Ryan Mrazik
- Firmwide Chair, Tech Amicus Practice
For more than 15 years, Ryan has represented online service providers on their core legal issues: user data privacy, content moderation and liability, platform integrity, and privacy litigation.
Ryan Mrazik works with the largest online technology companies, startups, and companies at every stage of growth to help them protect themselves, their users, and their data; promote free speech and expression online; and stop child and victim exploitation on their services.
Online communications and storage providers engage Ryan's assistance when responding to government surveillance and legal process demands for their users' information. In domestic and international settings, Ryan deals with requests for online user data that arise under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Wiretap Act, Pen Register/Trap and Trace Statute, Stored Communications Act, and state equivalents. Ryan supports his service provider clients across the entire range of a legal process response program. In this part of his practice, Ryan handles cutting-edge privacy issues including the Fourth Amendment implications of government surveillance, the boundaries of anonymous speech under the First Amendment, and cross-border discovery and data compulsion in criminal matters.
Ryan's work draws on his knowledge of constantly changing legislation and caselaw in the area of content moderation and liability. He has defended providers against dozens of claims about unlawful content moderation, primarily under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment. Ryan's domestic litigation practice has expanded into counseling clients about their content moderation practices and procedures; tracking and consulting on proposed domestic legislation and advising on changes in caselaw; and supporting companies' compliance with recently enacted and imminent international content moderation regulations around the world.
Lastly, Ryan helps his clients stop child and victim exploitation online. He works with clients on reporting as required to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, complying with emerging child safety regulations, and analyzing complex related legal issues. This dovetails with Ryan's pro bono practice, where he represents survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in privacy-related matters.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., cum laude, Senior Articles Editor, Georgetown Journal of International Law, 2008
- Georgetown University, B.S., Foreign Service, 2003
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Related Employment
- Perkins Coie LLP, Internet Law Fellowship, 2008
- Professor Andrew Schoenholtz, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., Research Assistant, 2007-2008
- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Summer Associate, 2007
- Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of National Courts, Washington, D.C., Legal Intern, 2007
- District of Columbia Law Students in Court Program, Washington, D.C., Intake Specialist and Investigator, Summer 2006
- Association of Academic Health Centers, Washington, D.C., Program Assistant, 2003-2006
Professional Recognition
Listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers, 2024
Listed in Super Lawyers Magazine, “Rising Stars of Washington Law,” 2014-2021
Impact
Community Involvement
- Court-Appointed Special Advocates for Children, Washington, D.C., Court-Appointed Special Advocate, 2004-2006
- District of Columbia Employment Justice Center, Washington, D.C., Intake Volunteer, 2004
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Privacy & Security
Electronic Surveillance and User Data Disclosure Counseling
Assist communications service providers in developing procedures to comply with lawfully authorized electronic surveillance orders and user data disclosure requests, both domestically and internationally, primarily in accordance with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).
In re Facebook, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successfully moved to quash subpoena, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking the content of social media communications belonging to a deceased user.
In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in defense of consolidated nationwide class actions challenging Google Buzz social networking application for alleged violations of Gmail user privacy. Settlement approved by the court.
Inquiry into Google WiFi Data Collection via Street View
Represented Google before regulatory bodies globally, and in litigation, regarding Google's WiFi data collection via Street View. Successfully obtained closing letter from the Federal Trade Commission, completing its investigation.
Intermarine, LLC v. Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successfully moved to quash federal deposition subpoena issued to Dropbox, obtaining published order holding that providers like Dropbox do not need to make themselves available for testimony every time a subscriber’s records are at issue in a case.
Mobile Application
Represented mobile application in defense of Federal Trade Commission investigation under Section 5 of the FTC Act and simultaneous investigations by various state attorneys general.
Worth Unlimited, LLC v. Reddit, Inc.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County
Successfully defended motion to compel production of the identity of an anonymous speaker pursuant to domesticated subpoena in connection with out-of-state litigation
Class Action Defense
In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Sprint in putative class actions asserting claims under federal and state privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
In re Starbucks Consumer Litigation
Defended Starbucks in consolidated nationwide consumer protection class actions challenging pricing practices for scooped whole bean coffee purchased in amounts under one pound.
Holt v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Successfully defended Redbox in putative class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Motion to dismiss granted.
Palmer v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defended Sprint in putative class action alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Mehrens/DiSimone v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Defended Redbox in putative class action alleging that collection of certain information at Redbox kiosks violates California's Song-Beverly Act. Obtained a dismissal via a motion to dismiss, and had dismissal affirmed on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Opperman, et al. v. Path Inc., Twitter Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Defending Twitter in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of federal privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and related state torts.
Litigation
Anderson v. The Baseball Club of Seattle d/b/a The Seattle Mariners, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defending challenge to regulation of ticket scalping.
Facebook Inc. v. Jeremy Fisher; Philip Porembski; Ryan Shimeall, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successfully prosecuted and obtained a $360.5 million judgment against Philip Porembski for running a major phishing and spamming attack on Facebook users.
Tech Amicus
Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure
- United States of America v. Luke Wilson
- United States of America v. William J. Miller
- United Sates of America v. Walter E. Ackerman