Williams & Connolly is nationally recognized for its service to consumer brand clients. Our lawyers have extensive experience handling virtually every form of dispute affecting our consumer brand clients, including breach of contract, false advertising and consumer fraud, product liability, class actions, antitrust, copyright and trademark, and securities litigation. Our lawyers also have extensive experience handling regulatory actions and investigations. Recognizing the strength of our practice, major publications including Chambers, The Legal 500, and Benchmark Litigation have ranked the firm among the top in the nation for Product Liability & Mass Torts, General Commercial Litigation, and Food & Beverage: Regulatory & Litigation, among others.
National and multinational consumer brand companies rely on Williams & Connolly to guide them through their most significant and complex litigation matters. We have represented brick and mortar and e-commerce companies in a wide variety of sectors, including food and beverage, tobacco, personal and household products, apparel, retail, manufacturing, and consumer services companies. Our experience also includes representing CEOs, company founders, general counsel, and other senior executives.
Representative Experience
A sampling of the firm’s recent representations for consumer brand clients include representing:
- A global apparel manufacturer in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning appropriate remedies in trademark litigation.
- A global chocolate company in a private attorney general action in D.C. Superior Court, alleging certain products contain non-functional slack fill in violation of D.C.'s Consumer Protection Act.
- A large furniture company in class action litigation alleging that the company intentionally displayed inflated original prices in stores, in violation of various state law consumer protection statutes.
- The founder and CEO of a retail company in defending against tax fraud, mail fraud, and immigration charges.
- A Fortune 500 retail company in personal injury litigation.
- A multinational fortune 500 company in responding to federal and state price gouging inquiries related to the sale of pandemic-related products.
- A Central American business owner and his multinational enterprises in proceedings before the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).
- A leading retail pharmacy chain in investigations by two United States Attorney’s Offices and certain state Office of the Attorney General Medicaid Fraud Control Units regarding the submission of claims related to certain products.
- A major e-commerce company in antitrust litigation.
- A major tobacco company in a five-week bench trial of a false advertising action.
- A multinational electronics company in an ICC arbitration relating to a patent licensing agreement and the value of standard essential patents under that agreement for products with billions of dollars in revenue.
- An agricultural company in nationwide litigation in which the plaintiffs allege that they developed cancer as a result of exposure to a popular consumer product.
- A pet food company in multiple putative federal class actions alleging that certain product labelling violates various state warranty laws and consumer protection statutes.
- A global food delivery franchise in putative class actions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
- A global food company in a putative consumer class action challenging the marketing of various snack food items.
- A baby products company in connection with ongoing products liability litigation concerning the alleged presence of naturally-occurring metals in baby food products.
- A snack food company in connection with a federal class action alleging that the company’s product labelling was deceptive and misleading and thus violated various state consumer protection statutes.
- A global confectionery company in a federal court case involving state consumer protection laws and product labeling, alleging certain of the company's gum and hard candy labeling was misleading.