1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Rebecca Baden Chaney

Rebecca Baden Chaney

Partner
Partner
cmNoYW5leUBjcm93ZWxsLmNvbQ==
VCardLinkedIn
VCardLinkedIn

Areas of Focus

Overview

Transportation, micromobility, consumer, and other product manufacturers lean on Rebecca Chaney’s keen understanding of the transportation and consumer product industries and the legal landscape to advance their businesses. Rebecca applies her commercial-focused product risk lens to represent product manufacturers facing litigation, commercial, and regulatory challenges.

Rebecca is an industry-recognized force in litigating complex product-related warranty, defect, indemnity and contractual commercial disputes, and consumer litigation, including in class actions and mass tort proceedings. She counsels her commercial clients on product disputes, risk mitigation, and crisis management matters. Rebecca additionally defends clients against defamation claims. Clients appreciate Rebecca’s close coordination with them, her proactive approach, and her critical and creative thinking about each stage in a litigation or matter.

Rebecca’s approach embraces product liability risk management across the life cycle of product commercialization, from pre- to post-launch to aftermarket. This includes advice on product labeling, as well as National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Consumer Product Safety Commission regulatory compliance, recall, and enforcement issues.

Career & Education

    • Syracuse University, B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2006
    • University of Maryland School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif, magna cum laude, 2009
    • Syracuse University, B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2006
    • University of Maryland School of Law, J.D., Order of the Coif, magna cum laude, 2009

    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia
    • Maryland
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
    • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

  • Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, American Bar Association, Litigation and Young Lawyers Sections, Products Liability and Women in Products Liability Subsections
    • Member, DRI, Product Liability Section

    Professional Activities and Memberships

    • Member, American Bar Association, Litigation and Young Lawyers Sections, Products Liability and Women in Products Liability Subsections
    • Member, DRI, Product Liability Section
Described by clients as a ‘proven litigator and regulatory adviser.’

— Law360, 2021

Rebecca's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.03.25

Release-By-Release? The Michigan Supreme Court Is Asked To Clarify 2023 Requirement Contracts Ruling in Airboss

Those familiar with the supplier and buyer contracting realm will have likely heard of a “requirements contract” or a “blanket purchase order” which essentially allows parties to mutually guarantee that they will buy and sell to each other for a specific period of time, but lets the parties figure out the exact amount of a product later, often on an order-by-order basis. This approach is often favored for its reliability in knowing your supply needs are met (or you have a reliable buyer), while letting the supply move up or down based on real and variable demand. These arrangements are particularly prevalent in supply agreements in the automobile industry....

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Representing leading Tier 1 automotive parts supplier in multiple disputes and litigation concerning defect and indemnity claims; representation includes favorable resolution of a dispute with claims valued in excess of $1 billion.
  • Achieved and defended on appeal dismissal on the pleadings for a hotel door lock manufacturer in four consolidated putative class action lawsuits filed by hotels alleging that plaintiffs’ locks were “hackable.”
  • Achieved and defended on appeal dismissal on the pleadings for an automotive manufacturer in a putative class action lawsuit alleging warranty, consumer protection and invasion of privacy claims on the grounds that plaintiffs’ vehicles were “hackable.”
  • Achieved and defended on appeal dismissal on the pleadings for a smoke alarm manufacturer in a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the products were defective and deceptively advertised.
  • Negotiated and supported a limited fund class action settlement to resolve more than 300 lawsuits asserted against a university following its loss of accreditation.
  • Representing a medical device manufacturer in product liability litigation filed in multiple jurisdictions in the U.S.
  • Achieved dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of a U.S. component part manufacturer in MDL litigation arising from the crash of Air France Flight 447. 
  • Resolved successfully pre-suit litigation threatened against product manufacturer concerning marketing contract.
  • Advised offshore wind project in potential litigation of force majeure clause.
  • Prepared U.S. government contractor to defend breach of contract litigation following its termination of a subcontract.

Rebecca's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.03.25

Release-By-Release? The Michigan Supreme Court Is Asked To Clarify 2023 Requirement Contracts Ruling in Airboss

Those familiar with the supplier and buyer contracting realm will have likely heard of a “requirements contract” or a “blanket purchase order” which essentially allows parties to mutually guarantee that they will buy and sell to each other for a specific period of time, but lets the parties figure out the exact amount of a product later, often on an order-by-order basis. This approach is often favored for its reliability in knowing your supply needs are met (or you have a reliable buyer), while letting the supply move up or down based on real and variable demand. These arrangements are particularly prevalent in supply agreements in the automobile industry....

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.03.25

Release-By-Release? The Michigan Supreme Court Is Asked To Clarify 2023 Requirement Contracts Ruling in Airboss

Blog Post | 03.31.25

NHTSA Rulemaking Roundup: March 2025

Client Alert | 12 min read | 03.19.25

Right To Repair – A Growing Trend for States Creating Compliance Challenges for Manufacturers

Blog Post | 03.12.25

DOT Reverses Course and Rescinds Policy Memos Related to Infrastructure Projects

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Rebecca's Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.03.25

Release-By-Release? The Michigan Supreme Court Is Asked To Clarify 2023 Requirement Contracts Ruling in Airboss

Those familiar with the supplier and buyer contracting realm will have likely heard of a “requirements contract” or a “blanket purchase order” which essentially allows parties to mutually guarantee that they will buy and sell to each other for a specific period of time, but lets the parties figure out the exact amount of a product later, often on an order-by-order basis. This approach is often favored for its reliability in knowing your supply needs are met (or you have a reliable buyer), while letting the supply move up or down based on real and variable demand. These arrangements are particularly prevalent in supply agreements in the automobile industry....

View All Insights