Apex Trial Law and Ryan M. Ferrell: Consumer Privacy Demand Letters

If your business has received a demand letter from Apex Trial Law, you are not alone. The firm, led by founder Ryan M. Ferrell, has spent years sending pre-litigation demand letters to website owners, mostly over website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. More recently, Apex has reportedly started raising online privacy claims too, at the same time as website tracking, chat and session replay tools have become a large source of litigation in California.

This article explains who Ryan Ferrell is, how Apex Trial Law operates, what its letters typically allege, how the firm connects to the wider Ferrell litigation network that includes Pacific Trial Attorneys, and what to do if a letter lands on your desk. It is informational, draws on public records, and is not legal advice. If you have received a demand letter, speak with a qualified attorney.

Who Is Ryan M. Ferrell?

Ryan Mark Ferrell is the founder of Apex Trial Law (also styled Apex Trial Attorneys). According to the firm’s website, he holds a J.D. from the University of Arizona, a B.A. from Brigham Young University, an M.B.A. from the University of Notre Dame and an M.S. from Thunderbird. The firm describes his focus as class action and business litigation, and notes that he was named a Southern California Super Lawyers “Rising Star” from 2014 to 2016.

Public licensing records add important context:

• California: The State Bar of California lists Ryan Mark Ferrell (Bar No. 258037) as admitted on December 1, 2008, with an active license and no public discipline shown on his profile. His registered address is Apex Trial Law, 4934 S Hemet St, Gilbert, AZ 85298.
• Arizona: The State Bar of Arizona’s 2019 Lawyer Regulation Disposition Report lists “Ferrell, Ryan M.” under orders of disbarment, effective May 22, 2019, marked as a consent to disbarment. Avvo likewise lists his Arizona license as disbarred in 2019.
• Ninth Circuit: A June 2019 Ninth Circuit attorney discipline docket (In re: Ryan Ferrell, No. 19-80072) referenced the Arizona disbarment and ordered him to resign from the court’s bar or explain why he should not be removed. According to the docket, he did not respond in time, and on July 15, 2019 he was removed from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice before the Ninth Circuit.

The practical takeaway is that Ryan Ferrell remains licensed in California, which is where most Apex demand letters invoke state law, even though his firm’s address of record is in Gilbert, Arizona, a state where he is no longer licensed. Businesses and their counsel may want to note this when evaluating a letter, particularly where the claims, the plaintiff or the business have a connection to Arizona.

What Is Apex Trial Law?

Apex Trial Law presents itself as a team of trial lawyers focused on consumer class actions, with directory listings stating it has secured over $50 million for clients. The firm lists two attorneys on its website:

• Ryan M. Ferrell, Firm Founder
• Thomas W. Kohler, Partner, a University of Arizona College of Law graduate (2007) and former prosecutor with the Maricopa County and Pinal County Attorney’s offices, whose stated focus includes deceptive products, consumer class actions and rights protection for blind individuals

The firm currently lists its office at 4934 South Hemet Street in Gilbert, Arizona. Directory listings also show a Newport Beach, California address at 4100 Newport Place Drive, and the firm’s main phone number uses the 949 Orange County area code.

The Consumer Class Action Years

Before website demand letters became its main business, Apex was active in food labeling class actions. Law360 coverage from 2017 follows a California class action against Jelly Belly over its use of the term “evaporated cane juice” instead of sugar on product labels. The American Tort Reform Foundation’s 2018–2019 “Judicial Hellholes” report also named Ryan Ferrell of Apex Trial Law as plaintiff’s counsel in a similar “cane juice” suit over YummyEarth lollipops filed in San Bernardino Superior Court.

The Ferrell Connection: Newport Trial Group and Pacific Trial Attorneys

You cannot understand Apex Trial Law without the wider Ferrell litigation story. Ryan Ferrell is often described as the brother of Scott J. Ferrell, the Newport Beach attorney who leads Pacific Trial Attorneys and is one of the most prolific filers of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) lawsuits and demand letters in the country. The two practiced together at Newport Trial Group (NTG), the firm Scott Ferrell led before Pacific Trial Attorneys:

• A 2016 Newport Trial Group press release named Scott Ferrell a “Top 100 Southern California SuperLawyer” and Ryan Ferrell a Southern California “Rising Star.”
• A 2014 federal court order in Nilon v. Natural-Immunogenics Corp. (S.D. Cal.) refers to a motion for contempt and sanctions against “attorneys Scott Ferrell, Ryan Ferrell and Victoria Knowles,” identified as former counsel for the class representative at Newport Trial Group.

That Natural-Immunogenics dispute grew into one of the best-known cases involving the Ferrell practice. In 2015, Natural-Immunogenics Corp. (NIC) filed a federal RICO lawsuit against Newport Trial Group and its attorneys. NIC alleged a scheme of meritless consumer lawsuits brought to extract settlements, including allegations about recruiting plaintiffs. The Judicial Hellholes report described the suit as accusing Ryan Ferrell and his previous firm of hiring college students to serve as class action plaintiffs. These were allegations, not findings. The case went to the Ninth Circuit more than once and was eventually resolved through a mediated settlement, which the Ninth Circuit held enforceable in a February 2024 decision.

Today, Scott Ferrell’s Pacific Trial Attorneys is known for CIPA claims over website chat features, session replay tools and tracking technologies. Captain Compliance has covered that firm in detail in our pieces on Scott Ferrell and Pacific Trial Attorneys and Pacific Trial Attorneys and CIPA chat wiretapping. Given that shared history, it is not surprising that Apex’s demand letters look like they follow a similar playbook.

What Apex Trial Law Demand Letters Typically Allege

ADA and Unruh Act Website Accessibility Letters

Most documented Apex letters concern website accessibility. Accessible.org lists Apex Trial Law (Ryan Ferrell and Thomas Kohler) among the 40 most active ADA website plaintiff firms. A sample letter published by Karlin Law, signed by Ryan M. Ferrell, shows the usual structure:

• A named plaintiff described as a blind individual who uses screen reader software and could not access the business’s website.
• Claims under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code § 51(f)), which treats an ADA violation as an Unruh violation.
• Citation to WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) 2.0 Level AA, and to case law such as Andrews v. Blick Art Materials (E.D.N.Y. 2017), to argue that websites are covered by the ADA.
• Statutory damages: the letter states that damages are set by statute at $4,000 for each instance of inaccessibility under Civil Code § 52.
• A short deadline, such as 21 days, to respond before a lawsuit is filed.

Commentators, including the Law Offices of Nolan Klein in a June 2026 analysis, report that the firm appears to use automated scanning to identify accessibility issues at scale. The problems cited are typically missing image alt text, screen reader navigation failures, uncaptioned video and forms that cannot be used with a keyboard. Lexology has also published defense guidance aimed at businesses that received Unruh Act letters from Apex Trial Law and attorney Thomas Dorobiala.

The Shift Toward Privacy Claims

More recently, businesses have reported Apex Trial Law letters that go beyond accessibility and raise online privacy violations. That matches the direction of the wider plaintiffs’ bar. Over the past several years, California privacy demand letters have usually alleged one or more of the following:

• Wiretapping under CIPA § 631: claims that a website chat feature, session replay script or third-party tool lets a vendor “eavesdrop” on the contents of a visitor’s communications without consent.
• Pen register and trap-and-trace claims under CIPA § 638.51: claims that tracking pixels, analytics or advertising tags capture IP addresses and device data without a court order or consent, with statutory damages of up to $5,000 per violation under § 637.2.
• Pre-consent tracking: claims that cookies and tags fire before a visitor interacts with a consent banner, or keep firing after the visitor opts out.
• Ignored opt-out signals: claims that a site does not honor Global Privacy Control (GPC) signals or “Do Not Sell or Share” requests.

If you receive a privacy demand letter from Apex Trial Law, read it closely to see which statute and which technology it targets. The answer matters a great deal because of a major legal change that just took effect.

SB 690 Changes the Picture

On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom signed SB 690. Among other things, it eliminates the private right of action under Penal Code § 637.2 for alleged violations of § 638.51, the pen register and trap-and-trace provision, when the conduct occurs on a website, online application or mobile application. According to analysis from WilmerHale, the law also applies to pending claims in actions commenced within two years before its operative date. That could wipe out a large share of the pen register suits that have flooded California courts.

SB 690 does not end CIPA risk, though. Private plaintiffs can still bring:

• Section 631 wiretapping claims that allege interception of the contents of communications, such as chat transcripts or form inputs
• Claims over recording confidential communications without all-party consent
• Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) claims, common-law privacy claims and unfair or deceptive practices claims

The California Attorney General also keeps enforcement authority over pen register and trap-and-trace violations. Defense firms including Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney have already reported that plaintiffs are adjusting their strategies after SB 690. Expect demand letters to lean harder on wiretapping, chat and session replay theories, and on consent and opt-out failures.

What to Do If You Receive an Apex Trial Law Demand Letter

1. Do not ignore it, and do not respond on your own. Short deadlines are deliberate. Bring in counsel experienced in ADA or CIPA defense right away, and do not contact the firm or the named plaintiff directly.
2. Preserve everything. Keep the letter, envelope, emails and the date you received it. Preserve your website configuration, tag manager history, consent logs and vendor contracts as they existed on the dates alleged.
3. Identify the exact claim. Is it ADA and Unruh accessibility, CIPA § 631 wiretapping, a § 638.51 pen register theory now affected by SB 690, or something else? Each has different defenses.
4. Check jurisdiction and standing. Does your business serve California consumers? Did the named plaintiff actually visit your site, and when? Is there an arbitration clause or binding terms of use that could apply?
5. Look at the attorney’s licensing. Your counsel may want to consider the licensing history described above, particularly if the letter or the parties involve Arizona.
6. Audit and fix the underlying issue. Whatever the merits of the letter, use it as a prompt to get an independent audit. For accessibility, that means a WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 AA review. For privacy, it means confirming that no tags fire before consent, that chat and session replay vendors are disclosed and consented to, and that GPC and opt-out requests are honored.
7. Weigh settlement against defense with eyes open. Paying a demand without fixing the website can invite follow-on letters from other plaintiffs targeting the same issues.

How to Reduce Your Exposure Before a Letter Arrives

The firms sending these letters rely on issues that automated scanners can find quickly. That cuts both ways, because the same issues are usually fixable. A strong defensive posture includes:

• A properly configured consent management platform that blocks non-essential cookies, pixels, chat and session replay tools until the visitor gives consent, and that records proof of every consent choice.
• Global Privacy Control support that treats browser opt-out signals as valid “Do Not Sell or Share” requests.
• Clear chat and session replay disclosures shown before a visitor starts typing, plus vendor agreements that limit how those vendors use the data.
• An accurate, current privacy policy that names the categories of trackers and vendors on your site.
• Continuous monitoring, because marketing teams add tags and vendors update scripts constantly. A site that was compliant at launch may not be compliant today.
• An accessibility program that includes WCAG testing, remediation and a published accessibility statement.

Captain Compliance helps businesses close these gaps with cookie consent management, GPC signal handling, DSAR workflows, dynamic privacy policies, vendor disclosures and continuous website monitoring through our Patrol privacy risk tool. If you have received a demand letter, or want to make sure you never do, our team can help you see what your website is actually doing and fix it.

Apex Trial Law and Ryan M. Ferrell Privacy Litigation

Apex Trial Law and Ryan M. Ferrell are long-running players in California’s demand letter economy. The firm started with food labeling class actions, moved to high-volume ADA and Unruh website accessibility letters, and is now reportedly turning to online privacy claims. Its history is closely tied to Scott Ferrell, Newport Trial Group and Pacific Trial Attorneys. With SB 690 now law, expect firms like Apex to shift away from pen register theories toward wiretapping, chat, session replay and consent failures.

The best protection is not a clever response to a letter but a website that does not give anyone a reason to send one. Audit what your site loads, get consent before tracking, honor opt-outs and fix accessibility barriers. If a letter does arrive, take it seriously, preserve your records and bring in experienced counsel right away.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Facts about licensing and litigation history are drawn from public records, including the State Bar of California, the State Bar of Arizona’s 2019 Lawyer Regulation Disposition Report, Ninth Circuit docket No. 19-80072, federal court filings and published legal commentary. Allegations in lawsuits are not findings of wrongdoing.