This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Daniel  Meyers

Daniel Meyers


T: +1 312 583 2393
F: +1 312 583 2596

icon Download vCard

Legal Services


  • University of Wisconsin Law School
    JD, cum laude, 2009
  • Emory University
    BA, Political Science and Economics, 2005

Bar Admission(s)

  • Illinois
  • Wisconsin
  • US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Daniel Meyers is an Associate in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group in the Chicago office.  Daniel’s primary areas of experience include products liability, consumer fraud, breach of contract and class actions. He has experience handling all phases of litigation.

Daniel is committed to pro bono legal services, having represented clients in matters ranging from employment contract disputes to child custody disputes. He also volunteered as a constitutional law teacher in a Chicago middle school classroom and currently helps teach a negotiations class for Chicago high school students. 

Prior to joining Kaye Scholer, Daniel volunteered as a Special Assistant Corporation Counsel in the City of Chicago’s Labor Division where he represented the City in hearings before the Chicago Police and Human Resources Boards, as well as in arbitrations.

Daniel is on the Make-A-Wish Illinois Associate Board.

Representative Matters

  • Daniel is currently part of the Kaye Scholer team serving as national defense counsel for Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in product liability litigation, including an MDL, involving claims related to Testosterone Replacement Therapy products.
  • Daniel is currently part of the Kaye Scholer team serving as co-national defense counsel for Pfizer Inc. in product liability litigation, including an MDL, alleging birth defects related to the antidepressant Zoloft.
  • In February 2016, Daniel was part of a Kaye Scholer team that secured a 7th Circuit generic drug preemption victory for its client Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC d/b/a Qualitest Pharmaceuticals (“Qualitest”).  In Houston v. USA, Plaintiff brought seven state-law claims against Qualitest each of which alleged that Qualitest should have labeled or designed the drug differently.  Relying on two recent Supreme Court decisions, Kaye Scholer successfully argued in the district court that all of the state-law claims are preempted by federal laws that regulate generic prescription drugs, and the 7th Circuit affirmed.  Since the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, this was the first time that the 7th Circuit has considered the extent to which product liability claims against generic prescription drug manufacturers are preempted by federal law.  Daniel argued the case in the 7th Circuit.
  • In 2013, Daniel was a member of a trial team that successfully defended Philip Morris USA in a class action trial with claims brought under California’s consumer fraud statute. In addition to injunctive relief, the class sought $1.5 billion in alleged economic losses purportedly arising out of Philip Morris USA’s marketing of Marlboro Lights cigarettes in California. After a three month trial, the court entered a full, final judgment for Philip Morris USA, which the intermediate appellate court in California affirmed.
  • In November and December 2012, Daniel was a member of a trial team that represented Philip Morris USA in a common law fraud/products liability action in federal court in the Southern District of New York. After a three and a half week trial, the jury returned a verdict for Philip Morris USA.
  • In May 2012, Daniel was a member of a trial team that represented Pfizer units Wyeth, Inc. and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in a wrongful death suit involving Wyeth’s hormone therapy (HT) medications Premarin and Prempro. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict for Wyeth.
  • In 2011, Daniel was a member of a trial team that obtained a mistrial on behalf of Philip Morris USA in connection with a consumer class action lawsuit.  Plaintiffs alleged that Philip Morris USA violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by selling “light” cigarettes to Missouri customers and representing the “light” cigarettes to be lower in tar and nicotine than “regular” cigarettes.