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

A recent New Jersey federal court decision dealt a major blow to class action litigation that seek economic damages associated with the sale of products withdrawn from the market. 

In Gibriano v. Eisai, Inc., et al., 2024 WL 1831546 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2024), the plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a weight-loss medication that was recently voluntarily withdrawn from the market based on FDA’s concerns about potential cancer risk.  The plaintiff did not claim that she had suffered personal injuries.  Rather, she sought money damages, alleging that she over-paid because the medication “did not meaningfully impact her weight” and because the price she paid was “based on the understanding that it was safe.”  She further alleged that, because of the medication’s potential risks, “no reasonable physician would have prescribed [it] and no reasonable consumer would choose to purchase [it].”  In support of her allegations, the plaintiff attached to her complaint a consumer survey suggesting that knowledge of cancer risk would reduce the amount consumers would pay for a medication. 

Continue Reading Class-action claims seeking economic damages for purchase of withdrawn medicine defeated on Article III standing grounds.

Earlier this month, the Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules unanimously approved a proposed new rule to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to address case management of multidistrict litigation (“MDL”).  The rule is the first addition to the Federal Rules focused on MDLs, and it reflects an attempt to suggest a nationwide approach to MDL case management that tracks approaches to case management that MDL judges have often followed in practice while leaving MDL judges discretion to depart from the suggested procedures depending on the needs of a particular case.

Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Civil Procedure for MDLs Approved by Advisory Committee

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) initiatives have become increasingly important in today’s business setting.  Increased awareness and heightened scrutiny of ESG-related issues, combined with third-party litigation funding, has led to a surge in ESG-related litigation and enforcement actions as consumers, regulators, and investors seek to hold companies accountable for claims about their environmental and social impact.  

This post explores the emerging trends shaping the landscape of ESG litigation, which are increasingly centralized in courts in the District of Columbia.  Such claims are often brought by nonprofit organizations seeking to take advantage of local consumer protection laws which they claim allow them standing to sue.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Developing Trends in ESG Litigation

This blog recently covered a decision from the Northern District of California denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s “greenwashing” claims, which asserted that defendant’s “non-toxic” and “Earth-friendly” labels were false and misleading.  See Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., 2024 WL 308263 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2024).  Now, the same court has granted class certification on those claims, demonstrating that not only can these claims be difficult to defeat before trial, but it can also be difficult to prevent certification on those claims as well.

Continue Reading “Greenwashing” Claims Certified For Class Treatment

As companies have increased efforts to represent their products as environmentally friendly, “greenwashing” lawsuits—which target companies (often under consumer protection statutes) based on allegations of false or misleading statements regarding the environmental impact of their products or practices—have also increased. A recent order from the district court in the Northern District of California illustrates the difficulty in attempting to defeat these claims before trial if a strong evidentiary record has not been developed.

Continue Reading N.D. Cal. Judge Allows “Greenwashing” Claims to Proceed to Trial

The Fourth Circuit recently reinstated a wrongful death suit against a defendant, holding that the release in a settlement of consumer class actions against the defendant did not preclude plaintiff’s personal injury suit against that same defendant.  See In re Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Prod. Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig., — F. 4th —, 2024 WL 174363 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2024).  The Fourth Circuit’s decision is notable given that class members—including plaintiff—explicitly agreed to release all personal injury claims against the defendant, yet the Fourth Circuit held that the plain language of the release was limited by the “identical factual predicate” doctrine and allowed the class member to raise this challenge in a subsequent lawsuit.

Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Holds That Consumer Class Action Release Does Not Necessarily Release Personal Injury Claims

            December 1 marks an important and long-awaited change to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  The Rule, pertaining to the testimony of expert witnesses, has not received a substantive update since 2000, when it was amended in the wake of the Daubert decision.  Now, more than 20 years later—and after years of study—the Rule has been amended to make two issues clear:  (1) that the proponent of an expert’s testimony must establish the admissibility of that testimony by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) that an expert’s opinion must reflect a reliable application of his or her methodology to the case.  These changes reinforce the key gatekeeping role that courts play in ensuring that only helpful, reliable expert testimony is heard by the factfinder. 

Continue Reading A Closer Look:  Changes To F.R.E. 702 Will Help Ensure Courts Follow The Expert ‘Gatekeeping’ Function

On November 3, the Second Circuit reversed a lower court decision denying a motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action against Klarna.  See Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 85 F.4th 695 (2d Cir. 2023).  The decision offers guidance (and support) for companies looking to enforce similar “click-wrap” agreements with mandatory arbitration provisions.

Continue Reading A Closer Look: Second Circuit Steps In to Reverse Decision Refusing To Enforce “Click-Wrap” Mandatory Arbitration Agreement

The Second Circuit recently revived a putative class action asserting false advertising and breach-of-warranty claims over “Reef Friendly*” sunscreen, providing another cautionary tale of how claims involving potentially ambiguous marketing language can survive a motion to dismiss even when clarifying language appears elsewhere on the product package.

In Richardson v.

Continue Reading Second Circuit Revives Mislabeling Claims Over “Reef Friendly*” Sunscreen

A bank partnership that has recently been the target of a series of “true lender” attacks has defeated a California regulator’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The regulator sought the inunction as part of a lawsuit that seeks to hold the fintech firm Opportunity Financial LLC (“OppFi”) liable for violations of California’s usury laws.  The court’s decision is a significant victory for companies that follow the bank partnership lending model to provide consumer loans.

Continue Reading Bank Partnership Defeats Motion for Preliminary Injunction in “True Lender” Suit