linkedin
professionals-bio
PRACTICE AREAS

Blake Hunter Yagman

Partner

Blake Hunter Yagman is a Partner at Spiro Harrison & Nelson.

Blake represents consumers, businesses, and municipalities in class action and complex high-stakes litigation across a wide range of different industries, as well as advises clients seeking guidance on regulatory concerns, compliance, and litigation risk.

Blake’s litigation experience includes the prosecution of antitrust, data privacy, and consumer protection violations in courts across the country. Blake’s cases often address sophisticated, developing areas of law with novel allegations, such as the unlawful use of sophisticated algorithms and software to manipulate prices, the surreptitious collection and use of biometric and sensitive data, as well as the breach of confidential information due to cybersecurity lapses, malicious hacking incidents, and ransomware attacks. Additionally, Blake has advanced procedural knowledge of class action, complex, and multi-district litigation practice including success before numerous federal and state courts, and the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Blake has used an innovative repertoire of procedural skills to the benefit of his clients, including numerous successful oppositions of motions to dismiss and motions to compel mandatory and binding arbitration clauses and class action waivers. Blake has extensive experience guiding teams of lawyers, as well as leading hearings and oral arguments while also participating at trial.

Blake has served in various mentorship roles for law students and young attorneys, guest lectured on complex litigation topics at law schools and has provided commentary on law school symposium panels. Additionally, Blake is a member of the Theodore Roosevelt Association, a supporter of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota, and a member of the LGBT Bar Association of New York.

Prior to law school, Blake clerked for the Honorable Lawrence A. Schwartz (Ret.) in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida. Blake had roles in federal legislation, campaign organizing, and the sports industry, having served as an intern and campaign organizer in both houses of the United States Congress and for a former President of the United States. Blake was also a student assistant football coach for the University of Miami Hurricanes and as a legal intern for well-known sports agencies.

Blake received his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with a concentration in Intellectual Property and Data Law; he wrote his his symposium paper in 2017 called “When the Bully Takes the Bully Pulpit,” which was about the limits of defamation laws when applied to elected officials while using social media platforms. Prior to law school, he received his B.A. from the University of Miami.

Blake is admitted to practice law in the State of New York and is pending admission in the District of Columbia. Blake also has active federal court admissions in the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Colorado; he also has pending admissions for the District Court for the District of Columbia and District of Maryland.

Representative Matters
  • S.K., et al. v. Jupiter Research, LLC, et al. (Northern District of California) – represented indirect purchasers of cannabis vaporizer cartridges impacted by an alleged collusive price-fixing scheme.
  • Neumark, et al. v. Swedish Match North America, LLC, et al. (Eastern District of Virginia) – represented indirect purchasers of modern oral nicotine pouches impacted by alleged anticompetitive conduct.
  • In re American Airlines/JetBlue Antitrust Litigation (Eastern District of New York) - previously appointed as part of an interim co-lead counsel team representing direct purchasers of airline tickets impacted by alleged anticompetitive conduct by two major airlines flying out of four major airlines in the northeast United States.
  • In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) - represented direct purchasers and contributed to a trial team as part of the prosecution of a price-fixing conspiracy by major egg producers.
  • In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California) - represented direct purchasers of Android mobile applications and in-application purchases impacted by alleged monopolistic conduct.
  • In re Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of Illinois) - represented direct purchaser owners of John Deere tractors impacted by alleged monopolistic conduct related to the right-to-repair those tractors.
  • In re California Gasoline Spot Market Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California) - represented California indirect purchasers of gasoline impacted by anticompetitive and collusive conduct by gasoline spot market traders.
  • In re Apple Inc. Smartphone Antitrust Litigation (District of New Jersey) - represented indirect purchasers of smartphones impacted by monopolistic conduct.
  • Caccuri, et al. v. Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. (Northern District of California) - represented direct purchasers of downloadable Sony PlayStation video games impacted by monopolistic conduct.
  • Gerber, et al. v. Twitter, Inc. (Northern District of California) - previously appointed as part of an interim co-lead counsel team representing victims (in a case of first impression) of a 211+ million person data breach that occurred on a major social media platform.
  • Doe v. GoodRx, Inc. (Northern District of California) - previously appointed as part of an executive committee team representing users of an online drug discount card website whose protected health information was alleged to have been packaged and sold to major technology companies.
  • In re CityMD Data Privacy Litigation (District of New Jersey) - previously appointed as one of three interim co-lead counsel representing urgent care clinic patients who had the protected health information provided to a website which was alleged to have been packaged and sold to major technology companies.
  • Boone, et al. v. Snap, Inc. (Illinois State Court) - represented minor plaintiffs in the State of Illinois whose biometric information was allegedly collected unlawfully by a social media application.
  • Veiga, et al. v. Respondus, Inc. (Illinois State Court) - represented college students in the State of Illinois whose biometric information was allegedly collected unlawfully by a computerized test proctoring system.
  • Gross, et al. v Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corporation (Southern District of New York) - represented visitors (in a case of first impression) to a major sports and concert arena whose biometric information was collected unlawfully upon entry.
  • Ajzenman, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al. (Central District of California) - represented sports fans who sought refunds for purchased tickets to professional baseball games for the 2020 COVID-19 affected season.