Michael P. Daly

Partner

Overview

Mike Daly has spent nearly 20 years defending, counseling, and championing clients that interact with consumers. His practice focuses on defending class actions, handling critical motions and appeals, and maximizing the defensibility of marketing and the enforceability of contracts. He makes it his business to know a client’s business and to provide advice that is reliable and actionable. He is in his element working with clients to find the most practical solutions to the most intractable problems.

Class Actions

Class actions are subject to rules — jurisdictional, procedural, and even ethical — that differ from other actions. An authority on aggregate litigation, Mike often speaks and writes about important developments in the law. He regularly defends claims challenging marketing, labeling, billing, credit reporting, and debt collecting, and counsels clients on issues such as removing actions, compelling arbitration, coordinating proceedings, opposing certification, and negotiating settlements.

Advocacy and Appeals

Mike handles critical motions and appeals in adversarial and administrative matters, including representing trade associations and public interest groups as amicus curiae. He writes with a singular clarity of language and purpose. His goal for every engagement is to tailor the argument to the audience and to explain — as simply and succinctly as possible — why his client is right as a matter of not only fact and law but also policy and equity.

Consumer Contracts

In this era of “gotcha” class actions, plaintiffs will target any arguable violation of any arcane statute — no matter how innocent or inconsequential — and extract settlements by seeking aggregate damages in the millions if not billions of dollars. Reducing risk has never been more important, yet many businesses rely on contracts that are cobbled together with little regard to readability, let alone enforceability.

Mike counsels clients on revising their marketing and contracts. His work has included:

  • Maximizing enforceability of arbitration agreements and class action waivers
  • Minimizing risk under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
  • Harmonizing related contracts to improve internal consistency and predictability
  • Opposing proposed legislation that would ban or burden arbitration agreements
  • Drafting Do-Not-Call manuals and other telemarketing policies and procedures
  • Drafting terms of use and privacy policies for websites and mobile applications
  • Reviewing fee disclosures, bill presentment, and cost recovery mechanisms
  • Revising consumer contracts to maximize readability and enforceability
  • Recommending best practices for late fees and early termination fees
  • Improving online and other electronic contract formation processes
  • Reviewing advertisements for substantiation and litigation risk
  • Complying with state automatic renewal laws and regulations

Public Service

Mike is known for championing civil rights and civil justice. His public interest work has protected the rights of the disabled and the incarcerated, and prevented the misuse of our laws and our courts. For example, one of his recent matters ended decades of discrimination by agencies that had refused to make information about public benefits programs available in formats that could be accessed by the visually impaired. Another convinced a state supreme court that a consumer protection statute cannot be invoked by predatory professional plaintiffs who have suffered no harm.

Representative Class Actions Experience

  • Duke, No. A-0795-15T3 (N.J. App. Div.) (July 27, 2018) (affirming dismissal of claims under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act based on a statutory interpretation argument that was raised for the time in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute)
  • Zacher, No. 17-7256 (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2018) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Santangelo, No. 15-0293 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2017) (striking class action allegations against cable services provider)
  • Noonan, No. 16-0458 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2017) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Wingard, No. 16-1539 (N.D. Ga. June 19, 2017) (dismissing TCPA claims against cable services provider without prejudice due to failure to allege facts regarding capacities of alleged autodialer)
  • Silfee, No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement)
  • Adkins, No. 16-5969 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (dismissing without prejudice consumer protection claims against cable services provider)
  • Landers, No. 16-1010 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 4, 2017) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Nop, No. 15-1691 (D.N.J. Sep. 14, 2016) (denying motion to remand action against affiliate of water and wastewater services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Green, No. L-4158-10 (Camden Cty., N.J. Aug. 5, 2016) (denying certification of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims against apartment management company)
  • Noonan, No. 16-0458 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2016) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Williams, No. 15-1469 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 12, 2016) (staying claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act pending decisions in appeal from FCC decision)
  • Johnson, No. 14-0453 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 11, 2016) (approving settlement of claims against telecommunications provider)
  • Vasquez, No. 13-5449 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (approving settlement of claims against janitorial services provider)
  • Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015) (approving fee award in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to visually-impaired residents of New York City)
  • Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2015) (approving class action settlement in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to blind and visually-impaired residents of New York City)
  • Santangelo, No. 15-0293 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2015) (dismissing without prejudice FCRA claim and related state law claims against cable services provider)
  • Jones, No. 14-7375, slip op. (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2015) (issuing primary jurisdiction stay of claims against cable services provider)
  • Grear, No. 14-5333 (N.D. Cal. March 3, 2015) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Smerling, No. 14-3452 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2015) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Smerling, No. 14-3452 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2015) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Porter, No. 14-90015-QQ, slip op. (11th Cir. Sep. 19, 2014) (granting petition for permission to appeal order remanding putative class action to state court)
  • Porter, No. 13-23745 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2014) (staying discovery pending decision on motion to compel arbitration of claims against prepaid wireless carrier)
  • DiGiulio, No. 13-6349 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2014) (voluntary dismissal of consumer fraud claims against automobile manufacturer)
  • American Chiropractic Ass’n, No. 12-7243 (E.D. Pa. March 27, 2014) (dismissing ERISA claims against health and wellness company due to named plaintiffs’ lack of standing and failure to exhaust administrative remedies)
  • Diacakis, No. 13-80122, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2013) (denying Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal order denying certification in action against cable services provider)
  • Rafferty, No. 13-1410, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2013) (certifying class in public interest matter challenging the failure to provide accessible information to visually-impaired residents of New York City)
  • Porter, No. 3D12-3077, slip op. (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2013) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement in action against prepaid wireless carrier)
  • Diacakis, No. 11-3002, slip op. (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2013) (denying motion for class certification in action against cable services provider)
  • Bayer, No. 12-8618, slip op. (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2013) (granting motion to compel individual arbitration in action against cable services provider)
  • Ostrom, No. 12-8226, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Crozier, No. 12-0008, 12-0010, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140320 (D.N.J. Sept. 28, 2012) (dismissing consumer fraud claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer)
  • Tucker, 208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (Aug. 7, 2012) (Bruiniers, J.) (affirming denial of certification of damages claims against wireless carrier)
  • Oughton, No. 11-1926, slip op. (W.D. Wash. June 21, 2012) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Pang, No. L-3309-10, slip op. (N.J. Super. Ct. Jan. 27, 2012) (denying certification of consumer fraud claims against pharmaceutical manufacturer)
  • Diacakis, No. 11-3002, 2012 WL 43649 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012) (dismissing without prejudice claims against cable services provider)
  • Knapp, 195 Cal. App. 4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Fybel, J.) (affirming denial of certification of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Cuadras, No. 09-7897, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) (compelling arbitration of claims against prepaid wireless carrier)
  • Afroilan, No. 469, August Term 2002, slip op. (Phila. C.C.P. Nov. 2, 2010) (approving settlement of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Hall, No. 07-5325, 2010 WL 4053547 (D.N.J. Oct. 13, 2010) (approving settlement of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Tucker, No. 03CC14707, slip op. (Cal. Super. Ct. May 24, 2010) (denying certification of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Williams, No. 09-22890, 2010 WL 1645099 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 21, 2010) (finding after bench trial that plaintiff had entered into arbitration agreement with prepaid wireless carrier)
  • In Re Peer-To-Peer Transmission Contract Litig., MDL No. 1992, slip op. (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2009) (approving settlement of claims against cable services provider)
  • In Re Peer-To-Peer Transmission Contract Litig., MDL No. 1992, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (centralizing multidistrict claims against cable services provider)
  • Hart, No. 07-6350, slip op. (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2008) (issuing primary jurisdiction stay of claims against cable services provider)
  • Sidner, No. 2008 CA 001180 B, slip op. (D.C. Super. Ct. Sep. 22, 2008) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Farina, No. 06-0724, 2008 WL 436921 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2008) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Schwartz, 256 Fed. Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007) (Fisher, J.) (reversing decision that plaintiff had not entered into arbitration agreement with cable services provider)
  • Waldman, No. 07-80081, 2007 WL 1970858 (S.D. Fla. July 3, 2007) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Davidson, No. 06-0133, 2007 WL 896349 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 23, 2007) (compelling arbitration of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Milligan, No. 06-0809, 2007 WL 4885492 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2007) (compelling arbitration of claims against cable services provider)
  • Davidson, No. 06-0133, 2006 WL 2927467 (E.D. Ark., Oct 12, 2006) (denying motion to remand action against wireless carrier removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Schwartz, No. 05-2340, 2006 WL 487915 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2006) (denying motion to remand action against cable services provider removed pursuant to CAFA)
  • Franczyk, No. 03-CH-14203, slip op. (Ill. Chanc. Ct. June 13, 2005) (compelling arbitration of claims against wireless carrier)
  • In Re Wireless Tele. Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litig., No. 4:03-MDL-1559-FJG, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26070 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 22, 2003) (issuing All Writs Act injunction of claims against wireless carriers)
  • In Re Wireless Tele. Federal Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (centralizing multidistrict claims against wireless carriers)

Representative Advocacy and Appeals Experience

  • Barr, No. 19-0631 (U.S.) (Apr. 1, 2020) (amicus briefing regarding the constitutionality of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment)
  • mPower, No. 2598 EDA 2018 (Pa. Sup. Ct. Nov. 20, 2019) (reversing multimillion dollar award of attorneys’ fees as contrary to plain language of master services agreement)
  • Brooks, No. 631 (Md. Ct. Spec. Appeals) (June 17, 2019) (affirming order striking counterclaim and finding appeal moot)
  • Duke, No. A-0795-15T3 (N.J. App. Div.) (July 27, 2018) (affirming dismissal of claims under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act based on a statutory interpretation argument that was raised for the time in an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute)
  • Spade, No. 078611 (N.J. Sup. Ct.) (Apr. 16, 2018) (confirming that plaintiffs that do not have an actual injury do not have statutory standing to seek civil penalties under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
  • Spade, No. 078611 (N.J. Sup. Ct.) (June 19, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding the scope of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
  • Silfee, No. 16-3725 (3d Cir. June 13, 2017) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement)
  • Duke, No. A-000795-15-T3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 30, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding the scope of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act)
  • In Re. Petition for Rulemaking and Declaratory Ruling of Craig Moskowitz and Craig Cunningham, CG Docket No. 05-338 (March 10, 2017) (amicus briefing regarding interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act)
  • Murray, No. 14-1350 (D.C. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016) (abandoning Frye standard and adopting Rule 702 standard for admissibility of expert opinion testimony)
  • Porter, No. 14-90015-QQ, slip op. (11th Cir. Sep. 19, 2014) (granting petition for permission to appeal order remanding putative class action to state court)
  • In Re. Petition of Solvable Frustrations, Inc., No. RM-11675 (Apr. 11, 2014) (denying petition requesting that FCC rules be amended to permit FCC to adjudicate class actions)
  • Diacakis, No. 13-80122, slip op. (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2013) (denying Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal order denying certification in action against cable services provider)
  • Porter, No. 3D12-3077, slip op. (Fla. 3d DCA May 15, 2013) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement in action against prepaid wireless carrier)
  • Tucker, 208 Cal. App. 4th 201 (Aug. 7, 2012) (Bruiniers, J.) (affirming denial of certification of damages claims against wireless carrier)
  • Beard, 2012 WL 1021323 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2012) (Saylor, J.) (affirming entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in product liability action against medical device manufacturer)
  • Knapp, 195 Cal. App. 4th 932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (Fybel, J.) (affirming denial of certification of claims against wireless carrier)
  • Beard, 988 A.2d 712 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (Per curiam) (reversing failure to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in product liability action against medical device manufacturer)
  • Schwartz., 256 Fed. Appx. 515 (3d Cir. 2007) (Fisher, J.) (reversing decision that plaintiff had not entered into arbitration agreement with cable services provider)
  • Berg Chilling Systems, 435 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2006) (Alito, J.) (affirming finding of no successor liability in international commercial dispute)
  • Miller, No. 05-3553, slip op. (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2006) (Per curiam) (affirming dismissal of denial of medical benefits claim as moot)
  • Urbach, 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. Oct. 31, 2006) (Per curiam) (reversing failure to submit manufacturer’s statute of limitations defense to a jury)
  • Digital Signal, 156 Fed. Appx. 485 (3d Cir. 2005) (McKee, J.) (reversing failure to enforce arbitration agreement with wireless carrier)
  • Berg Chilling Sys., 369 F.3d 745 (3d Cir. 2004) (Greenberg, J.) (reversing failure to enforce exclusion of liability in asset purchase agreement)
  • Smalls, 843 A.2d 410, 414 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (Bowes, J.) (reversing failure to grant new trial due to excessive jury award against manufacturer)

Credentials

Bar Admissions

New Jersey
Pennsylvania

Court Admissions

U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

Education

Villanova University School of Law
J.D. magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Law Review (2000)

Bucknell University
B.A. cum laude, with honors (1997)

Insights & Events

Leadership & Community

Professional Associations

  • American Bar Association  2001-present
    • ABA CADS Committee — Co-chair, Rule 23 Subcommittee, 2019-present
    • ABA Consumer Litigation Committee —  Co-chair, Class Actions Subcommittee, 2019-present
  • American Bar Foundation
  • J. Willard O’Brien American Inn of Court — 2001-present

Civic Activities

  • Gladwyne Civic Association
  • Gladwyne Library League

Firm Leadership

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

  • Vice Chair, Class Actions Group
  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act Team
  • Founder & Senior Editor, TCPA Blog
  • Consumer Contracts Team
  • Retail Industry Team
  • Wellness Committee

Honors

  • The Legal Intelligencer — Lawyer on the Fast Track, 2010
  • American Bar Foundation — Fellow, 2012-present
  • Thomson Reuters “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer,” 2014-19

Awards Methodology

The Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP's cookies information for more details.