This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Jun. 8, 2022

Jennifer M. Oliver

See more on Jennifer M. Oliver

Moginrubin LLP

Antitrust Litigation

Jennifer M. Oliver is a MoginRubin LLP partner who focuses on class actions frequently involving antitrust and unfair competition claims.

In 2017, she moved from New York and a post as a defense lawyer at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP to San Diego to work as a plaintiff-side practitioner at MoginRubin. “I love the Southern California lifestyle and the smaller, more tightly-knit legal community here,” she said.

In 2020, Oliver filed one of the first data breach class actions under the California Consumer Privacy Act on behalf of customers of Minted Inc., an online marketplace that crowdsources art and graphic design. The complaint contended the company failed to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures, exposing the data of millions of customers.

Last year, the matter settled for $5 million for class members plus the option for them to receive two years of credit monitoring, personal identity restoration services and cybersecurity improvements valued at more than $15 million. Atkinson et al. v. Minted Inc., 3:20-cv-03869 (N.D. Cal., filed June 11, 2020).

Oliver said she’s pleased the settlement was followed by what she called “an almost unheard-of rate of participation by class members” by using email notification. “Technology makes it easier for consumers to learn and participate in these settlements,” she added

In a long-running case with significant ramifications for the banking industry, Oliver represents a nationwide class of ATM operators suing major credit card companies. The defendants are accused of violating the Sherman Act by conspiring to fix interchange fees, forcing ATM operators to pay inflated charges for network processing and consumers to pay higher ATM surcharges. National ATM Council et al., v. Visa Inc. et al., 1:11-cv-01803 (D. Columbia, filed Oct. 12, 2011).

The case has been to the U.S. Supreme Court and back. Last year, Oliver said, “we got a great ruling certifying our class and we’re moving forward while that decision is on appeal. The appeal is fully briefed and awaiting decision, but we feel the case is moving in the right direction.”

Oliver keeps an eye on the direction antitrust law is moving under the Biden administration. “I love to hear D.C. talk about antitrust more now,” she said. “Many in the field have been disappointed at the level of enforcement of cartel cases. What’s good is that the government seems to be looking retrospectively at how megafirms could have been structured differently—it shows they’re learning from past mistakes regarding Google and Facebook and the like. They’re asking, ‘What did we do to allow them so much market power?’—and that’s got to be a good thing going forward.”

– John Roemer

#367804

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com