Seattle-based plaintiffs’ firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, known for taking on some of the largest corporations in the world, is fighting sanctions in two separate cases—one involving Apple and Amazon, and another connected to decades-old Thalidomide litigation. Both matters have drawn sharp criticism from federal judges, raising questions about the firm’s litigation practices and ethical conduct.
Sanctions Over Apple and Amazon Lawsuit
In the Western District of Washington, U.S. District Judge Kymberly Evanson sanctioned Hagens Berman after finding that the firm misled the court in a proposed consumer class action accusing Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. of conspiring to keep iPhone and iPad prices artificially high.
The case, originally filed in 2022, alleged that Apple and Amazon colluded to restrict retail competition and inflate the cost of Apple products on Amazon’s marketplace. But the lawsuit unraveled when the lead plaintiff, Steven Floyd, informed Hagens Berman in early 2024 that he no longer wished to participate because he did not want to go through discovery. Despite this, the firm continued representing to the court that Floyd remained involved and proceeded to seek permission to amend the complaint months later.
Judge Evanson determined that Hagens Berman’s actions misled both the defendants and the court. In September 2025, she dismissed the case and ordered the firm to pay more than $223,000 in attorneys’ fees to Apple and Amazon as a sanction.
In her ruling, the judge wrote that Hagens Berman’s “representations to the court were inconsistent with the reality of their client’s withdrawal,” emphasizing the importance of candor and transparency in federal proceedings.
Hagens Berman has vigorously defended its conduct, asserting that it acted ethically and within the bounds of Washington’s client confidentiality rules. The firm contends that it could not immediately disclose Floyd’s withdrawal due to attorney-client obligations and maintains that its efforts to amend the complaint were undertaken in good faith.
On October 15, the firm filed a motion urging Judge Evanson to reconsider her decision, supported by expert declarations challenging the factual and legal bases of the court’s findings. Hagens Berman argues that the sanctions are “unjustified” and that the court misunderstood the timing and nature of communications with its former client.
The Apple/Amazon matter illustrates how quickly class actions can collapse when procedural missteps occur—and how courts are increasingly holding plaintiffs’ firms accountable for what they view as lapses in transparency.
Renewed Scrutiny in Thalidomide Litigation
While battling sanctions in Seattle, Hagens Berman is also confronting fallout from long-running litigation in Philadelphia involving Thalidomide, a drug linked to severe birth defects when used during pregnancy in the 1950s and 1960s.
The firm has represented multiple individuals alleging that drug companies, including Grünenthal GmbH and Celgene Corp., were responsible for devastating injuries caused by Thalidomide. However, Hagens Berman’s role in those cases has come under intense scrutiny for alleged misconduct in pursuing claims that federal courts have repeatedly rejected as time-barred.
U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania previously sanctioned the firm in 2015, describing some of its actions as “bad faith litigation” for pursuing claims despite being aware of potential legal deficiencies. The firm has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it relied on scientific evidence and historical research to support its clients’ cases.
The controversy deepened in 2023 when Special Master William Hangley issued a report recommending further sanctions. According to the report, a former Hagens Berman attorney allegedly altered a medical expert’s report to pressure a client into withdrawing her lawsuit. The firm has categorically denied the allegation, calling the findings “baseless and outside the special master’s authority.”
In August 2025, Judge Diamond upheld Hangley’s report, though he has not yet issued a final ruling on the recommended sanctions. In response, Hagens Berman filed a motion seeking Judge Diamond’s recusal, citing “an appearance of bias” stemming from extensive communications between the judge and the special master. The firm contends that its due process rights were compromised by the court’s handling of the investigation.
A Broader Message to the Plaintiffs’ Bar
The twin sanction battles place Hagens Berman—one of the most prominent plaintiffs’ firms in the United States—under a spotlight. Known for spearheading class actions against Big Tech, Big Pharma, and major automakers, the firm has built its reputation on bold, high-stakes litigation.
Now, these disputes could have far-reaching implications for the entire plaintiffs’ bar. Judges’ increasing willingness to sanction attorneys for procedural and ethical violations signals a shift toward heightened scrutiny of class-action conduct and case management practices.
Legal ethics experts note that the outcomes could reinforce stricter expectations for transparency, client communication, and candor toward the court—particularly for firms managing large-scale consumer and product liability cases.
What’s Next
In Seattle, Apple and Amazon are expected to pursue additional legal fees, while Hagens Berman continues to seek reconsideration of Judge Evanson’s ruling. In Philadelphia, Judge Diamond’s forthcoming decision on the Thalidomide sanctions—and the firm’s request for his recusal—will likely determine the next chapter in a decade-long legal saga.
Regardless of the outcomes, both cases underscore the precarious balance between zealous advocacy and ethical boundaries that high-profile plaintiffs’ firms must navigate. For Hagens Berman, the results could shape not only its reputation but also the broader conversation about accountability in complex litigation.
Looking to build a strong, ethical legal career? Explore verified legal job listings from top firms nationwide on LawCrossing — the most comprehensive legal job board for attorneys, paralegals, and law students.
