.

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

Vendor Cyber Attack Compromises PII of More Than 3 Million Hunting and Fishing License Holders in Texas

June 30, 2026

The Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) announced earlier this month that one of its vendors which handles the sale of state hunting and fishing licenses was the victim of a cybersecurity attack. The threat actor appears to have exfiltrated personal driver’s license information, passport numbers, email addresses, phone numbers and addresses of over 3 million hunting and fishing license holders.  The State Parks Department advised that the attack did not compromise social security numbers, dates of birth or financial information. Texas Cyber Command, the state’s new cybersecurity authority formed to protect critical infrastructure and coordinate threat responses across state and local government, reportedly assisted in detecting and containing the attack. TPWD has already set up free credit monitoring for those impacted through Kroll.  According to press reports, no specific group has yet been identified as the perpetrator of the theft. TPWD also advised that business has not been interrupted and license sales were continuing. This incident once again demonstrates that cybersecurity is only as strong as the weakest link in the supply chain. Businesses must prioritize security across their own environments and those of their vendors and contractors as well.

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.

Firm Highlights

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

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority.  *Thomas F. Glassman, a shareholder in Marshall Dennehey’s Cincinnati office, filed a brief in the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys, in support of the insurer’s position.