|
Experience
Privacy Class Action
Defense of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in Multiple Putative Class Actions Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Lead litigation counsel for Amazon and Amazon Web Services in multiple putative class actions alleging violations of BIPA in connection with various products and services, including the Rekognition software service.
Healy v. Honorlock
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Successfully defended putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act resulting from plaintiff’s use of Honorlock’s online exam proctoring software. Filed motion to dismiss based on plaintiff’s agreement to terms of use with arbitration and class action waiver provisions, and also based on several issues that would dispose of the entire case on the merits. Obtained an order compelling plaintiff to arbitrate his claims pursuant to terms of use.
Alhadeff v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Successfully represented LegalZoom.com Inc. in defense of class action complaint seeking to recover statutory damages on behalf of all Florida residents who visited LegalZoom.com’s website. The complaint alleged that session replay software on LegalZoom.com’s website violated Florida’s wiretap statute, the Florida Security of Communications Act. Filed motion to compel arbitration, after which plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
Defense of Google, Inc. in Multiple Putative Class Actions re: BIPA and Google Photos
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Circuit Court of Illinois, Will County
Litigation counsel for Google in multiple putative class actions alleging that aspects of Google Photos violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). In the first case, Rivera v. Google, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, obtained summary judgment victory on the ground that the plaintiffs had not suffered an injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. Rivera is ongoing, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision ruling regarding Article III standing for BIPA claims in Bryant v. Compass.
Barnes v. Hanna Andersson et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Currently defending Hanna Andersson in the first data breach class action filed under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).
Prelipceanu v. Jumio Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Represented Jumio in case alleging that Jumio’s facial recognition identity verification service violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA); resolved the case on terms very favorable to Jumio, then achieved final court approval of settlement over class member’s objection.
Marshall v. Jumio Corporation
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Secured voluntary dismissal of putative class action and individual claim alleging that Jumio’s facial recognition identity verification service violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Pine v. A Place for Mom, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Obtained final approval of favorable class action settlement in case alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Fisher v. HP Property Management LLC
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Counsel for Defendant Marcon International, Inc. d/b/a KEYper Systems in putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act in connection with the use of biometric key management system manufactured by KEYper Systems.
Patel v. Facebook (Representing Internet Association as amicus)
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Counsel for the Internet Association with respect to amicus brief filed in support of appeal of class certification in case concerning application of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act to Facebook and alleged “scans” of “face geometry.”
Patel v. Zillow
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Obtained dismissal of purported class action alleging that Zillow’s Zestimate® was an unlawful unlicensed appraisal under Illinois law and that its description and use of the Zestimate® violated consumer protection laws and was an intrusion upon seclusion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing the case with prejudice on all counts.
Cothron v. White Castle Food Products, LLC et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Secured voluntary dismissal of claims against Cross Match Technologies, Inc. in class action alleging that co-defendant’s use of its fingerscan devices violated BIPA.
Komorski v. OHM Concession Group et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Secured voluntary dismissal of claims against Cross Match Technologies, Inc. in class action alleging that co-defendant’s use of its fingerscan devices violated BIPA.
Thomas v. A Place for Mom, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Successfully defended class action alleging unlawful telephone call recording by A Place for Mom, that sought statutory damages for alleged violation of Florida’s wiretap statute. Filed motion to dismiss raising issues that would dispose of the entire case, and plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action before the Court ruled on that motion.
Other Litigation
City of Los Angeles v. Patel
U.S. Supreme Court
Representing Google Inc., filed a brief as amicus curiae arguing that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless searches of hotel guest records. The Court agreed with Google’s position and cited the brief in its decision. 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015).
Socialzoid v. Google
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Defended Google against claims by app developer for unfair competition and false advertising, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Motion to dismiss resulted in voluntary dismissal.
ICF Technology, Inc. v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Successfully represented Google in defense of complaint seeking to force Google to change its Search results. The complaint alleged tortious interference, defamation, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Obtained denial of motion for temporary restraining order, after which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
In re 381 Search Warrants Directed to Facebook, Inc. and Dated July 23, 2013
New York State Supreme Court – Appellate Division
Representing Dropbox Inc., Google Inc., Pinterest Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Twitter, Inc., and Yelp Inc. as amici curiae, argued that recipients of warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act have a pre-execution right of review and that indefinite gag orders issued in conjunction with such warrants violate the First Amendment.
Maryland v. King
U.S. Supreme Court
Representing Veterans for Common Sense as amicus curiae, argued that the warrantless collection and analysis of DNA from a person who has been arrested for a criminal offense constitutes an intrusion of privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.
