The recognized gold standard in legal notification for over 20 years

ANTITRUST


ASBESTOS


BANKRUPTCY


CIVIL RIGHTS


CONSUMER & PRODUCT LIABILITY


HOLOCAUST REPARATIONS


INSURANCE


INTERNATIONAL


PERSONAL INJURY


PHARMACEUTICAL


PRODUCT RECALL


PROPERTY


SECURITIES


CREATIVE


Antitrust

Kinsella Media has been trusted to provide notice for many of the largest and most complex antitrust settlements in history. With classes often comprised of tens of millions of indirect purchasers, our innovative media strategies and creative messaging are designed to drive claims.

Selected Case Experience: Antitrust

In re Dynamic Random Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Case: $310 million indirect purchaser settlements – Price Fixing 
  • Class Membership: Individuals and businesses that bought computers, printers, video consoles, and other devices with memory. 
  • Notice Program: This extensive notice program used print, TV, Internet, social media, extensive media outreach, press coordination with 17 attorneys general, and an easy-to-use, innovative settlement website. Consumer proprietary email lists also helped drive claims. 
  • Highlights: There were over 450,000 claims, more than 1 million hits to the website, and over 4,800 news stories and online social mentions about the settlements.
  • Creative: View the website and TV spot.

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.).
  • Case: $1.1 billion indirect purchaser settlements – Price Fixing 
  • Class Membership: Individuals and businesses that indirectly purchased Thin-Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (“TFT-LCD”) panels incorporated in TVs, monitors, and/or notebook computers.
  • Notice Program: Multiple notice programs included TV, print, and Internet advertising; a multimedia news release; and media pitching.
  • Highlights: 71% of claims resulted from an innovative Claims Stimulation program that utilized targeted Internet implemented after the opt-out and objection deadlines.
  • Creative: View the banner ad and multimedia news release.

In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust LitigationMDL No. 1361 (D. Me.).
  • Case: $67 million settlement and $76 million in product distribution – Price Fixing
  • Class Membership: Consumers who bought recorded music.
  • Notice Program: The notice program was directed to adults and teens and structured around consumer publications and radio networks.
  • Highlights: The settlement received extraordinary media coverage. Class members filed 3.5 million claims online.

Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., No. 04-2819 (D. N.J.).
  • Case: $295 million settlement – Price Fixing, False Advertising, and Monopoly Practices
  • Class Membership: Consumers who purchased diamond jewelry and affected individuals in the gem and diamond industry who purchased DeBeers diamonds.
  • Notice Program: Kinsella Media designed and implemented a comprehensive notice program incorporating paid media, earned media, and third-party outreach to jeweler associations. The notice program included broad published notice in newspaper supplements, national newspapers, consumer magazines, Spanish-language magazines, publications in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and trade publications targeted to the jewelry industry using print, radio, and TV.
  • Highlights: Over 550,000 claims were filled. In addition to the paid media program, active promotion of the “DeBeers diamond story” to media outlets resulted in hundreds of news stories.

In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, No. CA:01-CV-12257, MDL No. 1456 (D. Mass.).

Connecticut v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., No. 1:98-CV-3115, MDL No. 1290 (D.D.C.).

In re NYC Bus Tour Antitrust Litigation, 
No. 13-cv-0711 (S.D. N.Y.).

In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, No. M:06-cv-01793 (N.D. Cal.).

Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., No. 5:09-CV-00230-CR (D. Vt.).

Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 09-CV-10035 HB (S.D.N.Y.).

Cipro Cases I and II, Nos. 4154 and 4220 (Super. Ct. Cal.).

In re Flonase Antitrust Litigation, No. 08-CV-3301 (E.D. Pa.).

In re Metoprolol Succinate End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, No. 06-cv-71 (D. De.).

In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2029 (N.D. Cal.).

Roos v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. CGC 04-0436205 (Super. Ct. Cal.).

Sweetwater Valley Farm, Inc. v. Dean Foods, No. 2:07-CV-208 (E.D. Tenn.).

The Shane Group, Inc., v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 2:10-cv-14360 (D. Minn.).

Conroy v. 3M Corp., No. C-00-2810 (N.D. Cal.).

Cox v. Microsoft Corp., No. 105193/00 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.).

Eugene Higgins v. Archer-Daniels Midland Co., No. D-0202-CV-200306168 (Bernalillo County Ct., N.M.).

Giral v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., No. 98-CA-7467 (D.C. Super. Ct.).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bear Stearns and Co. Inc., No. 03 Civ. 2937 (S.D.N.Y.).

In re Motorsports Merchandise Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:97-CV-2314 (N.D. Ga.).

In re Toys "R" Us Antitrust Litigation, No. CV-97-5714, MDL No. 1211 (E.D.N.Y.).

Florida v. Nine West Group, Inc., No. 00-CV-1707 (S.D.N.Y.).

Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, Nos. 4204 & 4205 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego County) & Egger v. Reliant Energy, Inc., No. 4204-00009 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego County).

Gordon v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, No. GIC 842705 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego County) & Egger v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, No. GIC 843055 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego County).

Natural Gas Anti-Trust Cases I, II, III & IV, Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego County).

New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First DataBank, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-11148 (D. Mass.).

In re State of Ohio v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co., No. 1:02-CV-01080 (D.D.C.).

In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D.N.Y.).

In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, 200 F.R.D. 326 (E.D. Mich.).

"[T]he notice distribution was excellently designed, reasonably calculated to reach potential class members, and ultimately highly successful in doing so… [T]he notice program provided the best practicable notice under the circumstances and complied with the requirements of both 15 U.S.C. 15c(b)(1) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

— Judge D. Brock Hornby
In re Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1361 (D. Me.).

FEATURED MEDIA 


In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.).