Named among the Top Cyber/Artificial Intelligence Lawyers in California.The Daily Journal 2019

Michael H. Rubin

San Francisco
  • 505 Montgomery Street
  • Suite 2000
  • San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
  • USA
 
 

Michael H. Rubin, a leader of the firm’s Data Privacy & Security Practice, represents companies in high-stakes and complex litigation in courts throughout the United States, and in regulatory matters before the Federal Trade Commission, United States Attorneys General, and regulatory authorities throughout Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

Mr. Rubin represents clients at all stages of the business life cycle, from emerging companies to global market leaders, with a particular focus on the technology industry. In addition to litigation and regulatory defense matters, clients turn to Mr. Rubin for guidance navigating issues ranging from business model and granular product design concerns, to complex regulatory compliance exercises and strategic transactions.

He regularly addresses issues related to:

  • FTC requirements, including COPPA
  • Regulatory compliance, including GDPR and CCPA
  • Security incidents and breaches, forensic investigations, and remediation of security issues
  • Government requests for information, ECPA, and wiretap issues
  • Behavioral advertising and social media
  • Artificial intelligence
  • Unmanned aerial vehicles

In 2019 Mr. Rubin was named a Top Cyber Lawyer in California by California’s Daily Journal, and a Client Service All Star by BTI Consulting.

Michael’s representative matters include advising:

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 with 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.
Litigation
  • Weingarten v. LifeLock. Lead counsel for 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.
  • Henson and Kay v. Turn. Lead counsel for Turn in twin putative class action lawsuits in federal and state court, which allege that Turn, a provider of an online advertising technology platform, used “super cookies” in violation of state privacy and consumer protection laws. The federal matter was dismissed. The state matter remains in active litigation.
  • White v. LG Electronics. Lead counsel for 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.
  • In re: Google. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation. Lead counsel for 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.*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.