Photo of Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup serves as co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. He specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes.

Praised for achieving “big wins in his class action practice,” Andrew has defeated a variety of advertising, consumer protection, privacy, and product defect and safety claims, with exposure ranging from millions to billions of dollars. Based on his “proven record,” Andrew has been recognized as an “attorney you want on your side in a bet-the-company case.”

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, gaming, and media and communications industries. He has consistently helped his clients prevail in litigation in federal and state courts across the country against putative class representatives, government agencies, state attorneys general, and commercial entities.

With a long history of representing companies subject to extensive federal regulation and oversight, Andrew has a unique ability to help courts understand the complex environment that governs clients’ businesses. Clients turn to Andrew because of his successful outcomes at all stages of litigation, his responsiveness and attention to their matters and his deep understanding of their businesses.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands in class actions accusing them of engaging in deceptive marketing or selling defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
Defeating claims against one of the nation’s leading consumer products companies in industry-wide, multidistrict class-action litigation challenging the company’s marketing and advertising of over-the-counter medicine containing allegedly ineffective ingredients, which earned Andrew recognition by American Lawyer as a “Litigator of the Week.”
Delivered wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including defending several financial institutions accused of violating the Paycheck Protection Program’s implementing laws, which contributed to Covington’s recognition as a "Class Action Group of the Year."
Represented several consumer product and life sciences companies from lawsuits seeking economic damages arising out of the sale of products that allegedly caused personal injuries.
Helping several of the world’s most prominent companies from ESG-related claims accusing them of misrepresenting their practices.

Andrew has also achieved favorable outcomes for clients in commercial and indemnification disputes involving contracts, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. Additionally, he provides guidance on arbitration agreements and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by enforcing their arbitration agreements.

As a recognized thought leader on issues impacting class action litigation, Andrew regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in an interview with Litigation Daily on class-action litigation issues. In recognition of his achievements, he has been recognized by The American Lawyer as a Lawyer of the Week, and the Daily Journal recently included him on their list of Leading Commercial Litigators (2025).

Watch: Andrew shares insights on class action litigation, as part of our Navigating Class Actions video series.

 

Contact:Read more about Andrew SoukupEmail

In a win for implied preemption, the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed dismissal of supplement marketing claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).  The case, Bubak v. Golo, LLC, No. 24-492 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), held that the plaintiff’s UCL claim was impliedly preempted because it depended entirely on alleged violations of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which may be enforced only by the federal government.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Supplement Marketing Claims as Impliedly Preempted

Lenders often require borrowers to keep money in a mortgage escrow account, and those funds are used to pay taxes, mortgage insurance, and other costs throughout the year.  At least 12 states require lenders to pay the borrower interest on the money held in these escrow accounts.  And for more than a decade, certain national banks have challenged the applicability of those state laws to them, arguing the laws are preempted by the National Bank Act because they would significantly interfere with the exercise of a federally granted banking power.[1]  

These cases have resulted in a trip to the Supreme Court.  In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court explained that the test for preemption under the National Bank Act requires courts to “make a practical assessment of the nature and degree of the interference caused by a state law,” and courts should do so by engaging in a “nuanced comparative analysis” that compares the interference caused by previous state laws that were challenged as preempted before the Supreme Court to the law at issue.[2]  602 U.S. 205, 219–21 (2024). Continue Reading Post-Cantero, First Circuit Sets Demanding National Bank Act Preemption Test

In Speerly v. General Motors, LLC, — F.4th —-, 2025 WL 1775640 (6th Cir. June 27, 2025) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit made it harder for plaintiffs to certify a class with multiple state-law causes of action and multiple subclasses when it vacated a district court order certifying multiple state-specific subclasses of automotive purchasers.Continue Reading En Banc Sixth Circuit Criticizes Certification of Multi-State Class

On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit resurrected a lawsuit against a bank involving “Authorized Positive, Settled Negative” (“APSN”) overdraft fees and nonsufficient funds (“NSF”) fees. Gardner v. Flagstar Bank, No. 24-1436, 2025 WL 1721191 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025). The plaintiff argued that these fees violated the operative Terms & Conditions. The district court had granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff’s deposition testimony indicated that she did not read the T&Cs and thus could not advance her own interpretation of the contract.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Revives Overdraft Fee Lawsuit Based on Ambiguous Contractual Terms

On January 24, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis to address a long-unsettled issue central to class-action litigation: “Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.”Continue Reading Supreme Court to Decide If Presence of Uninjured Class Members Defeats Class Certification

In Bates v. Abbott Laboratories, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action challenging the labeling of Ensure shakes and drinks as materially misleading.  2025 WL 65668, at *1–2 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2025). Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Action Challenging Nutrition Shakes and Drinks As Misleading

Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC.  Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 27, 2024). 

In June 2020, Defendant 4e voluntarily recalled all of its hand sanitizer lots due to the presence of methanol.  The plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit two months later, alleging that she had suffered both economic and personal injuries, and that she was entitled to statutory damages.  The individual class members’ damages, however, would be “largely limited to statutory damages.” Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages

In the first court decision addressing National Bank Act preemption since the Supreme Court clarified the standard in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 144 S. Ct. 1290 (2024), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that the Act does not preempt a California state law requiring banks to pay interest on funds held in their customers’ escrow accounts.  See Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 2024 WL 3901188 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Addresses National Bank Act Preemption after Supreme Court Decision

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court underscores why courts should be hesitant to grant class certification in cases in which the learned intermediary doctrine applies.  Continue Reading California Supreme Court Decision Highlights Potential Class Certification Defenses for Manufacturers of Prescription Drugs & Medical Devices

In Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., — F.4th —, 2024 WL 3213277 (9th Cir. June 28, 2024), a divided Ninth Circuit panel held that private plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of California’s food labeling law that mirror federal law requirements, even though private plaintiffs lack a cause of action to enforce federal law directly.  In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) does not preempt private enforcement of California’s Sherman Law, even though the Sherman Law incorporates the FDCA by reference and private plaintiffs typically cannot sue to enforce the FDCA.Continue Reading Split Ninth Circuit Panel Permits Private Plaintiffs to Use California Food Labeling Law to Enforce Federal Standards