.

David J. Shannon

Chair, Privacy and Data Security

Chair, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation

Portrait of David J. Shannon

David chairs both the Privacy and Data Security Practice Group and the Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation Practice Group. He concentrates a substantial portion of his practice on privacy law, data breaches, intellectual property, copyright and trademark infringement, as well as trade secret, trade dress technology and media related litigation. David is experienced defending privacy and intellectual property cases venued throughout the United States and has been litigating cases in federal and state courts since 1994. David is a national and international featured speaker at privacy and data security conferences and seminars. His presentations focus on legal issues and emerging trends in the insurance industry with an emphasis on all areas of privacy, data breach and data security.

David additionally represents design professionals in a variety of construction industry related claims.  He has extensive experience representing architects, engineers, surveyors, land developers, commercial property owners, general contractors, subcontractors and commercial landscapers.  David has defended clients in cases that involved claims for design errors and omissions and other contractual and negligence claims. Over the past 25 years, he has tried a number of bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations.

    • Widener University Delaware Law School (J.D., 1994)
    • Denison University (B.A., 1990)
    • New Jersey, 1994
    • Pennsylvania, 1994
    • U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 1998
    • U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1998
    • U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 2000
    • U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2006
    • Legal 500 Philadelphia Legal Elite, Intellectual Property (2025-2026)
    • Pennsylvania Super Lawyers (2005, 2026)
    • Pennsylvania Bar Association, IP Law Section, Past Chair
    • Philadelphia Bar Association
    • Professional Liability Underwriting Society
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2026, Episode 1, Law Firm Cyber Attacks & the New Financial Sector Regulatory Landscape, June 2026
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025Episode 2, Beyond the Breach: Remediation vs. Forensic Investigation, December 2025
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025Episode 1, "Ransomware, Business Email Compromise, AI and The Increasing Sophistication of Cyber Threat Actors," July 2025
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 3, Restoration After The Data Breach, December 2024
    • PLUS Podcast, Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 2: SEC Amendment's Impact on Compliance and Reporting, July 2024
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2024, Episode 1:The Persisting Threat of Ransomware, February 27, 2024 
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2023. Episode 2: The Current State of Ransomware Attacks in 2023. April 2023
    • Critical Infrastructure – A Global View on Cyber Risk and Systemic Threats, ILG 360º London Annual Conference 2023, March 15, 2023
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cyber Security Threats in 2023. Episode 1: Cryptojacking - New Risks For Carriers and Their Insureds. March 2023
    • Business Email Compromise & Wire Transfer Fraud - Evolving Trends and Cyber Crime, Marshall Dennehey Client Webinar, Presented to Multiple Clients, 2022
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, Marshall Dennehey Client Presentation, Presented to Multiple Clients, 2022
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, ILG Virtual Conference, March 31, 2022
    • Cybersecurity: Crucial for a Law Firm’s Survival, Moderator, Philadelphia Association of Defense Counsel, November 16, 2021
    • Civil Litigation Updates in COVID-19 Litigation – Where Do We Stand One Year Later? Marshall Dennehey Webinar, May, 2021
    • Ransomware Attacks: An Ongoing Global Threat, ILG Virtual Conference, March 25, 2021
    • Cyber Security & Construction, National Association of Women in Construction, November 2020
    • Speaking Up on Silent Cyber, A.M. Best Webinar Panelist, May 2020 
    • Emerging Global Cyber Ransom Threats Require A Strategic Response From The C-Suite, A.M. Best Insurance Law Podcast, July 2018
    • Cyber Claims: What to Do?, National Conference of Insurance Guaranty Funds, November 2017 
    • Data Breaches Come in All Sizes, Beacon Technologies, April 26, 2017 
    • Cyber: Global Perspectives, Insurance Law Global, International Insurance Defence Network Conference, March 2017 
    • Cyber Security for the C Suite, panelist, SIM, February 7, 2017
    • Ethical and Statutory Concerns for Law Firms,  webinar panelist, Bloomberg & CNA Insurance, November 2, 2016
    • Cybersecurity for the C Suite, panelist, Tatum, October 26, 2016
    • Cybersecurity: Emerging Trends and the Current Regulatory Environment for Independent Financial Advisors and Independent Financial Services Firm, Financial Services Institute (FSI) webinar, September 22, 2016
    • The Changing Landscape of Cyber Liability Litigation, ACI’s 13th Advanced Forum on Cyber & Data Risk Insurance, July 29, 2016
    • Attorney Client Privilege Issues Arising out of Data Breaches, Breach Responses, and Subsequent Third Party Litigation, ACI Data Breach & Privacy Litigation and Enforcement Conference, March 18, 2016
    • Developments and Emerging Trends in the Legal and Insurance Areas of Cybersecurity, Travelers Insurance, February 2016
    • A Legislative Update From the Front Lines, DRI Data Breach and Privacy Law Conference, November 4, 2015
    • Litigation Roundup Including Recent Supreme Court Developments on Article III Standing, Injury, Damages (Spokeo v. Robins), Class Actions, and Data Breach Litigation, ACI's 17th Advanced Global Legal & Compliance Forum on Cyber Security & Data Privacy and Protection, October 5, 2015
    • Cyber Liability Insurance: New Risks & Emerging Trends, Insurance Brokers' Association of the State of New York (IBANY), September 16, 2015
    • Liability Concerns for Architects, Engineers and Construction Professionals: Pennsylvania Intellectual Property Overview, Marshall Dennehey Client Seminar, July 2015
    • Online Ethics: Blawgs, Directory Listings, Q & A Forums & Social Media Use and Confidentiality and Data Security, National Business Institute, April 2015
    • Cyber Hackers Are Everywhere! Are You Prepared? Philly I-Day, April 9, 2015
    • Current Trends in Data Breach First and Third-Party Claims and Litigation, American Conference Institute's Cyber & Data Risk Insurance conference, March 24, 2015
    • Hot Topics in Employment, Assurex Loss Control & Claims Conference, October 22, 2014
    • Cyber Technology, Data Breaches and Related E&O Trends, Claims and Coverage, moderator and speaker, 8th Annual ExecuSummit E&O Insurance Conference, June 2014
    • Cyber Liability Exposures, Every Business Has Them, Panelist, PLUS Mid-Atlantic Chapter Seminar, May 2014
    • Hot Topics in Employment, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Seminar, Philadelphia, PA, October 10, 2013
    • Employment Liability in the Cyber Age, Marshall Dennehey / AIG Employment Seminar, Pittsburgh, PA, May 2, 2013
    • Cyber Liability Claims, Coverage Issues, panel speaker, 2nd Annual National Cyber Liabilities Insurance ExecuSummit, 2013
    • Data Privacy Risk: Red Flags in Higher Education, ASFAA Annual Conference, 2012
    • Prevailed on a Motion to Dismiss in a data breach class action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Sixteen named plaintiffs brought claims alleging that a hacker had accessed the personal information of over 1,000,000 individuals nationwide. We defended the debt collection company whose computer servers were compromised. Plaintiffs asserted broad and novel legal theories, including negligent failure to protect data, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, negligence per se, and violations of various state consumer protection laws. We successfully contested these claims, resulting in the dismissal of eight plaintiffs for lack of standing and 15 of the 17 asserted causes of action being dismissed.
    • Successfully represented and assisted a large commercial payment card processing company in a data breach notice that affected over 2 million customers.
    • Successfully defended and resolved a multimillion dollar trademark and dilution lawsuit in the 9th Circuit that included obtaining dismissal of the dilution claim.
    • Obtained complete denial of a temporary and permanent injunction motion after a weeklong injunction hearing in a trademark dispute over a well known East Coast antique show brand.
    • Successfully resolved several copyright infringement claims by an international music recording association against various entertainment venues.
    • Obtained dismissal of all claims against a website developer on the first day of trial in a matter where plaintiff alleged significant lost profits after a new customer ordering platform was installed for plaintiff's website.
    •  Successfully resolved a significant copyright infringement claim by the heirs of a famous European author against a theater where plaintiff attempted to enjoin national theater production and claim past and future profits.
    • Defeated vicarious liability claims for trademark infringement by luxury handbag manufacturer against the owner of a large retail shopping center.  All claims were dismissed after a summary judgment motion was filed.
    • Obtained voluntary dismissal of trade secret and theft of confidential information matter where the initial demand was over $300,000 by demonstrating that no trade secrets existed in the plaintiff's manufacturing process.
    • Successfully obtained summary judgment in an architectural copyright infringement action by demonstrating that client did not infringe on the plaintiff's drawings for a country club.
    • Successfully defended international chemical company in temporary and permanent injunction hearings regarding stolen trade secrets and hiring of former plant manager. 
    • Longenecker-Wells v. Benecard Services, No. 15-3538, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15696 (3d Cir. Aug, 25, 2016).
    • Gianacopoulos v. Glen Oak Country Club, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7710 (M.D. Pa. 2007)
    • Luszczynski v. Bradley, 729 A.2d 83 (Superior 1999)

Thought Leadership

Legal Updates for Privacy and Data Security

Identity Theft Resource Center Report Reveals Rising Data Breaches Despite Drop in Mega Breaches

February 19, 2026

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), a well-known, non-profit identity theft and fraud prevention organization, recently released its 2025 annual data breach report with significant findings for the data breach field. The ITRC tracked 3,322 data breaches in 2025 – an increase of more than 5% compared to 2024. The numbers set a new record for U.S. data breaches tracked by the ITRC over the past 20 years. These numbers also show a 79% jump in data breaches over the last five years.  Just as importantly, the number of victim notices that were sent out decreased. In 2024, the ITRC found that over 1.3 million notices had been sent out, while in 2025 less than 300,000 notices were distributed. The ITRC noted that the significant decrease in victim notices was likely due to the lack of “mega-breaches” in 2025 compared to 2024.  The ITRC also found that the financial services industry was the most breached industry in 2025 followed by health care, professional services, manufacturing, and education.  The ITRC’s president was quoted that they had found “more attacks that are more precise, more automated and more difficult to detect. Consumers can take all of the right steps, businesses can have the best cyber security and still fall victim to criminals.”   These findings are significant for the cyber security insurance field. While mega breaches may be decreasing, the overall number of breaches demonstrates that all businesses should be obtaining proper cyber security insurance, and insurance carriers should be aware that while less notices will go out, more claims will be made that can affect both underwriting and the claims procedures.  Legal Updates for Privacy & Data Security - February 19, 2026, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please contact MeDeSatnick@MDWCG.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2026 Marshall Dennehey, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025 - Episode 2 - Beyond the Breach: Remediation vs. Forensic Investigation

December 1, 2025

In this podcast, David J. Shannon discusses incident response, ransomware attacks and the timing of breach attempts.

Firm Highlights

News

Marshall Dennehey’s John J. Hare Brings Home Attorney of the Year Honors; Firm Named Litigation Department of the Year in Two Categories

Marshall Dennehey took home top honors in three categories at the The Legal Intelligencer’s 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards, held June 11 in Philadelphia. The first place awards include: Attorney of the Year: John J. Hare, Chair of the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group and Executive Committee member, together with Charles “Chip” Becker of Kline & Specter Litigation Department of the Year, Appellate – Third Win in a Row! Litigation Department of the Year, Product Liability/Mass Torts “There is no one more deserving of Attorney of the Year honors than John. This award is a testament to his exceptional skill, dedication, and leadership—qualities that truly exemplify the very best of our firm,” said G. Mark Thompson, Marshall Dennehey’s President & CEO. “These honors also reflect the strength and depth of our product liability, mass torts, and appellate practices across Pennsylvania and beyond, underscoring our ongoing commitment to delivering outstanding results for our clients.” Attorney of the Year – John J. Hare, Marshall Dennehey, together with Charles “Chip” Becker, Kline & Specter Over the past year, John and Charles were opposing counsel in many of the highest-profile civil appeals in Pennsylvania. John is renowned as a preeminent appellate lawyer on the defense side, and Chip on the plaintiff's side. They have opposed each other repeatedly, exhibiting peerless professionalism and exceptional civility, while zealously litigating under the unremitting pressure of high-profile litigation and record-setting verdicts totaling more than $3.5 billion. They have also collaborated, outside of litigation, on many commissions, committees, and projects of importance to the Pennsylvania judiciary and legal community. Litigation Department of the Year – Appellate Law, Winner (previous winner, 2025 and 2024) 2025 was another standout year for the firm’s Appellate Advocacy & Post‑Trial Practice Group, led by John J. Hare, which was retained to challenge many of Pennsylvania’s “nuclear” verdicts—awards exceeding $10 million. Notably, the department persuaded the Pennsylvania Superior Court to reverse a Philadelphia judgment of $1.09 billion, the largest judgment ever overturned by a Pennsylvania appellate court. The group’s 11 full‑time Pennsylvania‑based appellate lawyers are at the center of Pennsylvania’s most high-profile matters, bringing more than 150 years of combined appellate experience. They routinely handle post‑trial and appellate matters and are frequently engaged to participate in and monitor trials in high‑exposure cases to ensure that critical legal issues are properly raised and preserved for appeal. Litigation Department of the Year – Product Liability/Mass Torts, Winner This marks the first win for the firm’s Pennsylvania Product Liability and Mass Torts practices, which operate within our Casualty Department, managed by Matthew Schorr and Jeff Rapattoni. For almost five decades, Fortune 500 product manufacturers/distributors and their insurers have turned to these groups to defend their litigation. Led by Bradley D. Remick and Vlada Tasich, our Product Liability group’s success can be attributed to its commitment to keeping abreast of ever-changing legal theories, judicial viewpoints, and evolving technology impacting the product liability landscape. Our attorneys have successfully handled thousands of product liability matters in all jurisdictions across the state. Likewise, our mass tort litigation practice – divided into Asbestos & Mass Tort, and Environmental & Toxic Tort Litigation –  has defended manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in thousands of personal injury and other claims. Led by Kevin E. Hexstall and Patrick T. Reilly, most attorneys in these groups have more than 20 years of experience, and our seasoned trial team has tried hundreds of cases to verdict, consistently achieving strong results through both trials and settlements. In addition to these awards, Marshall Dennehey was a Litigation Department of the Year finalist for Professional Liability.

Thought Leadership

Unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court Holds That Personal Emails of Public Employees and Officials are Subject to OPRA

In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian Hills Regional High School Board of Education, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that government-related emails, which are contained within personal email accounts, are government records under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), and a log of those emails must be produced when requested. In reaching this decision, the court conducted an analysis of the OPRA and cited previous cases that held that emails do in fact fall within OPRA’s definition of a record and must be produced when requested pursuant to the Act. The court in Rosetti then had to answer the question as to whether public officials’ personal email accounts that are used for government purposes are subject to OPRA, and found that they are. Rosetti made an OPRA request to the Board of Education seeking email logs from Board members’ personal email accounts. The Board refused to produce the logs and indicated that it was not under any obligation to produce personal email account logs, only from government-related email accounts. The issue was whether a log had to be produced for Board members’ personal email accounts, which they used to conduct Board business. The Board argued that while it was possible to create a log for government-related email accounts through its IT Department, it was not possible to do so for personal email accounts. The court rejected this argument and ruled that Board members are required to search their personal email accounts and create a log of government-related emails housed in those accounts. Once completed, each Board member then must submit a certification detailing the searches that were conducted. The court went one step further with a suggestion to government employees and officials, stating, “[g]overnment agencies should strongly advise their employees, elected officials, and others engaged in government-related business to refrain from using their personal email accounts when conducting government-related business.”  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this case and others pertaining to the OPRA. 

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

Coverage Determined, Judgment Paid, Bad Faith Survives: Fourth DCA’s Opinion Highlights the Distinction Between Contractual and Extra-Contractual Damages

In Healthy Food Experts, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., No. 4D2025-0181 (4th DCA June 10, 2026), the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained that an insurer’s payment of a judgment in a breach of contract case does not automatically eliminate a later bad faith claim seeking extra-contractual damages. The decision provides guidance on when a first-party bad faith claim may still proceed after a coverage dispute has already been resolved by a judgment. Healthy Food Experts, LLC involved a dispute related to a property damage claim submitted under a commercial insurance policy issued by the insurer following a ceiling collapse at the insured’s restaurant. The insurer denied coverage for the insured’s losses for business personal property and business income, but extended coverage for the food spoilage losses. As a result, the insured filed a breach of contract action and ultimately obtained a jury verdict. The insurer appealed the verdict and, while the appeal was pending, the insured filed a Civil Remedy Notice (CRN) seeking payment for the judgment plus interest. The insurer failed to cure the CRN within the statutory sixty-day cure period, but paid the judgement in full with accrued interest following the appeals court’s per curiam affirmance. Nevertheless, the insured filed a first party bad faith lawsuit claiming to have suffered extra-contractual damages. In response to the bad faith suit, the insurer filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, relying on Fridman v. Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois, 185 So. 3d 1214 (Fla. 2016) stating that damages were fixed by judgment of the breach of contract suit and the insured could not recover additional damages beyond those already awarded. The insurer also argued that the judgment did not exceed the insured’s policy limits, which was a required element of a first party bad faith claim. The trial court dismissed the bad faith action based on Fridman, concluding the insured could not seek any additional damages.  The insured appealed the court’s ruling to the Fourth DCA arguing the trial court’s order conflicts with Florida law and misapplies Fridman, as a contractual damage determination in the underlying suit establishes the “condition precedent to prosecute a first party bad faith action.” Cingari v. First Protective Ins. Co., 377 So. 3d 1169, 1174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024). Further, the insured argued that the only purpose to the binding language in Fridman is to prevent the re-litigating of the same damages, which in this case are the contractual damages. The insured asserted the damages were not the “same” as they were seeking consequential damages from the insurer’s alleged bad faith. The Fourth District emphasized in its ruling that a first party bad faith claim is not ripe for litigation until there has been the following: a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; a determination of the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the required civil remedy notice is filed pursuant to §624.155(3)(a).  Demase v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 239 So. 3d 218, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) The court concluded that the necessary conditions were satisfied as the jury verdict determined both coverage and the extent of the insured’s contractual damages, and the insured properly filed a civil remedy notice, so the bad faith claim was ripe for litigation. The Fourth DCA further explained the insured could not seek contractual damages in its bad faith action, which was previously litigated in its breach of contract suit. However, the court determined the insured could seek “extra-contractual damages,” which were not recoverable in the insured’s breach of contract suit, which may include interest, court cost, and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by the insured. Further, the court held excess judgment is not essential in a first party bad faith claim and the insurer’s late payment of the judgment did not preclude the insured’s bad faith action. As a result, the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s final dismissal order of the bad faith action. This opinion highlights the distinction between contractual and extra-contractual damages. Moreover, this case demonstrates that a judgment does not necessarily end the dispute in a first party property claim as it is could also serve as a prerequisite of a bad faith action. The decision serves as a reminder that insurers may face bad faith exposure notwithstanding the payment of a judgment in an underlying breach of contract action.

Thought Leadership

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Self-Referral Prohibition Does Not Cover Prescriptions Written by Physicians with Ownership Interests in Dispensing Pharmacies

700 Pharmacy v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (State Workers’ Insurance Fund); Nos. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 MAP 2024; decided June 16, 2026; by Justice Mundy.   In this case, Drs. Miteswar Purewal and Shailen Jalali, treating physicians for workers’ compensation claimants, wrote prescriptions for various medications that were filled by 700 Pharmacy. The worker’s compensation insurer refused to pay for the prescriptions on the basis that they were illegal self-referrals under the Act. 700 Pharmacy subsequently filed fee review applications with The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Review Office. At a fee review hearing, both physicians stipulated they had a financial interest in the pharmacy.  The physicians argued that the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act does not bar self-referrals on prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services, since the provision does not specifically identify prescription drugs. The Fee Review Hearing Officer rejected this argument and found that prescriptions for medications are prohibited under the “goods or services” language included in the provision. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Commonwealth Court, and the court affirmed, agreeing with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation of “goods and services” as encompassing prescriptions. 700 Pharmacy appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Hearing Officer and the Commonwealth Court, holding that the term “goods and services” in the Anti-Referral Provision of the Act did not include prescriptions. According to the Court, “goods and services” was not a catch-all, but simply explanatory as to the eight enumerated categories in the provision. The provision (Section 306(f.1)(3)(iii)) reads, in pertinent part: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is unlawful for a provider to refer a person for laboratory, physical therapy, rehabilitation, chiropractic, radiation oncology, psychometric, home infusion therapy  or diagnostic imaging, goods or services pursuant to this section if the provider has a financial interest with the person or in the entity that receives the referral. The Court said that if the General Assembly wanted to specifically include prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services in the Anti-Referral Provision, they would have done so. They pointed out that prescription drugs and pharmaceutical services were included by the legislature in Section 306 (f.1)(3)(vi) of the Act as to reimbursement, and claimed that their omission from the Anti-Referral Provision supports the conclusion that those services are not included in the Anti-Referral Provision’s self-referral prohibition.