Photo of Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup

Andrew Soukup is a co-chair of the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group. Andrew specializes in representing heavily regulated businesses in class actions, multidistrict litigation, and other high-stakes disputes. Recognized 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 ranging in exposure from millions to billions of dollars.

Andrew’s clients include those in the consumer products, life sciences, financial services, technology, automotive, and media and communications industries. He has 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 provides 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, his understanding of their businesses, and his creative strategies.

Andrew’s recent successes include:

  • Leading the successful defense of several of the world’s leading companies and brands from claims that they engaged in deceptive marketing or sold defective products, including claims brought under state consumer protection and unfair deceptive acts or practices statutes.
  • Delivering wins in multiple nationwide class actions on behalf of leading financial institutions related to fees, disclosures, and other banking practices, including the successful defense of numerous 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."
  • Helping one of the world’s largest seafood companies defeat ESG-related claims accusing the company of misrepresenting its environmental-friendly production practices.

Andrew has also obtained favorable outcomes for numerous clients in commercial and indemnification disputes raising contract, fraud, and other business tort claims. He helps companies navigate contractual and indemnification disputes with their business partners. And he advises companies on their arbitration agreements, and has helped numerous clients avoid multi-district and class-action litigation by successfully enforcing their arbitration agreements.

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

 
Contact:Read more about Andrew SoukupEmail

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

A judge in the Northern District of California recently held that a purchaser of eye makeup allegedly containing eye irritants lacked standing to pursue her claims—given that the product was not banned by the FDA and did not actually harm her eyes.Continue Reading Presence of Eye Irritants in Eye Makeup Is Not Enough for Article III Injury, N.D. Cal. Judge Rules

Recently, there has been a proliferation of putative class actions targeting allegedly misleading statements (or omissions) on the FDA-approved labels for over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs.  Last year, we explained how these types of claims are vulnerable to a strong federal preemption defense.  In short, because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) explicitly forbids states from imposing OTC labeling requirements that are “different from,” “in addition to,” or “otherwise not identical” with those provided under federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a), state-law claims that directly challenge or conflict with the FDA’s decision-making for OTC drug labels are expressly preempted.Continue Reading Another Win for Preemption in Over-The-Counter Drug Labeling Case

A significant recent decision by the Fourth Circuit confirms that arbitration agreements that contain class-action waiver provisions can be a powerful tool to defeat class certification.  In In re Marriott International, Inc., the Fourth Circuit observed that while “no court has had occasion to expressly hold as much,” the “consensus practice” of courts is to “resolve the import of waivers at the certification stage—before they certify a class, and usually as the first order of business.”  2023 WL 5313006, at *6 (4th Cir. Aug. 18, 2023).  The Fourth Circuit held that courts must address the implication of an arbitration clause containing a class-action waiver before, not after, a class is certified.  And because the district court in this case did not do so, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s class certification ruling.  Id. at *1.Continue Reading Fourth Circuit Holds that the Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements Containing Class Waivers Must Be Resolved Before Class Certification

This blog previously covered the Eleventh Circuit’s July 2022 decision in Drazen v. Pinto, which held that all class members must have Article III standing in order to receive individual damages in a class settlement.  41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022).  Because the law in the Eleventh Circuit at…

Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Updates Its Article III Standing Analysis

In a decision that will likely have ramifications for lenders and borrowers in the state, the Michigan Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying that lenders cannot rely on a “usury savings clause” to circumvent Michigan’s usury statute.  But it also held that a lender’s effort to enforce a usurious loan, by itself, is not enough to trigger criminal liability.Continue Reading Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce “Usury Savings Clause”

Pennsylvania law requires foreign corporations to register to do business in the Commonwealth and provides that all registrants are subject to suit on “any cause” in the Commonwealth’s courts, regardless of a connection to the jurisdiction. In a split decision, the Supreme Court reversed a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision finding that this general jurisdiction provision violated the Due Process Clause. Mallory v. Norfolk So. Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (2023) (slip op. available here).Continue Reading Split Supreme Court Weighs in on Corporate Consent to Personal Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 ruling, has resolved a circuit split on the issue of litigation stays pending appeal of denials of motions to compel arbitration.  In the underlying putative class action, Bielski et al v. Coinbase, Inc., 3:21-cv-07478 (N.D. Cal.), Coinbase moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs’ claims, but the motion was denied by the district court.  The Ninth Circuit—in a split from several other Circuits—declined to stay the district court proceedings while the appeal was pending.  The Supreme Court now has ruled that a district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.  The decision means that defendants should be able to minimize ongoing litigation costs while an appeal of an adverse arbitration decision is pending.Continue Reading Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split to Require Stays Pending Appeal of Refusals to Compel Arbitration