.

David J. Shannon

Chair, Privacy and Data Security

Chair, Intellectual Property, Technology and Media Litigation

DJShannon@mdwcg.com

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 2025, Episode 2, Beyond the Breach: Remediation vs. Forensic Investigation, December 2025
    • PLUS Podcast: Managing Cybersecurity Threats in 2025, Episode 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

View all

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.

News

View all

Firm Highlights

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department

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.