Skip to main content

Kevin M. McGinty

Member / Co-chair, Class Action Practice

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1688

Follow:
Share:

Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.

On the consumer class action side of his practice, Kevin represents health care payers and providers, retail and consumer brands, and financial services providers in a wide variety of consumer protection class actions. He has deep experience defending cases alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices, false and misleading advertising, employment discrimination, violations of landlord/tenant law, and financial fraud, among others. Kevin has guided clients through complex, multistate class action and understands that no single strategy fits every case He works with each client to understand their unique needs and develop a strategy that meets the company’s specific objectives. 

Kevin has also represented a number of clients in data privacy class actions that allege improper use/disclosure of personal data. His clients in this area include retail and consumer brands, software and technology companies. health care-related entities, and financial services providers. 

A significant focus of his practice is representing health care-related companies in a wide variety of disputes, including not only class actions, but also contract claims, post-acquisition disputes, government investigations, and False Claims Act lawsuits. Kevin’s health care-related clients have included pharmacies, PBMs, hospitals, clinical laboratories, diagnostic imaging providers, equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and managed care organizations.

Kevin's extensive trial experience includes civil bench trials and jury trials in federal and state courts, as well as arbitrations before American Arbitration Association panels. He has appeared in state and federal courts nationwide. 

Kevin has spoken on national panels concerning class action and privacy litigation, and has written extensively on class actions, privacy litigation, fraud and abuse litigation, and unfair trade practice litigation.

Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.

Experience

Privacy and Data Security

  • Represent large life insurance and annuity provider in a set of class actions consolidated as part of a large MDL arising from the compromise by threat actors of MOVEit secure file transfer software.
  • Represented large regional food wholesaler in class action arising from exploit that exposed employee data; obtained dismissal of unfair trade practices and other common law claims, and then negotiated a class settlement.
  • Represented group of affiliated automobile dealerships in a class action concerning threat actor compromise of internal data systems.
  • Represented pharmacy chain in class action alleging that transfers of prescription records in connection with acquisitions of independent pharmacies violated privacy rights of patients whose records were transferred; obtained dismissal of most alleged claims, decertified the class, and then prevailed at trial.
  • Represented pharmacy chain in class action alleging that program to send informational mailings to pharmacy customers violated their privacy rights; partially defeated initial class certification motion, then obtained class decertification and prevailed on the merits of the class representative claim at summary judgment.

Health Care and Life Sciences

  • Represent health plans in False Claims Act lawsuit alleging the wrongful retention of overpayments under a program to provide health care services to active duty and retired military personnel and their families.
  • Represent regional emergency hospital group in class action alleging improper and/or excessive billing for in-house clinical laboratory services.
  • Represented large medical supply company in connection with a whistleblower action alleging that the resolution of certain rebate disputes with a managed care company resulted in illegal kickbacks and violation of the federal False Claims Act.
  • Defended pharmaceutical company against class action alleging that unsolicited faxes inviting health care providers to an educational seminar violated the TCPA, obtaining dismissal of all claims.
  • Represented large regional health system in connection with an action seeking entry of a consent judgment to resolve state and federal antitrust claims and permit acquisitions of two community hospital systems.
  • Defended large national clinical laboratory against claims that its agreements with large managed care companies resulted in purported illegal kickbacks, giving rise to violations of the False Claims Act. Identified the grounds on which the defendant obtained dismissal, establishing a precedent that was affirmed in the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • Obtained dismissal of a “junk fax” class action brought under the TCPA in connection with informational faxes sent to a health care benefit administrator’s network of providers.
  • Have represented multiple health care clients in confidential investigations and arbitrations.

Consumer Goods and Professional Services

  • Represent large regional bus company in class action alleging that the practice of separately charging fees in addition to the fares for travel on its busses violates state consumer protection laws and various common law duties.
  • Represent multiple automobile dealership group against class actions alleging that compensation of inside sales employees violated state wage, overtime, and Sunday pay requirements
  • Represented national manufacturing trade associations in connection with submission of amicus briefs concerning class certification appeals pending before the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal circuit courts of appeal
  • Represented national oil change service franchise operator in class action alleging that that the defendants misrepresented oil change intervals recommended for customers’ cars. Obtained favorable individual settlement in exchange for dismissal of class claims
  • Obtained voluntary dismissal of class action brought against a community bank alleging fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices in connection with the marketing of interest-bearing checking accounts.
  • Defended large private equity firms in a class action alleging that defendants engaged in bid rigging and market allocation in connection with large-cap leveraged buyout transactions.
  • Defended national retailer against class action alleging violation of statute prohibiting collection of zip codes in connection with credit card transactions. Obtained individual settlement and voluntary dismissal of class claims.

Construction and Real Estate

  • Represent former owner and operator of residential apartment complex in class action alleging violations of laws governing handling of security deposits and submetering of water and sewer utilities.
  • Represent an owner and operator of residential rental properties in a class action alleging a failure to properly repair, preserve and maintain units located in a subsidized housing project.
  • Defended a construction industry labor union against claims that enforcement of subcontracting requirements in its collective bargaining agreements violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Crafted and argued winning summary judgment motion dismissing plaintiff’s antitrust claims.
Read less

viewpoints

This July, we detailed the Supreme Court’s surprising revival in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), of the question of whether the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution. In Polansky, a lengthy dissent by Justice Thomas questioned whether the False Claims Act qui tam provisions violated the Appointments Clause and Take Care Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution, arguments that had been endorsed by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the 1989, though ultimately repudiated by DOJ just seven years later. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh, joined by Justice Barrett, stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” Shortly after Polansky was decided, a defendant in a declined qui tam case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama accepted Justice Kavanagh’s invitation, and moved to dismiss on Article II grounds. In a decision entered in November, the District Court rejected that challenge.

Read more

Do the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA), see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), violate the Executive Branch’s exclusive grant of authority under Article II of the United States Constitution? This long-dormant question has been revived in a surprising context. In its recent decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June. 16, 2023), the Supreme Court affirmed the government’s authority to intervene to dismiss a whistleblower action, even after initially declining to intervene in the case. Knowledgeable FCA practitioners expected this result. Less expected was Justice Thomas’s dissent, which argued that the case should have been remanded to allow the parties to brief and argue whether Article II forbids allowing private citizens to maintain FCA claims on behalf of the government. A concurrence by Justice Kavanagh (joined by Justice Barrett), while rejecting Justice Thomas’s call for a remand, nonetheless stated that “the Court should consider the competing arguments on the Article II issue in an appropriate case.” With three justices expressing interest in this question—and only four justices being required to grant certiorari—health care enforcement defense attorneys should now consider whether to raise the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions when relators move forward to litigate cases that the government declines to pursue.

Read more

Mintz's Health Care Enforcement group analyzes trends in False Claims Act (FCA) investigations and lawsuits using data compiled its Qui Tam Database, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) annual report of FCA statistics, and the DOJ’s discussion of FCA enforcement trends.

Read more

Over the last year, a few important questions related to False Claims Act (FCA) cases have garnered significant attention. Two of those questions ultimately made their way to the Supreme Court. In one case, which has already been argued, the Court addresses whether the government has authority to dismiss an FCA case brought by a private citizen on the government’s behalf (a qui tam action) after originally declining to intervene and, if so, the applicable standard of judicial review. More recently, the Court has agreed to hear two cases that address whether a defendant’s “objectively reasonable” interpretation of ambiguous statutory language presents a cognizable defense to “knowledge” under the FCA. We cover both of these issues in more detail.

Read more

Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense Practice regularly provides a comprehensive examination of health care fraud enforcement trends in its new EnforceMintz newsletter. The inaugural issue delved into False Claims Act cases and enforcement activity related to telemedicine, Medicare Advantage, opioids, kickbacks, and more.

Read more

As many of our readers are likely aware, last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a second False Claims Act (FCA) issue this term. Having previously accepted and heard argument on a case concerning the government’s authority to dismiss an FCA whistleblower case after declining to intervene, the Court has now granted certiorari to hear two cases addressing what constitutes a “knowing” violation of the FCA. Hanging in the balance is the fate of two lower court decisions that endorsed a powerful defense to FCA liability.

Read more

In a significant win for False Claims Act (FCA) defendants, the Eighth Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that defendants violated the FCA premised on violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Eighth Circuit adopted a stricter but-for causation standard for FCA claims based on AKS violations, holding that, in order to prevail on these claims, the government must prove that FCA defendants would not have submitted claims for particular items or services to Medicare or Medicaid absent the illegal kickbacks. 

Read more
Webinar Reference Image
In our annual webinar, Mintz’s Health Care Enforcement Defense team reviewed the key health care fraud enforcement developments and trends from 2021, assessed their likely impact in 2022, and provided recommendations to avoid government scrutiny.
Read more
Health Care Viewpoints Thumbnail
In our annual Health Care Enforcement Year in Review & Outlook report, we examine the data and explore health care enforcement trends and likely targets of government scrutiny for 2022 and beyond.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

BOSTON –  Twenty-five Mintz attorneys have been named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers list.

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

In its second annual edition, 28 Mintz attorneys were named to Boston Magazine’s Top Lawyers list.

Kevin McGinty is a Member in the Mintz Boston Office authored an article that was the first part of four in a series on health care enforcement trends in 2017. The series was published by Law360.
Boston Litigation Member Kevin McGinty was quoted in a Law360 article on how the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a case involving an allegedly inaccurate consumer report may seem beneficial to the plaintiffs at the outset but may leave companies with a stronger defense further down the line.
Boston Litigation Member Kevin McGinty was quoted in a Law360 article on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that a plaintiff claiming that the Xbox 360 unit was defective could not appeal a class certification order on the basis that the voluntary dismissal of his claims counted as a final decision.
Mintz Member Kevin McGinty is quoted in this feature article focusing on Target’s $10 million class action settlement, which allowed Target to avoid multiple data breach claims, as well as the future of the terms of privacy and data security pacts.
This is the fourth and final installment of a series from Mintz’s Health Law team recapping key government policies, regulations and enforcement actions from 2016 and discussing their potential impacts on 2017.
Litigation Member Kevin McGinty was quoted in a Law360 article on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Spokeo v. Robins case, noting that since SCOTUS’ landmark ruling there has been confusion among lower courts which could lead to another high court showdown.
Fifty-three Mintz attorneys have been named Massachusetts Super Lawyers for 2016 and thirty-one have been named Massachusetts Rising Stars. The findings will be published in the November 2016 issue of Boston Magazine and in a stand-alone magazine, New England Super Lawyers. 
Mintz Litigation Member Kevin McGinty is quoted in this Law360 article on Home Depot’s efforts to seek permission to bring several questions raised by a judge’s refusal to toss data breach claims asserted by financial institutions to the Eleventh Circuit.
Mintz Litigation Member Kevin McGinty is quoted in this Business Insurance piece on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against Tyson Foods Inc. in a class action meant to determine whether workers should be paid overtime for the time spent putting on and taking off their work clothes.
Kevin McGinty, a Member of Mintz’s Litigation Practice, is quoted in a Society for Human Resource Management article covering the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling validating the use of representative and statistical evidence in class actions.
Mintz Member Kevin McGinty is quoted in this Law360 article on the  U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of the previous judgment against Tyson Foods Inc. in a class action lawsuit brought by workers fighting for overtime pay for time spent putting on and taking off their protective work uniforms.
Mintz Litigation member Kevin McGinty is quoted in this Law360 article on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that “Tyson Foods workers could use statistical sampling to support class certification in a don-doff dispute.”
This feature story notes that for the second time this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed class action plaintiffs significant wins. The article recaps the Justices’ decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. Mintz Litigation Member Kevin McGinty provides commentary.
This Law360 feature article discusses some of the major data breach cases that may have significant impact but may have been overshadowed by cases like that of the Target and Wyndham suits. Mintz Litigation Member Kevin McGinty provides commentary.
This article focuses on the findings of a Department of Justice report which note an increase in False Claims Act litigation throughout the recent year. Mintz Member Kevin McGinty is quoted providing commentary.
Kevin McGinty, a Member of Mintz’s Litigation Practice, is featured in this Data Breach Today coverage discussing a Massachusetts judge's decision to allow a class-action lawsuit to proceed.
Kevin McGinty, a Mintz Member, authored this Life Science Compliance Update article examining the Department of Justice’s statistics on False Claims Act filings which have seen significant growth in recent years.
Read less

Kevin is an accomplished litigator with deep experience defending clients in class action and health care related litigation. Kevin co-chairs the firm's Class Action Practice, and ably represents clients in a wide variety of non-securities class claims, with a specific focus on consumer and data privacy class actions.

Recognition & Awards

  • Best Lawyers in America: Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants

  • Massachusetts Super Lawyers: Class Action

  • Boston Magazine Top Lawyers – Class Action

  • Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent

Read less

Kevin M. McGinty

Member / Co-chair, Class Action Practice

Boston