Mason LLP operates as a plaintiff-focused class action practice based in Washington, D.C., representing individuals harmed by corporate misconduct across the United States. The firm specializes in data breach litigation, mass arbitration cases, defective product claims, wage and hour violations, and environmental disasters. Their work involves taking on major corporations and government entities when security failures, negligence, or deceptive practices cause widespread harm to consumers and workers.

Data breach cases form the cornerstone of their practice. They've handled major incidents affecting millions of people, from healthcare providers to government agencies. Recent work includes litigation against Change Healthcare following a 2024 breach, class actions against DC Health Link after personal information from Congress members and their families ended up on the dark web, and cases involving genetic testing companies like 23andMe. These breaches expose Social Security numbers, medical records, financial data, and other sensitive information that fuels identity theft and fraud.

Their settlement track record demonstrates substantial recoveries for affected consumers. An $11 million class action settlement against Insurance Technologies Corporation stands as their largest publicly reported recovery, with additional settlements including $725,000 against Huntington Ingalls Industries, $650,000 against Fitzgibbon Hospital, and $550,000 against EmergeOrtho. Individual class members in some cases receive up to $5,000 for documented losses stemming from breaches.

Mass arbitration represents their distinctive legal strategy for cases where companies use arbitration clauses to block traditional class actions. This approach involves coordinating simultaneous individual arbitration claims against the same defendant, creating leverage through sheer volume. When companies insert mandatory arbitration clauses into employment contracts or consumer agreements, they're trying to prevent workers and customers from banding together. Mass arbitration flips that strategy by flooding companies with hundreds or thousands of individual claims at once.

As a reviewer, I'd say their involvement in landmark environmental litigation sets them apart from firms that focus exclusively on data breaches. They've taken leadership roles in the BP Oil Spill litigation, the Exxon Valdez disaster, and Chinese Drywall cases—massive environmental incidents that affected entire regions and required years of complex litigation involving multiple defendants and extensive scientific evidence.

The firm's history includes representation in the U.S. Office of Personnel Management data breach, which compromised sensitive information for millions of federal employees and contractors. That breach exposed security clearance applications, background investigation records, and fingerprint data—the kind of information that can't be changed like credit card numbers. Their experience with government entity breaches provides insight into how public sector cybersecurity failures differ from private company incidents.

Their attorney team includes partners like Danielle Perry, who serves on executive committees in major data breach class actions including the Connexin case affecting 2.2 million consumers. The firm emphasizes direct client relationships even in mass actions, distinguishing their approach from traditional class actions where attorneys represent the entire group collectively. This structure means each client maintains an individual relationship with the firm rather than being absorbed into an anonymous class.

Product defect cases and wage-and-hour violations round out their practice areas. Defective products can range from consumer goods with safety hazards to mislabeled items causing widespread harm. Wage violations often involve companies systematically underpaying workers, denying overtime, misclassifying employees as contractors, or violating other labor protections that affect entire workforces.

In my opinion, their positioning as specialists in cases affecting large numbers of people means they're selective about which matters they accept. Individual cases with smaller damages typically don't fit their model—they focus on situations where corporate wrongdoing harms hundreds or thousands of people, making collective action economically viable. This focus allows them to develop deep expertise in specific litigation types rather than spreading resources across every possible legal issue.

The firm monitors emerging data breach incidents and privacy law developments to identify cases early. Healthcare, government, banking, and securities sectors remain most vulnerable to cyberattacks, but their practice extends to any industry using internet communication and file-sharing systems. They track Federal Trade Commission investigations and state attorney general actions to spot breaches that might warrant private litigation on behalf of affected consumers.

---