispute involving importation of goods from abroad. Obtained time served sentence for pro bono client in supervised release revocation proceedings. Represented General Motors in multiple Song-Beverly matters. Obtained numerous dismissals and summary adjudication of fraud claims and negotiated resolution on favorable terms. Represented global industrial entity in personal injury action regarding allegations of latent multi-year injury to several plaintiffs. Represented The Viking Group, Inc. in products liability claims. Resolved matters on favorable terms. Represented leading computer security researcher in criminal matter involving malware. Represented global digital agency in adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Secured advantageous resolution. Represented Internet-based television provider in landmark litigation over Section 111 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Resolved national litigation on beneficial terms. Represented pioneering e-cigarette company in commercial dispute involving claims of self-dealing, unjust enrichment and corporate waste. Resolved matter on favorable terms before trial.","searchable_name":"Carter L. George","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":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":442812,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5736,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlbert Giang\u0026rsquo;s cutting-edge practice focuses on defending tech startups and public companies against class actions, regulatory investigation and enforcement, and other litigation, and providing crisis management for disrupters who are navigating novel legal and regulatory issues. A thought leader in the tech industry, his clients include some of the most respected companies in the gig economy, e-commerce, telemedicine, and social networking/media space. According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, Albert \u0026ldquo;has built an impressive track record for passionate advocacy on some of the most pressing legal issues \u0026ndash; a pillar of influence in the technology, appellate and pro bono fields.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlbert offers an unmatched blend of consumer, employment, and tech expertise\u0026mdash;e.g., he led the successful defense of the first COVID class action against a gig economy company accused of failing to provide PPE to independent contractors, while also obtaining one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTop California Verdicts of 2020\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;that dismissed with prejudice a nationwide TCPA class action alleging robotexting. In addition to defending clients as outside litigation counsel, Albert has been asked to serve two stints in-house at a leading technology company and provides strategic counseling on novel product rollouts and regulatory issues, commercial disputes, and complex consumer and employment disputes. Albert serves as \u0026ldquo;go to\u0026rdquo; counsel for his clients on issues such as platform liability; employment and worker classification; tech investigations and regulatory enforcement (e.g., by City Attorneys, District Attorneys, or Attorneys General); marketing and advertising law (e.g., TCPA); consumer protection and unfair competition laws (e.g., UCL, CCPA); the Communications Decency Act (CDA); Terms of Service (TOS) drafting and enforcement; and mass arbitration strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlbert also specializes in appellate litigation, having represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts. Albert has been recognized as one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMinority Leaders of Influence of 2021\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Los Angeles Business Journal, one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBest Under 40\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;a Rising Star in the appellate field by Super Lawyers and Los Angeles magazines, and one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e500 Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Speaking Engagements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePresenter, \u0026ldquo;Marketing Gone Wild:\u0026nbsp; Litigation and Regulatory Trends,\u0026rdquo; 2020 Marketplace Risk \u0026amp; Global Summit\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;Through a Judge\u0026rsquo;s Eyes:\u0026nbsp; How Courts View Your Terms of Service,\u0026rdquo; 2019 All Hands Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;When the Government Calls\u0026mdash;From Responding to Regulatory Fines to Articulating Your Policy Vision,\u0026rdquo; 2019 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;The Future of Marketplace Defenses: Updates and Trends in Platform Protection and Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 2018 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Speaker, \u0026ldquo;A Turning Point: How the National Conversation about Diversity and Inclusion is Hitting Tech,\u0026rdquo; 2018 Minority Corporate Counsel Association G-TEC Conference, Plenary Session\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Ethical Issues for In-House \u0026amp; Outside Counsel,\u0026rdquo; 2017 CMCP \u0026ndash; Kaiser Permanente CLE Marathon\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;An Ounce of Prevention\u0026mdash;Best Practices When Planning for and Facing Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 2017 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Speaker, \u0026ldquo;The Sharing Economy: Disrupting the Business and Legal Landscape,\u0026rdquo; 2016 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Annual Convention\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;A Panel Discussion on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFisher v. University of Texas\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"albert-giang","email":"agiang@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action \u0026amp; Trial Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmployment/Worker Classification\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead defense counsel for an international insurance company in multiple class, collective, and representative actions in federal and state courts throughout the United States\u0026mdash;which allege that insurance sales agents were misclassified and were not paid for training\u0026mdash;including prevailing against nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (\u0026ldquo;FLSA\u0026rdquo;) collective actions in Pennsylvania and Arkansas federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel in COVID class action against a gig economy client accused of \u0026ldquo;public nuisance\u0026rdquo; and failure to provide PPE to couriers during COVID in violation of California wage-and-hour laws\u0026mdash;compelling arbitration by successfully arguing that couriers were engaged in local transactions (and not interstate workers) and did not qualify for \u0026ldquo;public injunctive relief\u0026rdquo; simply by invoking public health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel for several clients in governmental/regulatory investigations and audits alleging independent contractor misclassification in ABC states such as California and Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel in obtaining N.D. Cal. approval of a California-wide class settlement with insurance trainees and sales agents, which was achieved in part due to counsel\u0026rsquo;s strategic invocation of a little-known exemption from AB5 and aggressive class waiver arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarketing/TCPA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead strategy counsel in obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice of a nationwide \u0026ldquo;robotexting\u0026rdquo; class action in N.D. Cal., successfully arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that a tech platform \u0026ldquo;controlled the manner and means\u0026rdquo; of the alleged marketers who sent the texts. This widely-reported decision was recognized as one of the Top California Verdicts of 2020 because of its important implications for vicarious liability under the TCPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in two nationwide class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that a cannabis platform sent improper text messages, obtaining dismissal of one action and successfully defending the enforceability of cannabis contracts and arbitration provisions under federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for several technology companies in successfully resolving various nationwide TCPA class actions on an individual basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsumer Protection/Unfair Competition\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead defense counsel for a homesharing technology, obtaining early dismissal with prejudice of the first class action brought by property owners alleging improper service fees and violations of rent control laws under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, followed by a complete affirmance in the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a ridesharing technology, successfully compelling arbitration of damages claims in a statewide class action challenging certain service fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a ridesharing technology\u0026mdash;and the first counsel to successfully enforce the company\u0026rsquo;s online arbitration agreement\u0026mdash;in obtaining dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging misrepresentations and breach of contract from a promotional campaign.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a cannabis platform in a high-profile business dispute where a Canadian competitor alleged unfair competition relating to credit card processing, raising novel issues about the legality of cannabis transactions under federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in regulatory trial and appeal on behalf of a disruptive sightseeing startup, which was granted a license despite suit by a competitor alleging violations of California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Investigations/Regulatory Enforcements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Numerous governmental investigations and enforcement actions (e.g., Attorney General, District Attorney, City Attorney) against technology clients on a variety of regulatory/compliance issues, including California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and privacy violations; safety representations; background checks; auto-renewal and pricing practices; electric scooters and electric bicycles; employment classification; and municipal fines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAppeals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-lead appellate counsel in the Texas Court of Appeal, obtaining reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s finding of specific personal jurisdiction over a California-based fashion influencer platform accused of data scraping and intellectual property violations by a rival platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel of record in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of \u0026ldquo;on-demand\u0026rdquo; tech companies, filing an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;brief that argued that an overbroad definition of \u0026ldquo;automatic telephone dialing system\u0026rdquo; under the TCPA would harm technology companies and stymie innovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit, successfully arguing that a victim of brutal domestic violence by a police officer in Mexico had been subject to torture under the international Convention Against Torture, which should not be excused under a \u0026ldquo;romantic partner\u0026rdquo; exception, in a favorable 3-0 panel decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel of record representing more than 140 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief defending the use of affirmative action to advance educational diversity in the United States Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), where the majority agreed that the university\u0026rsquo;s admissions policy did not harm AAPI students.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel for a nationwide health club, successfully persuading the California Court of Appeal to dismiss a certified class action and to affirm that the plaintiffs had failed to prove class-wide consumer confusion under California's Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel representing the California Retailers Association and several of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers as amicus curiae, advocating for the enforceability of co-tenancy clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in an important and published Ninth Circuit decision securing a new trial for an inmate who had received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process, and successfully defended against the State of California\u0026rsquo;s petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel representing Equality California throughout the closely watched litigation over California\u0026rsquo;s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the ban\u0026rsquo;s proponents lacked standing in federal court. Not only was this briefing specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit\u0026rsquo;s order certifying the question of standing to the California Supreme Court (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), Albert coauthored an amicus curiae brief on the standing argument that ultimately prevailed in the United States Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing for relief under the Convention Against Torture to prevent the deportation of a transgender woman who had been brutally raped and beaten by local police in Mexico, resulting in her release after more than four years in detention.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, successfully defending summary judgment on behalf of an entertainment client in an employment action brought by a former radio manager.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Giang","nick_name":"Albert","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Richard A. Paez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"2003 - 2004"}],"first_name":"Albert","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1904,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Distinction","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2002-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Pro Bono Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Most Influential Minority Attorneys, Los Angeles Business Journal ","detail":"2016, 2017"},{"title":"Fellow, Legal Council on Legal Diversity ","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Advisory Council, MCCA Global TEC Forum ","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Rising Star-Appellate Litigation, Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2014-2017"},{"title":"Best Under 40, NAPABA","detail":"2013"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/albert-giang-7b6380112","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAlbert Giang\u0026rsquo;s cutting-edge practice focuses on defending tech startups and public companies against class actions, regulatory investigation and enforcement, and other litigation, and providing crisis management for disrupters who are navigating novel legal and regulatory issues. A thought leader in the tech industry, his clients include some of the most respected companies in the gig economy, e-commerce, telemedicine, and social networking/media space. According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, Albert \u0026ldquo;has built an impressive track record for passionate advocacy on some of the most pressing legal issues \u0026ndash; a pillar of influence in the technology, appellate and pro bono fields.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlbert offers an unmatched blend of consumer, employment, and tech expertise\u0026mdash;e.g., he led the successful defense of the first COVID class action against a gig economy company accused of failing to provide PPE to independent contractors, while also obtaining one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTop California Verdicts of 2020\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;that dismissed with prejudice a nationwide TCPA class action alleging robotexting. In addition to defending clients as outside litigation counsel, Albert has been asked to serve two stints in-house at a leading technology company and provides strategic counseling on novel product rollouts and regulatory issues, commercial disputes, and complex consumer and employment disputes. Albert serves as \u0026ldquo;go to\u0026rdquo; counsel for his clients on issues such as platform liability; employment and worker classification; tech investigations and regulatory enforcement (e.g., by City Attorneys, District Attorneys, or Attorneys General); marketing and advertising law (e.g., TCPA); consumer protection and unfair competition laws (e.g., UCL, CCPA); the Communications Decency Act (CDA); Terms of Service (TOS) drafting and enforcement; and mass arbitration strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlbert also specializes in appellate litigation, having represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts. Albert has been recognized as one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMinority Leaders of Influence of 2021\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Los Angeles Business Journal, one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBest Under 40\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;a Rising Star in the appellate field by Super Lawyers and Los Angeles magazines, and one of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e500 Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Speaking Engagements:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePresenter, \u0026ldquo;Marketing Gone Wild:\u0026nbsp; Litigation and Regulatory Trends,\u0026rdquo; 2020 Marketplace Risk \u0026amp; Global Summit\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;Through a Judge\u0026rsquo;s Eyes:\u0026nbsp; How Courts View Your Terms of Service,\u0026rdquo; 2019 All Hands Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;When the Government Calls\u0026mdash;From Responding to Regulatory Fines to Articulating Your Policy Vision,\u0026rdquo; 2019 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Presenter, \u0026ldquo;The Future of Marketplace Defenses: Updates and Trends in Platform Protection and Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 2018 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Speaker, \u0026ldquo;A Turning Point: How the National Conversation about Diversity and Inclusion is Hitting Tech,\u0026rdquo; 2018 Minority Corporate Counsel Association G-TEC Conference, Plenary Session\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;Ethical Issues for In-House \u0026amp; Outside Counsel,\u0026rdquo; 2017 CMCP \u0026ndash; Kaiser Permanente CLE Marathon\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;An Ounce of Prevention\u0026mdash;Best Practices When Planning for and Facing Litigation,\u0026rdquo; 2017 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProgram Chair and Speaker, \u0026ldquo;The Sharing Economy: Disrupting the Business and Legal Landscape,\u0026rdquo; 2016 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Annual Convention\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeaker, \u0026ldquo;A Panel Discussion on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFisher v. University of Texas\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026rdquo; 2013 Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action \u0026amp; Trial Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmployment/Worker Classification\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead defense counsel for an international insurance company in multiple class, collective, and representative actions in federal and state courts throughout the United States\u0026mdash;which allege that insurance sales agents were misclassified and were not paid for training\u0026mdash;including prevailing against nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (\u0026ldquo;FLSA\u0026rdquo;) collective actions in Pennsylvania and Arkansas federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel in COVID class action against a gig economy client accused of \u0026ldquo;public nuisance\u0026rdquo; and failure to provide PPE to couriers during COVID in violation of California wage-and-hour laws\u0026mdash;compelling arbitration by successfully arguing that couriers were engaged in local transactions (and not interstate workers) and did not qualify for \u0026ldquo;public injunctive relief\u0026rdquo; simply by invoking public health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel for several clients in governmental/regulatory investigations and audits alleging independent contractor misclassification in ABC states such as California and Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead defense counsel in obtaining N.D. Cal. approval of a California-wide class settlement with insurance trainees and sales agents, which was achieved in part due to counsel\u0026rsquo;s strategic invocation of a little-known exemption from AB5 and aggressive class waiver arguments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarketing/TCPA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead strategy counsel in obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice of a nationwide \u0026ldquo;robotexting\u0026rdquo; class action in N.D. Cal., successfully arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that a tech platform \u0026ldquo;controlled the manner and means\u0026rdquo; of the alleged marketers who sent the texts. This widely-reported decision was recognized as one of the Top California Verdicts of 2020 because of its important implications for vicarious liability under the TCPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in two nationwide class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that a cannabis platform sent improper text messages, obtaining dismissal of one action and successfully defending the enforceability of cannabis contracts and arbitration provisions under federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for several technology companies in successfully resolving various nationwide TCPA class actions on an individual basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsumer Protection/Unfair Competition\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Lead defense counsel for a homesharing technology, obtaining early dismissal with prejudice of the first class action brought by property owners alleging improper service fees and violations of rent control laws under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Law, followed by a complete affirmance in the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a ridesharing technology, successfully compelling arbitration of damages claims in a statewide class action challenging certain service fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a ridesharing technology\u0026mdash;and the first counsel to successfully enforce the company\u0026rsquo;s online arbitration agreement\u0026mdash;in obtaining dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging misrepresentations and breach of contract from a promotional campaign.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for a cannabis platform in a high-profile business dispute where a Canadian competitor alleged unfair competition relating to credit card processing, raising novel issues about the legality of cannabis transactions under federal law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in regulatory trial and appeal on behalf of a disruptive sightseeing startup, which was granted a license despite suit by a competitor alleging violations of California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Investigations/Regulatory Enforcements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e: Numerous governmental investigations and enforcement actions (e.g., Attorney General, District Attorney, City Attorney) against technology clients on a variety of regulatory/compliance issues, including California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and privacy violations; safety representations; background checks; auto-renewal and pricing practices; electric scooters and electric bicycles; employment classification; and municipal fines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAppeals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCo-lead appellate counsel in the Texas Court of Appeal, obtaining reversal of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s finding of specific personal jurisdiction over a California-based fashion influencer platform accused of data scraping and intellectual property violations by a rival platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel of record in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of \u0026ldquo;on-demand\u0026rdquo; tech companies, filing an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;brief that argued that an overbroad definition of \u0026ldquo;automatic telephone dialing system\u0026rdquo; under the TCPA would harm technology companies and stymie innovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit, successfully arguing that a victim of brutal domestic violence by a police officer in Mexico had been subject to torture under the international Convention Against Torture, which should not be excused under a \u0026ldquo;romantic partner\u0026rdquo; exception, in a favorable 3-0 panel decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounsel of record representing more than 140 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief defending the use of affirmative action to advance educational diversity in the United States Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), where the majority agreed that the university\u0026rsquo;s admissions policy did not harm AAPI students.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel for a nationwide health club, successfully persuading the California Court of Appeal to dismiss a certified class action and to affirm that the plaintiffs had failed to prove class-wide consumer confusion under California's Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel representing the California Retailers Association and several of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers as amicus curiae, advocating for the enforceability of co-tenancy clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in an important and published Ninth Circuit decision securing a new trial for an inmate who had received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process, and successfully defended against the State of California\u0026rsquo;s petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel representing Equality California throughout the closely watched litigation over California\u0026rsquo;s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the ban\u0026rsquo;s proponents lacked standing in federal court. Not only was this briefing specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit\u0026rsquo;s order certifying the question of standing to the California Supreme Court (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), Albert coauthored an amicus curiae brief on the standing argument that ultimately prevailed in the United States Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing for relief under the Convention Against Torture to prevent the deportation of a transgender woman who had been brutally raped and beaten by local police in Mexico, resulting in her release after more than four years in detention.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppellate counsel in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, successfully defending summary judgment on behalf of an entertainment client in an employment action brought by a former radio manager.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Pro Bono Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association","detail":"2018"},{"title":"Most Influential Minority Attorneys, Los Angeles Business Journal ","detail":"2016, 2017"},{"title":"Fellow, Legal Council on Legal Diversity ","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Advisory Council, MCCA Global TEC Forum ","detail":"2017"},{"title":"Rising Star-Appellate Litigation, Southern California Super Lawyers ","detail":"2014-2017"},{"title":"Best Under 40, NAPABA","detail":"2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8077}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Giang{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Pro Bono Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Most Influential Minority Attorneys, Los Angeles Business Journal \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2016, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Legal Council on Legal Diversity \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Advisory Council, MCCA Global TEC Forum \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star-Appellate Litigation, Southern California Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2014-2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Under 40, NAPABA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Action \u0026amp; Trial Matters\nEmployment/Worker Classification: Lead defense counsel for an international insurance company in multiple class, collective, and representative actions in federal and state courts throughout the United States—which allege that insurance sales agents were misclassified and were not paid for training—including prevailing against nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective actions in Pennsylvania and Arkansas federal courts.{{ FIELD }}Lead defense counsel in COVID class action against a gig economy client accused of “public nuisance” and failure to provide PPE to couriers during COVID in violation of California wage-and-hour laws—compelling arbitration by successfully arguing that couriers were engaged in local transactions (and not interstate workers) and did not qualify for “public injunctive relief” simply by invoking public health.{{ FIELD }}Lead defense counsel for several clients in governmental/regulatory investigations and audits alleging independent contractor misclassification in ABC states such as California and Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Lead defense counsel in obtaining N.D. Cal. approval of a California-wide class settlement with insurance trainees and sales agents, which was achieved in part due to counsel’s strategic invocation of a little-known exemption from AB5 and aggressive class waiver arguments.{{ FIELD }}Marketing/TCPA: Lead strategy counsel in obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice of a nationwide “robotexting” class action in N.D. Cal., successfully arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that a tech platform “controlled the manner and means” of the alleged marketers who sent the texts. This widely-reported decision was recognized as one of the Top California Verdicts of 2020 because of its important implications for vicarious liability under the TCPA.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in two nationwide class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that a cannabis platform sent improper text messages, obtaining dismissal of one action and successfully defending the enforceability of cannabis contracts and arbitration provisions under federal law.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for several technology companies in successfully resolving various nationwide TCPA class actions on an individual basis.{{ FIELD }}Consumer Protection/Unfair Competition: Lead defense counsel for a homesharing technology, obtaining early dismissal with prejudice of the first class action brought by property owners alleging improper service fees and violations of rent control laws under California’s Unfair Competition Law, followed by a complete affirmance in the California Court of Appeal.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for a ridesharing technology, successfully compelling arbitration of damages claims in a statewide class action challenging certain service fees.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for a ridesharing technology—and the first counsel to successfully enforce the company’s online arbitration agreement—in obtaining dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging misrepresentations and breach of contract from a promotional campaign.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for a cannabis platform in a high-profile business dispute where a Canadian competitor alleged unfair competition relating to credit card processing, raising novel issues about the legality of cannabis transactions under federal law.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in regulatory trial and appeal on behalf of a disruptive sightseeing startup, which was granted a license despite suit by a competitor alleging violations of California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations.{{ FIELD }}Tech Investigations/Regulatory Enforcements: Numerous governmental investigations and enforcement actions (e.g., Attorney General, District Attorney, City Attorney) against technology clients on a variety of regulatory/compliance issues, including California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and privacy violations; safety representations; background checks; auto-renewal and pricing practices; electric scooters and electric bicycles; employment classification; and municipal fines.{{ FIELD }}Appeals\nCo-lead appellate counsel in the Texas Court of Appeal, obtaining reversal of the trial court’s finding of specific personal jurisdiction over a California-based fashion influencer platform accused of data scraping and intellectual property violations by a rival platform.{{ FIELD }}Counsel of record in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of “on-demand” tech companies, filing an amicus curiae brief that argued that an overbroad definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA would harm technology companies and stymie innovation.{{ FIELD }}Lead appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit, successfully arguing that a victim of brutal domestic violence by a police officer in Mexico had been subject to torture under the international Convention Against Torture, which should not be excused under a “romantic partner” exception, in a favorable 3-0 panel decision.{{ FIELD }}Counsel of record representing more than 140 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief defending the use of affirmative action to advance educational diversity in the United States Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), where the majority agreed that the university’s admissions policy did not harm AAPI students.{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel for a nationwide health club, successfully persuading the California Court of Appeal to dismiss a certified class action and to affirm that the plaintiffs had failed to prove class-wide consumer confusion under California's Unfair Competition Law.{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel representing the California Retailers Association and several of the world’s largest retailers as amicus curiae, advocating for the enforceability of co-tenancy clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal.{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel in an important and published Ninth Circuit decision securing a new trial for an inmate who had received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process, and successfully defended against the State of California’s petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court.{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel representing Equality California throughout the closely watched litigation over California’s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the ban’s proponents lacked standing in federal court. Not only was this briefing specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit’s order certifying the question of standing to the California Supreme Court (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), Albert coauthored an amicus curiae brief on the standing argument that ultimately prevailed in the United States Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry).{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing for relief under the Convention Against Torture to prevent the deportation of a transgender woman who had been brutally raped and beaten by local police in Mexico, resulting in her release after more than four years in detention.{{ FIELD }}Appellate counsel in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, successfully defending summary judgment on behalf of an entertainment client in an employment action brought by a former radio manager.{{ FIELD }}Albert Giang’s cutting-edge practice focuses on defending tech startups and public companies against class actions, regulatory investigation and enforcement, and other litigation, and providing crisis management for disrupters who are navigating novel legal and regulatory issues. A thought leader in the tech industry, his clients include some of the most respected companies in the gig economy, e-commerce, telemedicine, and social networking/media space. According to the Los Angeles Business Journal, Albert “has built an impressive track record for passionate advocacy on some of the most pressing legal issues – a pillar of influence in the technology, appellate and pro bono fields.”\nAlbert offers an unmatched blend of consumer, employment, and tech expertise—e.g., he led the successful defense of the first COVID class action against a gig economy company accused of failing to provide PPE to independent contractors, while also obtaining one of the Top California Verdicts of 2020 that dismissed with prejudice a nationwide TCPA class action alleging robotexting. In addition to defending clients as outside litigation counsel, Albert has been asked to serve two stints in-house at a leading technology company and provides strategic counseling on novel product rollouts and regulatory issues, commercial disputes, and complex consumer and employment disputes. Albert serves as “go to” counsel for his clients on issues such as platform liability; employment and worker classification; tech investigations and regulatory enforcement (e.g., by City Attorneys, District Attorneys, or Attorneys General); marketing and advertising law (e.g., TCPA); consumer protection and unfair competition laws (e.g., UCL, CCPA); the Communications Decency Act (CDA); Terms of Service (TOS) drafting and enforcement; and mass arbitration strategy.\nAlbert also specializes in appellate litigation, having represented clients in numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal, and California appellate courts. Albert has been recognized as one of the Minority Leaders of Influence of 2021 by the Los Angeles Business Journal, one of the Best Under 40 by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, a Rising Star in the appellate field by Super Lawyers and Los Angeles magazines, and one of the 500 Leading U.S. Corporate Employment Lawyers by Lawdragon.\nRecent Speaking Engagements:\n\nPresenter, “Marketing Gone Wild:  Litigation and Regulatory Trends,” 2020 Marketplace Risk \u0026amp; Global Summit\nProgram Chair and Presenter, “Through a Judge’s Eyes:  How Courts View Your Terms of Service,” 2019 All Hands Conference\nProgram Chair and Presenter, “When the Government Calls—From Responding to Regulatory Fines to Articulating Your Policy Vision,” 2019 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\nProgram Chair and Presenter, “The Future of Marketplace Defenses: Updates and Trends in Platform Protection and Litigation,” 2018 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\nProgram Chair and Speaker, “A Turning Point: How the National Conversation about Diversity and Inclusion is Hitting Tech,” 2018 Minority Corporate Counsel Association G-TEC Conference, Plenary Session\nSpeaker, “Ethical Issues for In-House \u0026amp; Outside Counsel,” 2017 CMCP – Kaiser Permanente CLE Marathon\nSpeaker, “An Ounce of Prevention—Best Practices When Planning for and Facing Litigation,” 2017 Marketplace Risk Management Conference\nProgram Chair and Speaker, “The Sharing Economy: Disrupting the Business and Legal Landscape,” 2016 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Annual Convention\nSpeaker, “A Panel Discussion on Fisher v. University of Texas,” 2013 Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los Angeles\n Partner Pro Bono Award, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association 2018 Most Influential Minority Attorneys, Los Angeles Business Journal  2016, 2017 Fellow, Legal Council on Legal Diversity  2017 Advisory Council, MCCA Global TEC Forum  2017 Rising Star-Appellate Litigation, Southern California Super Lawyers  2014-2017 Best Under 40, NAPABA 2013 Amherst College  Stanford University Stanford Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Advisory Board, Marketplace Risk Board Member, Executive Advisory Council, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles Co-Chair, Amicus Committee, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association Law Clerk, Hon. Richard A. Paez, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Class Action \u0026amp; Trial Matters\nEmployment/Worker Classification: Lead defense counsel for an international insurance company in multiple class, collective, and representative actions in federal and state courts throughout the United States—which allege that insurance sales agents were misclassified and were not paid for training—including prevailing against nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective actions in Pennsylvania and Arkansas federal courts. Lead defense counsel in COVID class action against a gig economy client accused of “public nuisance” and failure to provide PPE to couriers during COVID in violation of California wage-and-hour laws—compelling arbitration by successfully arguing that couriers were engaged in local transactions (and not interstate workers) and did not qualify for “public injunctive relief” simply by invoking public health. Lead defense counsel for several clients in governmental/regulatory investigations and audits alleging independent contractor misclassification in ABC states such as California and Massachusetts. Lead defense counsel in obtaining N.D. Cal. approval of a California-wide class settlement with insurance trainees and sales agents, which was achieved in part due to counsel’s strategic invocation of a little-known exemption from AB5 and aggressive class waiver arguments. Marketing/TCPA: Lead strategy counsel in obtaining complete dismissal with prejudice of a nationwide “robotexting” class action in N.D. Cal., successfully arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that a tech platform “controlled the manner and means” of the alleged marketers who sent the texts. This widely-reported decision was recognized as one of the Top California Verdicts of 2020 because of its important implications for vicarious liability under the TCPA. Lead counsel in two nationwide class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that a cannabis platform sent improper text messages, obtaining dismissal of one action and successfully defending the enforceability of cannabis contracts and arbitration provisions under federal law. Lead counsel for several technology companies in successfully resolving various nationwide TCPA class actions on an individual basis. Consumer Protection/Unfair Competition: Lead defense counsel for a homesharing technology, obtaining early dismissal with prejudice of the first class action brought by property owners alleging improper service fees and violations of rent control laws under California’s Unfair Competition Law, followed by a complete affirmance in the California Court of Appeal. Lead counsel for a ridesharing technology, successfully compelling arbitration of damages claims in a statewide class action challenging certain service fees. Lead counsel for a ridesharing technology—and the first counsel to successfully enforce the company’s online arbitration agreement—in obtaining dismissal of a nationwide class action alleging misrepresentations and breach of contract from a promotional campaign. Lead counsel for a cannabis platform in a high-profile business dispute where a Canadian competitor alleged unfair competition relating to credit card processing, raising novel issues about the legality of cannabis transactions under federal law. Lead counsel in regulatory trial and appeal on behalf of a disruptive sightseeing startup, which was granted a license despite suit by a competitor alleging violations of California Public Utilities Commission rules and regulations. Tech Investigations/Regulatory Enforcements: Numerous governmental investigations and enforcement actions (e.g., Attorney General, District Attorney, City Attorney) against technology clients on a variety of regulatory/compliance issues, including California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and privacy violations; safety representations; background checks; auto-renewal and pricing practices; electric scooters and electric bicycles; employment classification; and municipal fines. Appeals\nCo-lead appellate counsel in the Texas Court of Appeal, obtaining reversal of the trial court’s finding of specific personal jurisdiction over a California-based fashion influencer platform accused of data scraping and intellectual property violations by a rival platform. Counsel of record in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of “on-demand” tech companies, filing an amicus curiae brief that argued that an overbroad definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” under the TCPA would harm technology companies and stymie innovation. Lead appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit, successfully arguing that a victim of brutal domestic violence by a police officer in Mexico had been subject to torture under the international Convention Against Torture, which should not be excused under a “romantic partner” exception, in a favorable 3-0 panel decision. Counsel of record representing more than 140 Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations in filing an amicus curiae brief defending the use of affirmative action to advance educational diversity in the United States Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Fisher II), where the majority agreed that the university’s admissions policy did not harm AAPI students. Appellate counsel for a nationwide health club, successfully persuading the California Court of Appeal to dismiss a certified class action and to affirm that the plaintiffs had failed to prove class-wide consumer confusion under California's Unfair Competition Law. Appellate counsel representing the California Retailers Association and several of the world’s largest retailers as amicus curiae, advocating for the enforceability of co-tenancy clauses in commercial real estate leases in the California Court of Appeal. Appellate counsel in an important and published Ninth Circuit decision securing a new trial for an inmate who had received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiation process, and successfully defended against the State of California’s petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Appellate counsel representing Equality California throughout the closely watched litigation over California’s ban on same-sex marriage, arguing that the ban’s proponents lacked standing in federal court. Not only was this briefing specifically cited in the Ninth Circuit’s order certifying the question of standing to the California Supreme Court (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), Albert coauthored an amicus curiae brief on the standing argument that ultimately prevailed in the United States Supreme Court (Hollingsworth v. Perry). Appellate counsel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, successfully arguing for relief under the Convention Against Torture to prevent the deportation of a transgender woman who had been brutally raped and beaten by local police in Mexico, resulting in her release after more than four years in detention. Appellate counsel in the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court, successfully defending summary judgment on behalf of an entertainment client in an employment action brought by a former radio manager.","searchable_name":"Albert Giang","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}]}}