The recognized gold standard in legal notification for over 20 years















Consumer & Product Liability 

Kinsella Media’s experience in hundreds of consumer cases runs the gamut from defective products and consumer fraud to data breaches and false advertising. Whether it’s toys, shoes, lawnmowers, pasta, washing machines, tires, cars, cold remedies, or cosmetics, we expertly target and reach affected consumers.

Selected Case Experience: Consumer & Product Liability

In re: Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 11-MD-2258 (S.D. Cal.).
  • Case: $10 million settlement – Data Breach
  • Class Membership: Consumers affected by the PlayStation Network outage of 2011.
  • Notice Program: Direct notice via a simple email/postcard was sent to 45 million class members supplemented by national consumer magazine and Internet advertising. 
  • Highlights: An additional Claims Stimulation program included targeted Internet and social media advertising (on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit). Over 250 stories about the settlement appeared on news websites, gaming websites, and other media outlets.
  • Creative: View the banner ad.

Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Inc., No. 12-CV-02664 (N.D. Cal.).  
  • Case: $4 million Settlement – False Advertising
  • Class Membership: Barbara’s Bakery customers who bought certain cereals, cookies, snack bars, and other products.
  • Notice Program: Advertising in national consumer magazines, a newspaper supplement, and on the Internet was supported by a nationwide press release. Email notice was used to reach class members who purchased products online. 
  • Highlights: A simplified website allowed visitors to easily file claims online. A Claims Stimulation program included targeted Internet advertising, Facebook advertising, and blog outreach. Seventy-five percent of claims came in during the Claims Stimulation program. The settlement fund was fully subscribed.
  • Creative: View the banner ad or the print ad.

Chaudhri v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., No. 11-CV-05504 (D. N.J.).
  • Case: $30 million consumer settlement – False Advertising
  • Class Membership: Individuals and entities that bought replacement automotive headlights.
  • Notice Program: This notice program used a mix of direct and media notice that included 1.6 million postcards coupled with TV, radio, newspaper supplement, newspaper, magazine, and Internet advertising. 
  • Highlights: Kinsella Media started working with class counsel early in the settlement negotiations. Our firm provided a detailed analysis of defendants’ marketing campaigns and survey data that informed our media choices. 
  • Creative: View the TV spot or the coordinated banner ad, or listen to the radio spot.

Mirakay v. Dakota Growers Pasta Co., Inc., No. 13-CV-4229 (D. N.J.).
  • Case: $5 million settlement – False Advertising
  • Class Membership: Consumers who purchased Dreamfields Pasta products sold in the United States with a label that referred to “glycemic index” or “digestible carbs.”
  • Notice Program: Email notice to purchasers of Dreamfields Pasta coupled with ads in national consumer magazines and a newspaper supplement and on the Internet. 
  • Highlights: A multi-faceted earned and social media outreach campaign with targeted Internet and print amplified the notice and motivated class members to file claims.
  • Creative: View the banner ad or social media.

In re Lawnmower Engine Horsepower Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 2:08-md-01999 (E.D. Wis.).
  • Case: $65 million settlement – Consumer Fraud
  • Class Membership: Owners of gas combustible lawnmowers. 
  • Notice Program: An unprecedented 24 million-postcard mailing was supported by extensive notice on TV and radio, and in consumer magazines and newspaper supplements.
  • Highlights: 1.1 million claims were filed with 3.5 million unique visitors to the website.

Wilson v. Airborne, Inc., No. EDC V07-770 VAP (C.D. Cal.).
  • Case: $23.25 million settlement – False Advertising
  • Class Membership: Consumers who took Airborne products advertised as preventing or curing colds. 
  • Notice Program: Email notice was combined with Internet advertising, and publication in consumer magazines, in-flight magazines of major commercial airlines, and a travel magazine. 
  • Highlights: Over 500,000 claims were filed.

In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 
No. 8:10ML2151 (C.D. Cal.).
  • Case: $1.2 billion settlement – Product Liability
  • Class Membership: Individuals and businesses that purchased Toyota, Lexus, and Scion vehicles.
  • Notice Program: An extensive direct mail campaign was supplemented with notice in national consumer magazines, newspaper supplements, and U.S. Territorial newspapers, on the Internet, and in a nationwide press release. 
  • Highlights: Based on this data from Toyota and the U.S. Department of Transportation, a statistical model was generated to estimate the class size and calculate the direct notice reach.

Abbott v. Lennox Industries, Inc., No.16-2011-CA-010656 (4th Jud. Cir. Ct., Dade Cty. Fla).

Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 1:08-WP-65001 (N.D. Ohio).

In re Enfamil LIPIL Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, No. 11-MD-02222 (S.D. Fla.).

In re M3Power Razor System Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 1704 (D. Mass.).

Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, No. 08-CV-00836 (N.D. Cal.).

Kramer v. B2Mobile, LLC, No. 10-cv-02722 (N.D. Cal.).

Lee v. Carter Reed Co., L.L.C., No. UNN-L-39690-04 (N.J. Super. Ct.).

Rowe v. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co., No. 09-cv-02286 (N.D. Ill.).

Spillman v. Domino’s Pizza, No. 10-349 (M.D. La.).

Sadowski v. General Motors Corp., No. HG03091369 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County).

McDonald’s Trans Fatty Acid Settlement: Fettke v. McDonald’s Corp.No. 044109 & v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 034828 (Cal. Super. Ct. Marin County).

Shields v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., No. B-170,462 (Tex. Dist. Ct. Jefferson County).

Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., No. 4:03CV-03359 (N.D. Cal.).

Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, No. 94-08273 CA (20) (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dade County).

"Having heard the objections made, the Court is unimpressed with the Objectors argument that there was somehow insufficient notice . . . This notice program has fully informed members of their rights and benefits under the settlement, and all required information has been fully and clearly presented to class members. Accordingly, this widespread and comprehensive campaign provides sufficient notice under the circumstances, satisfying both due process and Rule 23 and the settlement is therefore approved by this Court." 

– Hon. Joel A. Pisano (Oct. 20, 2014) 
Mirakay v. Dakota Growers Pasta Co., Inc., No. 13-cv-4229 (D. N.J.).


Chaudhri v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., No. 11-CV-05504 (D. N.J.).