Photo of Amy Doolittle

Amy Doolittle co-leads the Squire Patton Boggs Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation Practice and serves as a member of the firm’s Global Board.

She has extensive experience in product liability and mass tort matters, financial services litigation, consumer and commercial arbitrations, class actions and MDL proceedings. Amy has represented clients in high-stakes litigation proceedings across a wide array of industries, from pharmaceutical and chemical companies to financial services and insurance companies. Amy has argued in front of various state and federal trial courts and courts of appeal.

Amy is the author of “Class Actions 101: Overdraft Fee Litigation: The Only Certainty is that Nothing is Certain” published in the Spring 2011 issue of CADS Report, an American Bar Association publication. She is co-author of “Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire: Class Arbitration From the Defense Perspective” and spoke on “Classwide Arbitration: Fiction, Reality Or Nightmare?” at the American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section’s 2007 conference, “The Future of Class Action Litigation in America.”

View full website bio.

CPW has been covering data breach litigations for quite some time, including dismissal of defective data breach complaints and the ongoing federal circuit split regarding Article III standing.  Yesterday, for the first time, a court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class action of individual consumers complaining of a data breach involving payment cards.  See In

There were a number of things that took me off guard with respect to the Supreme Court’s opinion yesterday in Uzuegunam v. Preczewski, Case No. 19-968.  First, apparently for the first time in the 16 years he has been on the Court, the Chief Justice was the lone dissenter in a case.  I was also

CPW has previously reported on the anticipated impact of a Biden presidency on data privacy and data privacy litigation.  In an update to that prior analysis, President Biden has reportedly selected Lina Khan, a prominent antitrust scholar and professor at Columbia Law School, for a vacancy at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).  Khan’s nomination

As 2020 drew to a close, the Ninth Circuit gave the CFPB a victory in Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 40572 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020), upholding the CFPB’s civil investigative demand (CID) to Seila Law.  The case was on remand from the United States Supreme Court, which

This is getting to be a common refrain in BIPA cases – plaintiffs bring BIPA class actions in plaintiff-friendly state court; defendants remove; and plaintiffs move to remand arguing there is no injury-in-fact and thus no Article III standing.  In Thornely v. Clearview AI, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197519 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2020),

On July 7, 2020, the CFPB issued its much-anticipated final rule (the “Revocation Rule”) on small dollar lending rescinding the mandatory underwriting provisions of its 2017 rule governing payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans (the “2017 Rule”).  Consistent with its proposal last year, the Revocation Rule rescinds the Mandatory Underwriting Provisions of the

The California Attorney General has submitted comments on the final proposed CCPA regulations.  Our sister blog, Security & Privacy Bytes has published a summary of the key guidance that can be garnered from these materials including, expectations regarding “user-enabled privacy controls” (and Do Not Track signals), rules governing service provider use of personal information, jurisdictional

Last week, in Luna v. Hansen & Adkins Auto Transp., Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13215  (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2020), the Ninth Circuit rejected a former employee’s argument that his employer violated the FCRA by providing the required FCRA disclosure together with other application materials, holding that such a “novel” interpretation of the FCRA “stretches the statute’s requirements beyond the limits of law and common sense.”
Continue Reading A Bridge Too Far: Ninth Circuit Rejects Former Employee’s “Novel” Interpretation of the FCRA