Kevin Rayhill

  • Biography
  • Key Cases

Kevin Rayhill specializes in antitrust class actions and other complex litigation. He advocates for the rights of workers, taking on some of the biggest employers in professional sports, social media, defense contracting, and luxury retail to fight for competitive wages and safe working conditions. He also fights on behalf of consumers, bringing antitrust claims against manufacturers of pharmaceuticals, laptop computers, car parts, and titanium dioxide, among others. To date, these cases have resulted in settlements exceeding $300 million.

Prior to joining the Firm, Kevin worked as a Legal Research Attorney at the Superior Court of San Francisco (Criminal Division). While in law school, Kevin held internships at the California Attorney General’s Office (Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources Division) and the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office (Energy and Telecommunications Team), and an externship with Justice Stuart R. Pollak of the California Court of Appeal (First District).

Kevin is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Kevin currently represents workers in several class actions, including:

  • UFC Antitrust Litigation: The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for current and former Elite Professional Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) Fighters in an antitrust class action against Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), alleging that UFC illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly and monopsony power over Elite Professional MMA fighters, and used that power to suppress their compensation;
  • Defense Contractor “No-Poach” Litigation: The Firm represents defense intelligence workers who allege that Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., CACI International, Inc., and Mission Essential LLC entered into unlawful agreements not to hire one another’s workers, which had the purpose and effect of suppressing workers’ compensation;
  • Luxury Retail Employees “No-Poach” Antitrust Litigation: The Firm represents a proposed class of high-end retail salespeople who allege that luxury retailers, including Saks Inc., Louis Vuitton USA Inc., Gucci America Inc., and others, entered into agreements not to hire one another’s workers, thereby suppressing compensation; and
  • Facebook Content Moderators’ Safe Workplace Litigation: The Firm represents a prospective Plaintiff class against Facebook, Inc., alleging that Facebook failed to protect content moderators from developing post-traumatic stress disorder and other adverse effects resulting from constant viewing of offensive and extremely disturbing videos, images, and broadcasts posted to Facebook.

Kevin has also represented plaintiffs in other litigation, including:

  • Nomlaki Indians Litigation: The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians against former tribal officials, alleging that certain former tribal officials and others formed and operated a RICO enterprise to loot tens of millions of dollars in tribal moneys that were ultimately used for their own personal benefit;
  • Zytiga® Price-Fixing Litigation: The Firm represents a class of end-payors who purchased Zytiga® indirectly at supracompetitive prices from Defendants Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Oncology, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Johnson & Johnson, and BTG International Limited. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unlawfully extended their monopoly on sales of Zytiga by fraudulently obtaining a patent that blocked generic manufacturers from entering the market;
  • In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation: The Firm represented a class of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide in an antitrust price-fixing case against titanium dioxide manufacturers DuPont, Huntsman, Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, and Kronos. The case produced a settlement of $163.5 million;
  • Lenovo Spyware Litigation: The Firm represented purchasers of certain models of Lenovo notebook computers in a class action lawsuit alleging that Lenovo installed and concealed spyware, resulting in multiple violations of state and federal law. The case resulted in settlements totaling $8.3 million; and
  • Marchbanks Truck Service Inc. et al. Litigation: The Firm represented a class of independent truck stops alleging Defendants unlawfully exercised monopoly power to prevent competition in the markets for trucker fleet cards and trucker fleet card POS systems. The case resulted in a settlement for $130 million.