Class Action and Mass Torts Star Sean Suber on the High of the Fight and Rising Risk for Tech

“I just want to fight for my clients,” Sean Suber says about his move to Quinn Emanuel.

“And I want to win,” adds Suber, who joins the firm today as a partner in the Chicago office to take on the biggest product liability and mass torts cases.

That goes without saying at Quinn Emanuel, where passionate, strategic advocacy is the watchword. Our exclusive focus on litigation and arbitration gives us a unique insight into what wins in court and across the negotiating table, and that’s where Sean wants to be.

Winning is something he’s done a lot of, mostly for defendants so far. His expert representation will come in handy amid rising product liability risk in tech and AI and in other evolving sectors, such as health care and cannabis, as well as in the more familiar battlegrounds of the food and beverage and consumer product industries.

He sees those big cases coming up as industry boundaries blur. AI, after all, is a consumer product too.

We talked with Sean about his victories in some of the highest-profile cases of our time, the special challenges of multidistrict litigation, how juries have changed, and what he’s learned from his pro bono work.

The Future of Product Liability

Welcome, Sean! You’ve worked on a lot of cases that made headlines. One of them was the defamation suit a meat processor brought against ABC for its report claiming there was “pink slime” in Americans’ ground beef. The beef company won a hefty settlement.

That was my first case as an associate. A defamation case turns on truth or falsity, and the claims were false. But truth versus lies is the one thing that runs through all of my cases, including product liability. It matters because it’s not only damages, it’s the reputation of the company.

Where do you see product liability litigation going?

I think you're going to see more of a shift to these amorphous harms where you're not dealing with your typical case, with a specific product causing a direct and obvious harm. You are seeing this a lot with what social media companies are facing today. I anticipate we will increasingly apply class action defense strategies to help defeat a rising number of individual product liability and mass and toxic tort cases in multi-district litigation.

We are seeing thousands of individual product liability cases premised on generalized theories of a risk of harm that stem from what they claim to be uniform misrepresentations, omissions, and failures to warn. This means that whenever there are reports of a recall, or “newly discovered” or “recently uncovered” studies, articles, or evidence to support a generalized and opaque risk of harm, companies should expect risk. These claims would come from consumers who say they did in fact suffer such general harm due to the alleged fraudulent practices of a company.

How to Think Like a Trial Lawyer

What are the particular challenges of multidistrict litigation?

Let’s say Mary had a catastrophic injury and she sues Sam. From the outset I can focus on Mary and Sam. With an MDL, you have Mary and 1,500 other people. There might be evidence that would win the case for her but not for the others. So it’s about putting together a bigger-picture strategy – it takes a lot more planning.

And I think the difference between litigators in general and trial lawyers is that litigators will say, OK, how can we knock out most of these 1,500 people so we get a better settlement? They never had their eye on a trial. A trial lawyer is like, how do I get to Mary’s case, and keep your eye on that trial.

And it’s funny, because when you do that, you will always end up with a better settlement opportunity anyway, because you’re prepared to say: No, I'm going to trial. 

You just described Quinn Emanuel. Well, trials often have juries – have you seen any changes in how juries weigh product liability and mass tort cases over the years?

Juries just reflect how people consume and process information. There used to be a time when my grandfather would sit down and read the newspaper, and then my father, he watched the news. They’d each make an informed decision based on a host of information. There was no Facebook, there was no TikTok. Now people will lock onto one thing very quickly, like a sound bite, because that is how information is consumed.

But through it all, you still always have themes when you try a case. Especially as a defense lawyer, it’s just more repetitive now, and driving home your points in a sea of distractions and misdirection from your opponent.

A Passion for Pro Bono

Quinn Emanuel has expanded its pro bono practice, and you’ve done that work. Has it informed the way you try cases overall?

One of the best ways to become a good defense lawyer is to prosecute class actions as a plaintiff, and I got to do it for causes I thought were super important. I love pro bono and very much look forward to continuing to work on pro bono matters here at Quinn.

Thanks so much, Sean – we’re really looking forward to seeing you apply your formidable skills to tech, AI, and more. But with your illustrious career representing big food and beverage companies, among others, we understand you really love Uncrustables, those crustless PB&J sandwiches.

Yes! I used to represent the J.M. Smucker Company, and any time there was a legal issue involving Uncrustables, I made an extra emphasis to win that case. They are the best snack! I love fighting for all of my clients, but I would go to my grave for Uncrustables.

Read Quinn Emanuel's press release about Sean Suber here.