Alexander M.Smith

Chambers USA 2026 guide once again recognized Jenner & Block as a leader in the California legal market, highlighting the firm’s excellence across its general commercial, white collar, media and entertainment, and intellectual property practices, with 13 lawyers earning individual recognition.

Los Angeles Partners Kate Spelman and Alex Smith and Associate Madeline Skitzki were highlighted in the Daily Journal as a Top Verdict of the Week for their work in securing a summary judgment in favor of client Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

The Chambers USA 2025 guide has recognized Jenner & Block’s excellence in its California practice rankings. Chambers now has repeatedly ranked Jenner for its general commercial, white collar, media and entertainment, and intellectual property practices. Chambers also recognized seven California partners in its band of rankings and four California partners as “up and coming” in its rankings.

In an article for the Daily Journal, Partner Alex Smith discussed the complex litigation efforts between the FDA and states regarding the use of a formaldehyde-based hair relaxer.

In the age of e-commerce, many consumer class actions involve goods and services purchased online. Those online purchases have created legal challenges for determining when an online sale may subject a party to personal jurisdiction.

In an article featured in Law360, Partner Alex Smith discusses the recently proposed class action, Holly Ricketson v. Mattel Inc. in the US District Court for the Central District of California and how it highlights the uphill battle plaintiffs face in certifying a class in such cases. The matter involves mislabeled children's dolls featuring characters from the movie Wicked.

In an article for the Daily Journal, Partners Michael McNamara and Alexander Smith discuss the Court of Appeal’s Decision in Escamilla v. Vannucci, which held that the one-year statute of limitations in Section 340.6 of California Code of Civil Procedure applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys.

In an article for the Daily Journal, Partner Alexander Smith discussed “clean beauty” litigation and a recent Ninth Circuit decision, McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023), which may provide additional ammunition to manufacturers who are facing “clean beauty” lawsuits.

For the second year in a row, the Daily Journal has named Jenner & Block Partner Alexander Smith in its annual “Top 40 Under 40” list of the top lawyers in California.

In an article for the Daily Journal, Partner Alexander M. Smith analyzes the aggregate statutory damages in the Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corporation case where the plaintiff sought $91 million in statutory damages under New York law, even though the jury had determined that the class had suffered less than $1.5 million in actual damages. In the end, the Montera court awarded the class only $8.312 million in statutory damages.

New York’s two principal consumer fraud statutes, N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 and 350, authorize statutory damages of $50 or $500 per violation respectively. In false advertising cases involving low-cost consumer products, these statutes pose the risk that defendants may face hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars in exposure if found liable at trial. And while N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 901(b) seeks to avert this result by prohibiting courts from awarding statutory damages in class actions, the Supreme Co

The Daily Journal named Jenner & Block Partner Alexander M. Smith in its annual “Top 40 Under 40” list of the top lawyers in California under the age of 40.

For three weeks in December, a team of 26 Jenner & Block lawyers researched the availability of and access to mental health services for children in grades K-12 in 45 different states. Client Inseparable and 16 other organizations joined to form the Hopeful Futures Campaign, which used the data to assess the accessibility of mental health services in all 50 states.

In recent years, conjoint analysis has proliferated as a methodology for calculating class-wide damages in consumer class actions. While conjoint analysis first emerged as a marketing tool for measuring consumers’ relative preferences for various product attributes, many plaintiffs (and their experts) have attempted to employ conjoint analysis as a tool for measuring the “price premium” attributable to a labeling statement or the effect that the disclosure of a product defect would have had on t

A new decision in the Ninth Circuit significantly limits which consumers may have standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling. For the past several years, the law in the Ninth Circuit was that a “previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling, even though the consumer now knows or suspects that the advertising was false at the time of the original purchase,” because a consumer’s “[k]nowledge that the advertiseme

In 2017, the Supreme Court held in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), that a defendant in a mass tort action is not subject to specific personal jurisdiction as to the claims of non-resident plaintiffs whose injuries lack a sufficient connection to the forum state. The Court did not decide, however, whether its holding applied to nationwide class actions. And in the four years following Bristol-Myers, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have reached highly diver

On July 15, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision in Moore v. Trader Joe’s Company in which it affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Trader Joe’s mislabeled its Manuka honey as “100% New Zealand Manuka Honey.” While the plaintiffs alleged that this statement was misleading because the honey was derived from floral honey sources other than Manuka flower nectar, the Ninth Circuit found that the labeling was not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer because it satisfied

On February 9, 2021, the Ninth Circuit—in a split decision with a spirited dissent—reversed the dismissal of a consumer class action challenging P.F. Chang’s’s use of the phrase “krab mix” to describe sushi rolls that contain no real crab. Although Kang is an unpublished case and breaks little new legal ground, the two opinions offer a useful glimpse into how both defendants and plaintiffs frame their positions in false advertising lawsuits, and they highlight how easily judges can come to radic