Erin K. Earl
Erin defends companies in high-stakes privacy and security litigation and agency investigations and inquiries.
Erin Earl has substantial experience successfully defending companies against consumer class-actions, including data breach defense; state biometrics law claims including the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA); the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), including the Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act (SCA); state call-recording statutes including the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA); the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); and other privacy claims. Erin also litigates data security incident disputes and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) cases.
In regulatory matters, Erin represents clients in investigations and inquiries from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR). These matters have focused on topics such as security incidents and data breaches, data security and privacy safeguards, and artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML).
Drawing on her litigation and regulatory defense experience, Erin counsels clients on strategies for reducing business and litigation risks, particularly in connection with consumer privacy, child safety, content moderation, and AI/ML and automated decision-making issues. She also advises companies on governmental order compliance and helps them develop and implement internal privacy, data security, and AI/ML policies and governance.
Erin's experience as a software engineer informs her perspective on privacy and security challenges for companies and enables her to communicate effectively with witnesses to understand the relevant technology.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, Supreme Court Co-Chair, Harvard Law Review, 2012
- University of Washington, B.S., Computer Science; B.A., Music; B. Mus., Piano Performance, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 2003
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Clerkships
- Hon. Raymond C. Fisher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Professional Recognition
Recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for Commercial Litigation Law, 2021-2024
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Privacy, Security, and Class Action Defense
In re Google Assistant Privacy Litigation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Representing Google in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that Google violated various federal and state privacy laws, including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the California Constitution, and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), when the Google Assistant—a virtual personal assistant—allegedly recorded plaintiffs’ conversations without consent.
S.A. and P.B. v. University of Washington
Superior Court for the State of Washington, King County
Defend the University of Washington in putative class action arising from an alleged data breach involving the personal information and protected health information of approximately one million patients of UW Medicine. Plaintiffs asserted multiple statutory and common law claims, including for violation of Washington’s Breach Notice Statute, Uniform Health-Care Information Act, AIDS Omnibus Act, and Release of Records for Research Act, as well as for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of express and implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Perkins Coie achieved dismissal of all claims with statutory damages at the pleadings stage, then twice defeated class certification, after which plaintiffs dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice.
Defense of Google LLC in Multiple Putative Class Actions re: BIPA and Google Photos
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Defend 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.
Customer v. Client
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Superior Court for the State of Washington for King County
Defend client in putative data breach class action alleging common law and statutory causes of action arising out of alleged public exposure of personal information.
Prelipceanu v. Jumio
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Defend Jumio in case alleging that Jumio’s facial recognition identity verification service violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Case resolved on terms very favorable to Jumio.
Federal Trade Commission and State Attorneys General Investigations
Internet of Things Manufacturer
Represent manufacturer of Internet of Things devices in Federal Trade Commission data security investigation. Investigation closed.
Technology Company
Represented leading technology company in investigations by the FTC, Congress, state attorneys general, local governmental bodies, and foreign data protection authorities regarding a data security incident and defended the company in litigation filed by state and local government authorities. Negotiated resolution or closure of all matters, including a settlement with 51 state attorneys general.
Device Manufacturer
Represented one of the world’s largest device manufacturers in an investigation by the FTC and a coalition of 32 state attorneys general regarding privacy and data security issues in software installed on consumer devices. Negotiated settlements resolving all claims of both the FTC and the state attorneys general.
False Claims Act Litigation
Wireless Services Qui Tam Litigation
Defend T-Mobile in cases alleging violations of state False Claims Acts in connection with the provision of wireless services to states and political subdivisions.
United States ex rel. Confidential v. Confidential
Defend companies in qui tam lawsuit under the False Claim Act.