Photo of Kathryn Cahoy

Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm’s Class Action Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. A highly skilled litigator, she defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes, securing significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer products, and financial services. Kate also plays a key role in the firm’s mass arbitration defense practice. She regularly advises companies on the risks associated with mass arbitration and has a proven track record of successfully defending clients against these challenges.

Leveraging her success in class action litigation and arbitration, Kate helps clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging legal issues. She has extensive experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), along with common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.

Kate’s exceptional legal work has earned widespread recognition. The Daily Journal named her successful defense of Meta and Microsoft cases described below as among its Top Verdicts, recognizing some of the largest and most impactful verdicts in California.

Recent Successes:

Represented Meta (formerly Facebook) in a putative nationwide advertiser class action alleging violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to charges from allegedly “fake” accounts. Successfully narrowed claims at the pleadings stage, defeated class certification, opposed a Rule 23(f) petition, won summary judgment, and defended the victory on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Daily Journal, Top Verdicts of 2021. Law.com recognized Kate with a Litigator of the Week Shoutout.
Defeated a landmark class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI contending that the defendants scraped data from the internet for training generative AI services and incorporated data from users’ prompts, allegedly in violation of CIPA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and other privacy and consumer protection laws. (Daily Journal, Top Verdicts of 2024.)

Kate regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in a Litigation Daily interview titled “Where Privacy Laws and Litigation Trends Collide.” In recognition of her achievements in privacy and antitrust class action litigation, the Daily Journal named her as one of their Top Antitrust Lawyers (2024), Top Cyber Lawyers (2022), and Top Women Lawyers in California (2026). Additionally, she received the Women of Influence award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal, was recognized by the Daily Journal as a Top Attorney Under 40, and also was named to Bloomberg Law's They've Got Next: The 40 Under 40 list.

Contact:Read more about Kathryn CahoyEmail

In putative privacy class action Hodges v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, involving  Comcast’s privacy and data-collection practices, Comcast moved to compel arbitration based on its subscriber agreement.  The district court denied the motion based on California’s McGill rule, which may invalidate arbitration agreements that purport to waive the right to seek public injunctive relief in any forum.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Narrowly Defines “Public Injunctive Relief” in Privacy Case, Limiting Plaintiffs’ Ability to Circumvent Arbitration Agreements.

An Illinois state appellate court recently issued a ruling that could reduce defendants’ litigation exposure on certain types of Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) claims.  On September 17, the panel clarified in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 200563 (1st Dist. Sept. 17, 2021), that the statutes of limitation applicable to BIPA claims vary depending on the nature of the claim.  Claims for failing to provide a written retention policy, give notice, or obtain consent prior to collecting an individual’s biometric information may be brought within five years.  But claims for violating BIPA’s selling, disclosing, or disseminating information provisions must be brought within one year.
Continue Reading Illinois Court Splits Time on BIPA Statute of Limitations

Last year, Apple’s iOS14 incorporated a new feature notifying users when an app copied from the iPhone’s clipboard.  The feature resulted in media scrutiny for a number of well-known apps, some of which faced putative class action lawsuits as a result.  A court in the Eastern District of California recently dismissed one such suit, Mastel v. Miniclip SA, No. 2:21-cv-00124 (E.D. Cal.).  In that decision, the court rejected a broad interpretation of telephone “instrument” under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), concluding that non-telephonic smartphone functionality does not constitute a telephone instrument.
Continue Reading California Federal Court Adopts Narrow Reading of Telephone “Instrument” Under the California Invasion of Privacy Act