Bradley Andreozzi defends clients in high-stakes civil litigation, with a particular focus on class action trials and appeals. Brad is among the relatively small group of lawyers who have tried class actions before juries. He also has won pretrial dismissals and defeated class certification in courts across the country and prevailed on appeal in defeating purported billion-dollar class claims. Brad has a reputation for innovative arguments that limit or defeat claims and for the strategic use of motion practice to position cases for an early cost-effective resolution or limit the size and exposure of the case should it move forward. In addition to his trial work, Brad has won appeals in virtually every federal appellate court, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consumer Class Action Defense

With a particular focus on developing creative arguments to dismiss or limit claims and defeat class certification, Brad defends clients in actions under the federal securities laws, state false advertising statutes, and various federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Clients value his strong record of minimizing their financial exposure through reduced and nominal settlements or, in a number of cases, convincing the plaintiffs to walk away with no settlement payment at all.

In class actions around the country, Brad’s clients have included one of the nation’s largest drug store chains, major retailers, a large automobile manufacturer, large pharmaceutical firms, and major insurance companies. Brad has successfully defended several “bet the company” class actions where the potential monetary exposure was more than a billion dollars. In addition to his courtroom work, Brad advises clients on ways to minimize exposure to class actions and writes and speaks on class action issues. He is a frequent contributor to the firm’s TCPA Blog.

Representative Experience

  • Recently represented a large insurance company in a jury trial of class claims challenging cost of insurance charges for universal life insurance. We were retained shortly before trial in a case with significant ramifications for the industry; secured dismissal of all punitive damages claims and obtained verdict for reduced compensatory damages while presenting evidence and arguments to preserve and develop issues for appeal.
  • Currently representing a major automobile manufacturer in consumer class actions throughout the country alleging the existence of an undisclosed defect in the transmissions of certain automobile models.
  • Recently acted as lead counsel in defending one of the country’s largest pharmacy chains in TCPA class action litigation regarding prescription notification calls to more than 10 million customers; strong defense led to a settlement for a tiny fraction of potential exposure. Currently defending other major companies in TCPA class actions and advising clients regarding TCPA compliance and risk mitigation strategies.
  • Recently acted as lead counsel in defending several of the nation’s largest retailers in consumer class actions across the country challenging the efficacy of a popular nutritional supplement; obtained court approval of a global settlement of less than $3 million (including attorneys’ fees and notice costs) where product sales amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars.
  • Recently acted as lead counsel in defending a motion picture and entertainment company in defending a FACTA class action; case settled for nominal amount. Recently led the defense of a health care provider in another FACTA class action and obtained court approval of a settlement of less than 0.25 percent of potential exposure.
  • In separate cases, acted as lead counsel for two manufacturers of consumer products in the same industry in defending purported national class actions challenging warranty practices and disclosures. Both cases settled for nominal amounts without a class being certified.
  • Acted as lead counsel for an automobile rental company in defending a purported national class action challenging certain standard charges in the consumer rental contract. Case settled for nominal amount without a class being certified.
  • Represented an automobile insurer in successful defense of purported nationwide class action challenging the specification of generic replacement parts for repairs (rather than the more expensive parts offered by the car makers); role included acting as “issue preservation” counsel during lengthy jury trial, arguing directed verdict motions, acting as lead counsel at jury instruction conference and as an appellate counsel in obtaining reversal of a billion-­dollar judgment. Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (2005).
  • Represented an automobile insurer in defeating certification of a purported nationwide class action in Madison County, Ill. challenging medical reimbursement policies for millions of policyholders.
  • Obtained voluntary dismissal in a TCPA fax class action case on behalf of nationwide automotive lender. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss with prejudice and without settlement payment from the defendants based on evidence refuting the plaintiff’s standing to pursue the claim.

Securities Litigation and Accountants’ Defense

Brad represents public companies, their directors and officers, investment funds and auditors in the defense of shareholder class actions and derivative actions at trial and on appeal. Brad defended an investment company in one of the largest mutual fund collapses in recent history. He often defends challenges to financial statements and disclosures, and he has demonstrated an ability to distill complex accounting issues into themes and arguments that persuade judges and juries. Brad also represents securities issuers in matters before the Securities and Exchange Commission, advises companies conducting internal investigations and presents a coordinated defense of parallel government and private-party civil proceedings.

Representative Matters

  • Currently defending the issuer and its officers in litigation arising from the largest mutual fund collapse in recent history; the fund lost 80% of net asset value during a spike in market volatility over two days in February 2018. Defending federal securities law claims in class actions in federal and state court as well as shareholder derivative claims.
  • Currently defending the trustees of an investment company in a purported shareholder derivative suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty related to investments by one mutual fund that allegedly "bailed out" a related, failing mutual fund.
  • Acted as lead counsel for a pharmaceutical company in defending a securities fraud shareholder class action challenging the company’s valuation of auction rate securities; obtained court approval of a classwide settlement of less than $2 million (including attorneys’ fees and notice costs) in a case involving a single day, $600 million market drop. Also won dismissal of related shareholder derivative suit.
  • Represented a major fashion and apparel chain in defending a securities fraud shareholder class action challenging the company’s inventory reserves and other issues; plaintiff dismissed claim without any settlement payment.
  • Acted as lead counsel for tender offer target in defending a shareholder class action in Delaware Chancery Court. Won important decision setting tough standards for fee awards to class counsel. In re Sauer-­Danfoss, Inc. Shareholders Litig., 2011 Del. Ch. LEXIS 64 (Apr. 29, 2011). See “Delaware’s Laster Slashes Plaintiffs’ Fee Request by 95 Percent in Sauer­-Danfoss Case,” American Lawyer Litigation Daily (May 5, 2011).
  • Represented an accounting firm in obtaining reversal on appeal of a multimillion-dollar judgment awarded to the former president of an insolvent bank, who claimed to have relied on a negligently prepared audit opinion in deciding to accept the position. The appellate court agreed that the auditor owed no duty to the audit client’s employee. Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP, 530 F.3d 280 (4th Cir. 2008).
  • Represented an accounting firm in successfully arguing motion to dismiss securities fraud complaint arising from a leveraged recapitalization of a major supermarket chain and in successfully arguing to uphold the dismissal on appeal.
  • Represented an accounting firm in a leading case establishing the standard for pleading scienter against an auditor. Fidel v. Ernst & Young, 392 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2004).
  • Represented an accounting firm during bench trial of negligence and fraud claims, resulting in defense verdict on loss causation grounds, and on appeal where judgment for the accountant was affirmed. AUSA Life Ins. Co. v. Ernst & Young, 991 F. Supp. 2d 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13845 (2d Cir. July 8, 2002).
  • As part of the team defending an accounting firm in one of the largest and most complex securities fraud litigations in U.S. history, acted as lead counsel in taking the depositions of the audited company’s outside directors, including former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and represented the auditor in various trial and appellate proceedings, including an appeal reversing an order compelling the auditor to produce work product notes and tapes of jury consultant Dr. Phil McGraw’s discussions with witnesses. In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 2003).
  • Represented a Special Committee of the Board of a Fortune 50 company in conducting an internal investigation of insider trading allegations regarding the CEO made by an in-house lawyer. SEC accepted the investigation’s findings and did not take enforcement action.
  • Represented a consumer products manufacturer in an SEC investigation of insider trading allegations. SEC closed investigation without taking enforcement action.
  • Represented the former CFO of a publicly traded home construction company in an SEC investigation of the company’s impairment charges. No action was taken against our client.
  • Represented an issuer with offshore operating subsidiaries in successfully defending an SEC investigation of the subsidiaries’ off­shore tax status. SEC rejected “whistleblower” allegations and closed investigation without taking enforcement action.
  • Represented a telecommunications company in conducting an internal investigation of compliance with government funding regulations. Drafted report submitted to Congress.
  • Represented a large public utility in coordinated defense of securities fraud class action, SEC and regulatory challenges to accounting practices by which the utility determined gas prices.
  • Represented the independent trustees of a mutual fund in connection with an SEC investigation of certain activities of the investment advisor.
  • Represented mutual fund in connection with an SEC investigation of statements made about socially responsible investment criteria used to screen potential investments.
  • Represented investment advisor in connection with suit brought by SEC to liquidate fund to preserve assets.
  • Represented operator of website containing database of video presentations regarding various hedge funds in connection with SEC investigation of whether the videos constituted an unlawful general solicitation or public offering of the funds; SEC agreed to drop investigation with no enforcement action taken.

Appellate Litigation

Brad’s notable appellate engagements include a death penalty case won before the U.S. Supreme Court and significant commercial cases before most of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, as well as appellate courts in various states, including the Illinois Supreme Court. In addition to briefing and arguing appeals, Brad advises trial counsel on how to create, preserve and enhance issues for appeal. In one case, Brad’s work to focus the trial for a successful appeal contributed to the reversal by the Illinois Supreme Court of a judgment of more than $1 billion, at the time the largest judgment in Illinois history.

International Sports Litigation

Brad has represented sports governing bodies and professional athletes in litigation and international arbitration, including in trials before the international Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland, and in trials in London, Athens and Monte Carlo, among other venues. Brad successfully defended top-ranked tennis players against doping charges and assisted a sports-governing body in developing a policy to address eligibility of transgender athletes.

Representative Matters

  • Led the team that tried several cases before CAS’s ad hoc tribunal for resolution of disputes at the 2004 Summer Olympic Games in Athens, Greece
  • Successfully defended several top-ranked professional tennis players against doping charges where investigation showed that the prosecuting tennis federation may have distributed contaminated nutritional supplements to the players
  • Successfully defended a sport national governing body against claims brought by the sport’s international governing body in trial before CAS
  • Assisted a sport governing body in developing a gender policy addressing when athletes who have undergone gender reassignment surgery would be eligible to compete in women’s competitions
  • Tried the first case involving use of Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry (IRMS) drug testing technology, before the IAAF Anti-Doping Tribunal in Monte Carlo, Monaco
  • Successfully prosecuted shot-put champion C.J. Hunter on doping charges in a case where Hunter was represented by attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.
  • Member of the team that defended the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in a jury trial of antitrust claims arising from the NCAA’s rule-making activities
  • Represented a university in conducting an internal investigation of the athletic department’s compliance with student athlete recruiting and eligibility rules

Personal Interests

When not litigating cases, Brad enjoys spending time with his family, including wife Joan (a former IP and advertising lawyer he met when they defended a case together), their children, grandchildren Josh and Gabe, as well as the family beagle, Declan, who elevates chasing a tennis ball to an art form.

Related Industries


Bar Admissions

New York

Court Admissions

U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Trial Bar
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York


University of Chicago Law School
J.D. (1983)

Yale University
B.A. magna cum laude (1980)

Insights & Events

Blog Post September 2023

Seventh Circuit back to back rulings shed light on TCPA applicability to unsolicited faxes

2 min read  
Blog Post December 2022

Eleventh Circuit Finds Complaint’s Ambiguity in Number of Calls Received Warrants Remand for Article III Standing Analysis

1 min read  
Blog Post June 2022

ATDS Status Turns on Capability of Dialing Equipment, Not Actual Use, Third Circuit Holds—But Liability Turns on Actual Use, Not Mere Capability

1 min read  
Blog Post May 2022

Internal DNC Policies Not Prerequisite to Using EBR Defense, Ohio Southern District Holds

1 min read  
Blog Post March 2022

Texts Regarding COVID Vaccine Eligibility Are Not Actionable Under TCPA, Texas Northern District Holds

1 min read  
Blog Post March 2022

Personal Cell Phones May Qualify as “Residential Telephones” Subject to DNC Rules, but Calls Made to a Pre-produced List Are Not ATDS Calls, Texas Northern District Holds

1 min read  
Blog Post January 2022

“Pretext” Theory Could Turn Calls Regarding Free Health Care Services into Prohibited Solicitations, District of New Jersey Holds

1 min read  
Blog Post January 2022

Defendants Suable in State Where Calls Inadvertently Received, If Similar Calls Purposefully Directed at Forum Residents, Tenth Circuit Holds

1 min read  
Blog Post November 2021

District Courts Find ATDS Allegations Implausible Following Facebook

1 min read  
Blog Post November 2021

PBM’s Policy Update Fax Not TCPA “Advertisement,” Says Eastern District of Missouri

1 min read  
Other Perspectives

Firm Blog Contributions

  • TCPA Blog – a resource analyzing TCPA-related litigation and regulatory developments
  • LaborSphere – a resource providing coverage and insights on breaking cases, recently enacted legislation and a broad range of labor issues

Leadership & Community

Pro Bono

Brad has devoted significant time to pro bono cases throughout his career, including death penalty cases, prisoner rights cases and cases raising significant issues of constitutional law. His more recent pro bono engagements include:

  • In a case with sweeping implications for thousands of faith-based hospitals, schools and other organizations, Brad led a multidisciplinary team in drafting an amicus brief on behalf of a group of churches and religiously affiliated social ministries in a matter before the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed with our position that pension plans established by religiously affiliated organizations are entitled to the “church plan” exemption from ERISA, reversing decisions by three appellate courts that the exemption is available only when a “steeple church” established the pension plan. Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 581 U.S.___(2017) (decided June 5, 2017).
  • In a seminal Supreme Court decision recognizing a “ministerial exemption” to employment-related law suits brought against religious organizations by employees performing both religious and secular functions, Brad drafted an amicus brief for a civil liberties advocacy foundation advocating the position that was adopted by the Supreme Court. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012).
  • Challenged the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences dictated by factual findings made by a mere preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in United States v. Clark, 538 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2008).

Professional Associations

  • Trial Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois


  • Illinois Super Lawyers — 2009-19
  • Chambers USA, 2005-11
  • Lawdragon’s selection of “500 New Stars,” July 2006
The Faegre Baker Daniels 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 Baker Daniels' cookies information for more details.