Kevin J. Miller | Kellogg Hansen

Education

University of Chicago Law School, J.D., with Highest Honors, 1999
- Comment Editor, 1998-1999; and Member, 1997-1998, University of Chicago Law Review
- Order of the Coif
University of Georgia, B.A., cum laude, 1993
- John M. Olin Student Fellow in Law and Economics
- Certified Public Accountant (inactive)

Clerkships

Law Clerk, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, 2000-2001
Law Clerk, Judge Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1999-2000

Admitted

2002, District of Columbia
2017, Supreme Court of the United States

Kevin J. Miller specializes in complex commercial and appellate litigation, including antitrust, fraud, breach of contract, securities, and constitutional matters. Kevin has significant trial experience in district courts, as well as various state courts and other tribunals. He has argued numerous appeals in the federal courts of appeals, and he has been the counsel of record and principal author of numerous merits and amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court. Kevin also has extensive expertise representing clients in criminal and civil regulatory investigations and proceedings involving the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, among others.

Kevin represents a wide range of clients, including Fortune 500 corporations, private equity firms and their portfolio companies, institutional investors, small businesses, and individuals in complex commercial and antitrust litigation. His practice spans diverse sectors such as telecommunications, technology, energy, and media, where he advocates for both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes and industry-shaping matters.

He helps clients achieve their goals by developing strategies that align legal success with business outcomes—whether defending transformative mergers against regulatory challenges, obtaining rare preliminary injunctions to level competitive playing fields, or achieving innovative results in disputes over market access and pricing. Kevin’s approach blends rigorous legal analysis with a keen understanding of industry dynamics, enabling his clients to protect their interests, advance growth, and preserve critical opportunities in competitive markets.

Kevin practiced for several years as a certified public accountant (now inactive) and auditor and has substantial experience representing and advising clients in audit, accounting malpractice, and complex financial matters. He has successfully represented Fortune 500 companies in audits of their copyright Statements of Account that are submitted to the Copyright Royalty Board. He represented a publicly traded company, Navistar, Inc., in prosecuting claims against the company’s former auditor. He also represented a major private equity firm in a lawsuit against a Big Four accounting firm for fraud and related claims arising out of the private equity firm’s investment in a company in a foreign country.

Representative Experience

Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C. 2025). Served as defense counsel for Meta in years‑long litigation culminating in a multi‑week bench trial after which the court entered judgment for Meta, rejecting the Federal Trade Commission’s Section 2 claim and finding that the government had failed to prove Meta possesses monopoly power.
In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2817 (N.D. Ill.) – Representing multiple individual plaintiffs in a major antitrust litigation against the two leading providers of auto dealer software management systems, CDK Global LLC and The Reynolds & Reynolds Co.
United States v. AT&T Inc., No. 17-cv-02511 (D.D.C.) – Represented AT&T in the Department of Justice’s challenge to the merger of AT&T and Time Warner.
Webcasting IV – Represented iHeartRadio in a six-week hearing before the Copyright Royalty Board that resulted in the firstever royalty rate reduction for Broadcasters. The victory was hailed as a “big win” for iHeartRadio. Billboard, Inside the CRB’s New Streaming, http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6812938/crb-webcasting-rates-labels-digital-services-reactions (Dec. 17, 2015).
Represented a major private equity firm in a lawsuit against a Big Four accounting firm for fraud and related claims arising out of the private equity firm’s investment in a company in a foreign country. Our team defeated the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and failure to state a claim. The case settled before trial.
Louisiana Pacific Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Investment Dealer, No. 09-cv-03529 (N.D. Cal.) – Prosecuted federal and state securities law claims as well as common law claims brought by a publicly traded company against an investment bank and investment broker, arising from the purchase of structured finance securities with an auction rate securities pricing mechanism. Successfully defeated motions to dismiss by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and Money Market 1, and, after substantial discovery, some of the parties reached a settlement agreement.
The Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co., No. 09-cv-03780 (N.D. Cal.) – Prosecuted federal and state securities law claims as well as common law tort claims brought by an institutional investor against an investment bank and two rating agencies arising from the purchase of structured finance securities with an auction rate securities pricing mechanism. Successfully defeated motions to dismiss by Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Standard & Poors (d/b/a The McGraw Hill Companies), and Fitch, Inc.
Great-West Investors LP v. Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP, C.A. No. 5508 (Del. Ch. Ct.) – Represented private equity fund in suit by special limited partner asserting fraud and breach of contract, and seeking reformation of partnership agreement based on alleged mistake. Immediately before trial in Delaware Chancery Court, the court granted summary judgment in favor of private equity fund on claims of fraud and mistake.
Navistar International Corp. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, No. 2011 L 004269 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty.) – Represented publicly traded company in prosecuting claims against the company’s former auditor.
BT Triple Crown Merger Co. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 08-600899 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – Represented private equity funds in much-publicized multi-billion-dollar breach-of-contract action against six banks, arising out of the banks’ refusal to honor their commitment to finance the Clear Channel Communications leveraged buyout transaction. Expedited discovery was conducted in less than six weeks. Immediately before trial in New York state court, our clients prevailed on their argument that specific performance was an available remedy. The parties settled shortly thereafter, with the banks agreeing to finance the transaction.
United States v. O’Shea, Crim.-H-09-629 (S.D. Tex.) – Represented more than a dozen current and former employees of ABB, Inc. in DOJ and SEC investigations and criminal prosecution of former ABB manager for violations of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, including representation of several witnesses at criminal trial.

Achievements

Global Competition Review – Behavioral Matter of the Year, Americas
- 2026 – Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C.)
Law.com Litigator of the Week
- 2025 – Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C.)

Law360 Legal Lions
- 2025 – Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C.)

Articles, News & Events

Article, Lawyers as Venture Capitalists: An Economic Analysis of Law Firms That Invest in Their Clients, 13 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 435 (2000)
Comment, Welfare and the Minimum Wage: Are Workfare Participants “Employees” Under the Fair Labor Standards Act?, 66 Univ. Chi. L. Rev. 183 (1999)

News

December 08, 2025

Court Rejects FTC’s PSN Market, Issues Defense Verdict for Meta

December 8, 2025 — After years of high-stakes litigation and a multi-week bench trial, on November 18, 2025, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg entered judgment for Meta on the FTC’s Section 2 claim. The Court rejected the FTC’s proposed “personal social networking” market and, based on extensive empirical evidence, found a broader social‑media market that includes TikTok and YouTube. The Court concluded that the FTC failed to prove Meta possesses monopoly power in the relevant market. The Court credited field experiments, natural experiments (including platform outages and a ban on the TikTok app in India), and app usage data showing significant and persistent diversion between Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. It found convergence across features and user behavior—particularly the shift toward AI-recommended short-form video and private messaging—undercutting the FTC’s effort to distinguish “social networking” from “entertainment.” The Court declined to infer monopoly power from evidence of Meta’s profits and further determined that the FTC had failed to show that the “quality-adjusted” price of Meta’s apps had declined; on the contrary, it found that “Meta’s apps have continuously improved.” And in the relevant market, time‑spent and user metrics show that Meta’s share is well below monopoly thresholds and trending down. The court ordered judgment for Meta, ending the FTC’s case at the liability stage. A large Kellogg Hansen team, led by Mark C. Hansen, served as lead trial counsel for Meta. The lawyers involved at trial included Daniel V. Dorris, Andrew E. Goldsmith, Joseph S. Hall, Jake E. Hartman, Kevin D. Horvitz, Kevin B. Huff, Geoffrey M. Klineberg, Evan T. Leo, Kevin J. Miller, Aaron M. Panner, Alex Parkinson, Ana N. Paul, Leslie V. Pope, Thomas G. Schultz, Lillian V. Smith, Silvija A. Strikis, Ariela M. Migdal, Collin R. White, Justin B. Berg, Geoffrey J.H. Block, Hannah D.C. DePalo, Nataliia Gillespie, Natalie E. Giotta, Jordan R.G. González, Zachary M. Meskell, Diego Negron-Reichard, Aaseesh P. Polavarapu, Catherine M. Redlingshafer, Andrew Skaras, Alex P. Treiger, and Hilary M. Weaver. This case has garnered significant national attention, with coverage in Global Competition Review, Litigator of the Week, Law360’s Legal Lions, and Judicial Notice. These outlets highlighted the complexity of the litigation, the breadth of the economic evidence presented at trial, and the substantial implications of the Court’s decision for antitrust enforcement in digital markets. The recognition across multiple leading publications underscores both the importance of the ruling and the exceptional work of the trial team. Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case 1:20-cv-03590-JEB (D.D.C)..