Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Ronald Baumgarten Expects Upcoming Trade Policies to be Similar to Last Republican Administration

Patrick Campbell, Jonathan New Author Law360 Article on Whistleblower Programs

DOJ Antitrust Division Adds to Guidance on the Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs in Criminal Antitrust Investigations

BakerHostetler Alumni Newsletter – Fall 2024

Much of Matt’s practice focuses on the ever-growing and constantly evolving area of privacy. Matt frequently handles cases filed under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) and similar statutes from other states.

Recently, Matt has become a go-to resource for companies facing ad-tech litigation, including cases arising out of the use of web-based tracking technologies. As a result, Matt’s practice has evolved from simply litigating privacy cases after they have been filed to proactively advising clients on how to mitigate the risk of litigation while still utilizing ad-tech to its fullest capabilities.

core/freeform

J.D., University of California, Davis School of Law, 2013, 

B.A., Business Administration, Chapman University, 2009, 

<ul>
<li>The Best Lawyers in America®
<ul>
<li>“Ones to Watch” in Colorado for Commercial Litigation (2022 to 2025)</li>
<li>“Ones to Watch” in Colorado for Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions &#8211; Defendants (2022 to 2025)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

Orange County

Matthew Pearson, Desirée Hunter-Reay Author Law360 Article on Uptick in Lawsuits Under California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act

Data Counsel

The ‘New-Look’ Song-Beverly Credit Card Act: Web-Tracker Edition

Matthew Pearson Authors Law360 Article on CIPA’s Applicability

BakerHosts

The ‘Long Arm’ of CIPA and Its Newfound Pen-Trap Claims

Matthew Pearson, Kareem Salem Address Surge in Web Tracking Lawsuits in Law360 Article

The SaaS Tacks – The Ins and Outs of Negotiating SaaS Contracts

The Next Chapter of CIPA Litigation: The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Device

The Data Economy and You

Privacy Litigation Trends: Meta Pixels, Cookie Opt-Out, and Sale of Data

BakerHostetler Elevates 23 Attorneys to Firm Partnership

Hundreds of BakerHostetler Attorneys Honored as 2023 Best Lawyers, Ones to Watch and Lawyers of the Year

191 BakerHostetler Attorneys Named in 2022 “Best Lawyers” List; 10 Recognized as “Lawyer of the Year”

Class Action Defense

Digital Assets and Data Management

Privacy and Digital Risk Class Action and Litigation

Software

Multidistrict Litigation

Industries

Financial Services

Appellate Victories 
<ul>
<li>Obtained a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a Nevada federal court’s dismissal, with prejudice, of a nationwide putative class action. The decision, although unpublished, has helped solidify in the Ninth Circuit that lost time, absent more, is insufficient to allege cognizable damages in a data-breach class action. Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp., 845 F. App’x 613, 614 (9th Cir. 2021).</li>
<li>Obtained a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a California federal court’s dismissal of an AI-based chatbot customer-support vendor in a data-breach class action. The decision expanded the reach of Airline Deregulation Act preemption and found that passive receipt of data did not constitute a violation of the federal Stored Communication Act. Pica v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 812 F. App’x 591, 592 (9th Cir. 2020).</li>
<li>Obtained a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a California federal court’s dismissal of Stored Communication Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims. McGarry v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 812 F. App’x 625, 626 (9th Cir. 2020).</li>
<li>Obtained a ruling from the California Court of Appeals affirming dismissal of negligence and negligence per se claims under California’s Economic Loss Rule on the grounds that lost time constituted an economic loss, thereby reversing a growing trend in federal court cases finding that an allegation of lost time defeated application of the rule.</li>
</ul>
Dismissals 
<ul>
<li>Successfully demurred to novel privacy theory based on the collection of certain information, including IP addresses, by website operator using what the plaintiff claimed was an illegal “pen register” or “trap and trace device.” Matt was able to convince the court that the alleged “online tracker” was neither a pen register nor a trap and trace device because, among other things, (1) the plaintiff voluntarily provided her IP address when she visited the website and (2) the plaintiffs’ IP address was not the type of information collected by either pen registers or trap and trace devices. This ruling is one of the first merit-based rulings issued in pen register and trap and trace device cases.</li>
<li>Successfully moved to dismiss nationwide class action brought against national healthcare provider alleging violation of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). Relying on the party exception, Matt was able to convince the Court to dismiss the entire class action, finding that “as the party that installed [the] tracking technologies on its Web Properties, [Defendant] necessarily consented to the use of those pixels and the ‘interception’ of the communications between [plaintiff] and [defendant].” The case was dismissed before the client had to engage in any discovery.</li>
<li>Obtained full dismissal of false-advertising putative class action brought against international airline defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that the airline had made false representations about its refund policy and, based on that allegation, asserted claims for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to add a breach of contract claim. Matt successfully demurred to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs’ non-contract claims were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act and that the plaintiffs’ contract claims were based on a generally applicable advertisement that contained no contractual promises. The Court agreed but provided the plaintiffs with leave to amend their contract claim. When plaintiffs did amend, Matt demurred again. Ultimately, the Court sustained Matt’s demurrer in full and, this time, with prejudice, ending the class action before any costly discovery could even commence.</li>
<li>Obtained full dismissal of action brought against New Jersey-based defendant under California’s Pen Register statute. The plaintiff alleged that because the defendant was running on its website certain ad-tech or, as the plaintiff referred to them, “trackers” and because the plaintiff visited the website while she was in California, the defendant had violated the Pen Register statute and was subject to personal jurisdiction in California. Matt immediately moved to quash service of the summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the defendant had not “expressly aimed” any conduct at California and, even if it had, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit did not arise out of the conduct. The Court agreed with Matt, dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied the plaintiff’s request to take jurisdictional discovery.</li>
<li>Obtained, with prejudice, dismissal of a nationwide putative class action lawsuit filed in Nevada federal court against Envision Healthcare Corporation that alleged claims stemming from a phishing attack on Envision’s systems. The decision clarified the pleading standard for damages in the data breach context under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, prevailed on a motion to stay discovery pending the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp., 439 F.Supp.3d 1226 (D. Nev. 2020).</li>
<li>Successfully achieved dismissal of multiple class action lawsuits against a technology application company in multiple data breach lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs’ payment card and personal information were stolen and misused through online customer support services. The plaintiffs filed three separate lawsuits asserting claims in California and Georgia courts for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Computer Fraud Act, the Stored Communication Act, negligence, breach of implied contract, negligence per se and unjust enrichment. Successfully defeated all three actions – one on the basis of the first filed doctrine and two on the merits after motions to dismiss. Successfully blocked discovery at all phases of the cases to date.</li>
<li>Obtained, with prejudice, dismissal of a nationwide putative class action lawsuit filed in Florida. First, obtained an order from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissing the action for lack of injury-in-fact for Article III standing purposes. Then, when the case was refiled in Florida state court, again successfully moved to dismiss the action for both lack of standing under Florida law and failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Currently handling the appeal of that order.</li>
<li>Obtained, with prejudice, dismissal of a nationwide putative class-action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California. In that decision – one of the first in California state court – the Superior Court of California rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the need to take steps to protect themselves in the future constitutes cognizable damages as an element of their causes of action.</li>
</ul>
Class Certification Victories 
<ul>
<li>Obtained an order from the San Diego Superior Court on behalf of a nationwide grocer denying outright certification of two California-based putative subclasses. Leveraging the plaintiff’s own testimony, Matt was able to convince the court that it could certify neither the plaintiff’s invasion-of-privacy subclass nor her unfair-competition subclass because individual issues predominated. Specifically, Matt was able to demonstrate that whether and to what extent each individual class member had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information at issue was a question that could only be answered by analyzing the claims of each class member. Additionally, Matt was able to prove that, given the evolving nature of the client’s data collection and use practices and given the differences among the data collected and used, there simply was no way to decide the unfair-competition claim using common, class-wide evidence. Matt was also able to show that the plaintiff was not an adequate representative.</li>
<li>Obtained an order decertifying a putative class containing nearly 1 million putative class members, thereby reducing the client’s exposure by millions in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. In order to do so, Matt issued nearly 100 subpoenas to non-parties, requested documents related to consent, analyzed thousands of pages produced in response and marshalled this information in a manner that convinced the court that the class should never have been certified in the first place.</li>
<li>Obtained an order denying class certification in a nationwide privacy class action brought against a prominent California-based healthcare entity. Matt was able to demonstrate to the court that not only did the amount of damages vary from class member to class member, but whether an individual class member was, in fact, injured in the first place did as well.</li>
</ul>
Favorable Resolutions 
<ul>
<li>Successfully and favorably resolved over 50 class actions in the state of California alone, and far more nationwide. While Matt always prefers to win cases outright, he understands that sometimes the cost of doing so exceeds the cost of an early resolution; therefore, he constantly strives to provide his clients with every option at every stage of the case, letting them decide what path is best for their business.</li>
</ul>

Matthew D. Pearson

Matthew D. Pearson

Experience

Recognitions and Memberships

Insights and News

Prior Positions

Credentials

Areas of Focus

Industries

Services

Featured Insights