Site Search
Professionals 28 results
Capabilities 21 results
Practice Area
Our nationally recognized Appellate & Critical Motions (ACM) Practice delivers sophisticated legal advocacy and analysis before trial, at trial, and on appeal. From state trial courts to the U.S. Supreme Court, our ACM attorneys identify, preserve, and present the critical legal issues that can make the difference between winning and losing.
Practice Area
Product Liability & Mass Torts
Major multinational companies trust Winston to defend their products and reputations in high-profile, high-stakes product liability and mass tort claims. Our Product Liability & Mass Torts Practice is one of the industry’s most seasoned, with a deep bench of experienced lawyers and a unique combination of extensive trial experience and expansive technical knowledge.
Industry
Winston has one of the world’s premier sports law practices. Our work has included some of the most famous legal matters in sports history—including Alston v. NCAA, the case that culminated in a 9–0 Supreme Court victory for the college players against the NCAA; the US$2.15B Los Angeles Dodgers acquisition; McNeil v. the NFL, the landmark antitrust jury trial that led to the establishment of free agency in the NFL; the multi-billion-dollar construction and permanent financings for SoFi Stadium; and Morgan v. USSF, the case that led to a historic equal pay settlement for the players on the Women’s National Team. Our work is transforming this global, multibillion-dollar industry.
Experience 1 result
Experience
|April 28, 2023
Nabbed Two Big Wins for Motorola in Billion-Dollar Suits Over Cell Phone Safety
Secured two big wins for Motorola Mobility in two long-running litigations challenging the safety of cellular phones, for which Am Law recognized lead attorney Terry Dee as Litigator of the Week. Seeking billions of dollars in damages, plaintiffs sued Motorola and more than 20 other defendants, alleging that cell phone use causes brain cancer. In April 2023, the Western District of Louisiana held that federal preemption barred much of plaintiffs’ claims. Less than a week later, a D.C. Superior Court excluded all plaintiffs’ general-causation experts, impacting more than 80 pending cases. Together, these two decisions are a severe blow to the plaintiffs’ efforts to challenge the safety of products that drive the US$400+B global cellular telephone market.
Insights & News 72 results
Article
|October 6, 2025
|7 Min Read
The Potential Impact of Mandatory Arbitration Provisions on Securities Claims
This article was originally published in Westlaw Today. Any opinions in this article are not those of Winston & Strawn or its clients. The opinions in this article are the authors’ opinions only.
Capital Markets & Securities Law Watch
|September 25, 2025
|5 Min Read
On September 17, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or the Commission) released a policy statement (the Policy Statement) addressing its approach to mandatory arbitration provisions in the governing documents of companies intending to go public (each, an Issuer).
Winston’s AI Top 10
|September 2025
|5 Min Read
Winston’s AI Monthly Recap - September 2025
Winston’s AI Top 10 summarizes the latest AI developments in the legal industry.
Other Results 10 results
Site Content
The full name of the Dodd-Frank Act is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It was passed in 2010 to regulate the financial market and protect consumers from risky financial practices. The legislation and its rules cover the following:
Site Content
In the product liability context, a failure to warn claim arises when a plaintiff alleges that a product lacked an adequate warning regarding potential risks associated with its use. To succeed in a failure to warn claim, a plaintiff typically needs to demonstrate that the lack of a warning regarding a particular potential harm rendered the product unreasonably dangerous, and that adequate warnings would have ultimately prevented the alleged harm.
Site Content
In the product liability context, a design defect claim arises when a plaintiff alleges that a product is inherently dangerous due to its design, rendering it unreasonably unsafe for its intended use. This type of claim does not focus on manufacturing errors but instead asserts that the product's fundamental design flaw poses an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.