Michael H. Rubin

Mr. Rubin's experience includes advising:

Litigation

• Bank of the West in a class action related to the California Invasion of Privacy Act alleging that Pindrop analyzed bank callers’ voices without their consent.
• Otonomo in a privacy class action involving allegations that Otonomo tracked drivers’ locations without their permission in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. 
• Accellion, a data storage company, in an array of consumer class actions. Most recently, secured dismissal of a breach of contract case filed by healthcare company Centene Corp. against Accellion in relation to data breaches Accellion experienced in December 2020 and January 2021.
• NAVER Corp. and SNOW Corp., a NAVER subsidiary, in class action litigation alleging privacy and statutory violations based on allegations that defendants collected users’ personal information without consent. The court granted Latham’s motion to dismiss in full.
• Turn, an online advertising technology platform provider, in twin putative class action lawsuits in federal and state court, which allege that Turn, used “super cookies” in violation of state privacy and consumer protection laws. The federal matter was dismissed and the state matter was resolved with a walkway settlement.
• AppsFlyer in a class action alleging aid and abetting based on the receipt of alleged health data sent by app Flo Health, a popular health and fitness mobile application to AppsFlyer. Secured dismissal of the claims against AppsFlyer on Article III standing grounds.
• Facebook in a consolidated consumer class action arising out of a criminal attack on Facebook’s web platform affecting approximately 29 million users globally. As a result of aggressive early discovery into plaintiffs’ claims and multi-pronged motion to dismiss, the court narrowed the case to a single named plaintiff pursuing a single cause of action for negligence. The parties agreed to a no-damages settlement in which Facebook has committed to maintaining certain security improvements it implemented in the wake of the attack. 
• LifeLock in a putative class action which alleged that LifeLock’s identity protection service failed to live up to its advertised promises. After aggressive discovery practice, plaintiffs dismissed their case with prejudice and admitted their allegations had no merit.
• LG Electronics in a putative class action that alleged the company’s SmartTVs violated the federal Wiretap and Video Privacy Protection Acts. Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.
• Google in a complex, multi-defendant, multidistrict litigation, made up of more than 20 putative class actions arising from allegations that Google improperly placed cookies on Safari web browsers by overriding their privacy control. Plaintiffs asserted claims arising under the federal Wiretap and Computer Fraud and Abuse Acts, as well as various California state laws. The district court granted Google’s motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The Third Circuit affirmed, with the exception of two state law claims.*

Regulatory

• Significant social media company in FTC Section 5 investigation. Matter closed without enforcement action.
• Significant online commerce provider in FTC Section 5 investigation. Matter closed without enforcement action.
• Multiple significant ad tech companies in FTC Section 5 investigations. Matters closed without FTC enforcement action.
• Significant online security provider in FTC Section 5 investigation. Matter closed with no enforcement action .
• Children’s service in FTC COPPA investigation. Matter closed without enforcement action .
• Multiple sharing economy companies in FTC Section 5 investigations. Matters closed without enforcement action.
• Connected device manufacturer in concurrent FTC Section 5 and State Attorney General investigations. Matters closed without enforcement action.
• Multiple companies in FTC FCRA investigations. Matters closed with no enforcement action.
• Google in FTC Section 5 and concurrent State AG investigations concerning Google’s placement of cookies on Safari web browsers. Both investigations were resolved with consent decrees in which Google denied liability.*
• Numerous companies in ongoing FTC Consent Decree and Order compliance matters.

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham