Steven N. Williams

San Francisco • Litigation

Throughout his career, Steven N. Williams has been involved in all aspects of litigation and trial proceedings in both state and federal courts, as well as in private arbitration. Over the last decade, he has taken on the role of lead or co-lead counsel in numerous antitrust cases, making him one of the most prolific antitrust attorneys in the country. His efforts have resulted in the recovery of more than $2 billion for his clients and groundbreaking rulings in federal and state courts, expanding the rights of claimants in antitrust cases.

Some of the major cases in which Williams has played a leading role include representing a class of direct purchasers of capacitors used in electronic devices. In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, 3:14-cv-03264 (N.D. Cal., filed July 18, 2014).

The case alleged that defendants conspired to fix, raise and stabilize prices in the market for capacitors. The firm tried the case in 2020, with a new trial commencing in late 2021. The case ultimately led to settlements totaling $604.55 million.

Williams was also co-lead counsel in a class action against Facebook, representing content moderators who suffered from PTSD and trauma due to their exposure to graphic and disturbing content. The class reached a groundbreaking settlement with Facebook for $52 million and workplace improvements. Scola v. Facebook, Inc., 18CIV05135 (S. Mateo Co. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 21, 2018).

A separate matter alleged that content moderators at YouTube suffered psychological trauma and PTSD due to their exposure to objectionable content on the platform. Williams reached an agreement in principle to resolve the case in spring 2022, leading to a $4.703 million settlement and injunctive relief. Jane Doe v. YouTube, Inc., 4:20-cv-07493-YGR (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2020).

"The content moderation cases, like Scola and Jane Doe, are important because of their application of California law, which provides a claim for negligent exercise of retrained control in circumstances like these cases where the plaintiffs provide services to defendants through an intermediary outside of California," Williams said. "Without this application of California law, meaningful relief would be challenging to achieve. Further, these plaintiffs and class members are on the knife's-edge in terms of exposure to a nightmare world of human depravity. Providing them with relief has been a challenge that is heartening."

Williams then shared some words of caution.

"Attorneys must avoid getting so reliant on technology that they forget -- or never learn -- how to communicate to jurors," he said. "And attorneys -- especially those of us who have had good fortune and success -- should recognize the need for pro bono representation on the part of civil litigants without means and should look for opportunities to help those people."