Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
January 28th, 2022
John B. Harris quoted in The Hill on January 6 Selection Committee Subpoena
Ethics & Professional Responsibility Litigation Partner John B. Harris was quoted in the article, “Jan. 6 Panel's Subpoena furthers Complications for Rudy Giuliani, DOJ” published by The Hill. The article discusses the January 6 Selection Committee’s subpoena of Giuliani and other lawyers who pushed the Trump agenda by denying the election results of Joe Biden’s win. John discussed the types of claims Mr. Giuliani might assert to avoid the subpoena – including attorney-client privilege.
“Stripping aside all of the other issues and all of the concerns that the committee has, the idea that there was actually legal advice that was being rendered here or that these discussions could have been privileged, I think that that is colorable depending on a lot of other facts,” said Harris, adding that “[a] memo about what the Vice President’s rights, duties and obligations are with respect to certification — that sounds to me like a kind of classic legal research and that you could absolutely give it to your client and not necessarily believe that you were committing a crime or fraud. It’s a legal issue that somebody like the president could have been entitled to know.”
John pointed out that with an attorney-client privilege claim, “You never know what sort of sympathetic ear you’re going to get if you’re challenging a subpoena so you probably spin the wheel and see what happens. . . .He could get an amenable judge.”
John concluded: “So I assume that’s going to be how they approach this — that ‘We didn’t know and we don’t know that this was an illegal thing. We thought that this was a perfectly appropriate use of our legal skills.’ And how that flies eventually, who knows, but it’s going to take a long time to resolve.”
Read the article here. (Behind paywall)
Other Quoted
Challenges in Opt-Out Design and Children’s Privacy Highlighted by Sling TV’s Settlement With California AG
Cybersecurity Law Report quoted Daniel Goldberg regarding California AG Rob Bonta's $530,000 settlement with Sling TV for CCPA violations related to opt-out processes and children's privacy protections. Goldberg noted this is "the first CCPA settlement involving a connected TV" and indicates that connected TV is now a priority for privacy enforcement. Goldberg predicted future settlements are more likely to reach seven or eight figures as investigations progress. He explained that companies struggle to operationalize opt-outs across different platforms because many rely heavily on consent management platform vendors that often cover only cookie-based activity and don't connect to the backend systems that actually drive targeted advertising.
On children's privacy, Goldberg highlighted the CA AG's aggressive stance, noting that although Sling TV didn't collect age data, the AG concluded they still had knowledge of minors through child-directed channels, notifications from programmers, demographic inferences purchased from data brokers, and ad-targeting segments that included children. He observed this "arguably expands the notion of 'actual knowledge' under the CCPA." Goldberg advises companies to map out data flows and opt-out signals across every environment and audit vendor configurations to ensure the tools actually work. Read the full article on children’s privacy protections here. (Behind a paywall)
December 1 2025
Game companies must be flexible to comply with changing laws
Emma Smizer was recently featured as a panelist at GamesBeat Next 2025 and quoted in a GamesBeat article discussing global regulatory compliance and its impact on the gaming industry. The panel examined how evolving policy frameworks create new opportunities for developers and platforms navigating global markets.
Smizer addressed compliance challenges under emerging laws, specifically citing the Texas App Store Accountability Act. She noted that this kind of legislation changes how developers and platforms interact with users: “App stores have to do this age verification, but so do software and hardware developers. Global compliance is complicated, even just across the states… We’re moving toward a world where you can’t just be willfully ignorant about the age of your users.”
Her analysis emphasizes a growing trend that age verification and child safety requirements are not only regulatory hurdles but also can create opportunities and growth for businesses and sectors. Read the full summary of the panel here.
November 25 2025
Copyright Guide or Policy Change? Project Divides IP Attys
Law360 quoted Jacqueline Charlesworth on the controversy surrounding the American Law Institute’s copyright restatement project. Ms. Charlesworth criticized the initiative as advancing a “revisionist theory” that could weaken copyright protections. She was among nearly two dozen advisers who resigned from the project, signaling deep concerns about its direction.
The article highlights a broader debate within the IP community: whether the restatement simply clarifies existing law or attempts to reshape policy in favor of users. Ms. Charlesworth’s perspective emphasizes the stakes for rights holders as courts and practitioners consider how much influence the restatement may carry. Read the Law360 article about the copyright restatement project here.
November 19 2025
