Fordham University School of Law (1992)
University of California, Berkeley (1988)
- Alpha Phi Sorority
Michele Floyd, a partner of Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, is a leading authority on antitrust, unfair competition, and advertising law. Her litigation practice focuses on matters involving false advertising, price discrimination and maintenance, distribution, monopolization, and other forms of unfair competition. Michele has extensive experience defending consumer class actions, including those brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and similar statutes of other states. In her more than 20 years of practice, Michele has handled diverse, complex commercial actions in federal and state courts across the country, including in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Texas, and Washington. She has also served as national counsel for clients and has coordinated the defense of nationwide state litigation as well as multi-district federal litigation. Michele’s regulatory practice has included representing clients in NAD proceedings, as well as in investigations brought by the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, the U.S. and California Department of Transportation, and a number of states Attorneys General.
In addition to litigation, Michele routinely counsels clients on antitrust compliance as well as minimizing the legal risks associated with advertising campaigns. She has specific expertise in online advertising practices, including those associated with online platforms and communities, mobile, and e-retail and is often called upon by clients to review new advertising, product packaging, and web page representations.
On the statutory front, Michele has substantial experience with the Sherman Act, the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, the Clayton Act, the Lanham Act, and state unfair competition and false adverting statutes. Particular to online commerce, Michele deals routinely with the Communications Decency Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Anti-cybersquatting and CANSPAM statutes, the Federal Arbitration Act, as well relevant state laws, including the data breach notification laws of 46 states.
Michele represents a host of internet service providers and e-commerce providers and is well-versed in the unique legal issues and business challenges faced by online companies. Her client list also includes companies in the telecommunications, computer hardware and software, and video game industries.
Michele has working knowledge of Italian and Spanish.
Michele was named as one of the Top Women Attorneys in Northern California by the San Francisco Magazine in December 2015 and is repeatedly recognized by Super Lawyers for her antitrust work.
Prior to joining Sacks, Ricketts & Case LLP, Michele was the Senior Legal Director, Commercial Litigation, at Yahoo! Inc. where she was responsible for managing and defending the company’s commercial litigation and counseling on general business matters such as contract disputes (including those involving Terms of Service and privacy policies), advertising and disclosures, privacy, antitrust, and audits. Michele has also been a partner in prominent national law firms where she was a member of the complex litigation and antitrust practice groups.
- Representation of online platform in numerous actions brought by consumers related to accommodation rentals.
- Representation of manufacturer and retailer against allegations of false representations on product packaging.
- Representation of video game company against allegations that it misled consumers as to the ability to use video games via the internet, asserting claims, inter alia, under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and, on behalf of a putative New York sub-class, under New York statute prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of business.
- Representation of video-game hardware and software distributor in numerous nationwide class actions regarding software updates, Terms of Service, and video game consoles.
- Representation of video game manufacturer in false advertising claim against class action allegations of fraudulent or misleading representations regarding video resolution.
- Representation of all-natural beauty product manufacturer against false advertising claims;
- Representation of online platform against unfair business practice claims;
- Representation of peer-to-peer car sharing company against unfair business practice claims
- Representation of internet service provider against copyright infringement claims.
- Multiple representations of internet service provider against individual and class actions involving wide range of business practices, including false advertising and unfair competition claims,
- Multiple representations of wireless carrier in class actions and individual actions involving challenges to terms of service, collection of early termination fees, and other consumer-based claims.
- Perez v. Monster Inc., No. 15-CV-03885-EMC, 2016 WL 234370 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) (granting in part motion to dismiss).
- Bassett v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 95 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (compelling arbitration).
- Ladore v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (granting in part motion to dismiss).
- Chestang v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-0989 MCE AC, 2012 WL 6088320 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:11-CV-00989-MCE AC, 2013 WL 594463 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss).
- Rudgayzer v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 5:12-CV-01399 EJD, 2012 WL 5471149 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2012) (granting motion to dismiss).
- Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc., 901 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (granting on motion to dismiss).
- Buza v. Yahoo!, Inc., No. C 11-4422 RS, 2011 WL 5041174 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2011) (granting in part motion to dismiss).
- Firth v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 3:10CV75-PPS CAN, 2010 WL 4955548, at *7 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 30, 2010) (granting in part motion to dismiss).
- Reudy v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 356 F. App’x 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming order granting motion to dismiss); Reudy v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 693 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (N.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d sub nom. Reudy v. CBS Corp., 430 F. App’x 568 (9th Cir. 2011) (success on fee application).
- Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 45 Cal. 4th 634, 200 P.3d 295 (2009) (upholding Court of Appeal’s judgment affirming trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint).
- Currier v. Chow, No. C 04-03300SI, 2006 WL 16787 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2006) (granting motion to dismiss).
- “The UCL—Now A Money Back Guarantee? Competition,” Competition Journal of the California State Bar Association, Vol.25, No. 1 (Spring 2016)
- Co-Author, The Revolution in the Law and Economics of Antitrust Class Certification, (Nov. 2015), available at http://www.amazon.com/Michele-Floyd/e/B01A4LU2LG.
- Editor, “Self-Regulation of Advertising in the United States: An Assessment of the National Advertising Division, prepared by the Advertising Disputes & Litigation Committee and The Consumer Protection Committee,” American Bar Association Section on Antitrust Law (Apr. 2015).
- “Implications of Dukes on the Predominance Analysis Under Rule 23(b)(3),” 19 Competition: J. Anti. & Unfair Comp. L. Sec. St. B. Cal. 40 (2010)
- “Indirect Purchaser Standing In Federal Court,” Law 360 (Aug. 2009).
- Chapter Author, “Competition Law and Practice, A Review of Major Jurisdictions” (May 2009).
- “Stay Bid Fought in Monster, Best Buy HDMI False Ad Row,” Law 360.com, July 18, 2016.
- “Sony PS3 Settlement Covers Up To 10M Console Buyers,” Law 360.com, June 20, 2016.
- “NERA President Dr. Lawrence Wu and Leading Antitrust Attorney Michele Floyd Author New Book on Antitrust Class Certification,” Yahoo! Finance, February 2, 2016, available at http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nera-president-dr-lawrence-wu-133000509.html.
- “Best Buy, Monster Escape Fraud Claims Over HDMI Cables,” Law 360.com, January 21, 2016.
- “EA Scores Arbitration In Gamer Class Action,” Law 360.com, March 24, 2015.
- “Pandora’s A Lender Under Privacy Law, 9th Circ. Told,” Law 360.com, February 11, 2015.
- “Sony Denies Misrepresenting Graphics for Killzone Game,” 28 Westlaw Journal Software Law 4 (2014).
- “Sprint Seeks Judgment on Status As Neb. Telecom Carrier,” 9 Andrews Telecomm. Indus. Litig. Rep. 4 (2005).
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
- State of California
- American Bar Association
- State Bar of California
- Northern California Super Lawyers – 2010-2015, 2018-2019
- Top Women Attorneys in Northern California – San Francisco Magazine – 2015
- Super Lawyers Business Edition Annual Directory – Antitrust Litigation – 2015