John R. Tyler
Randy counsels the world’s largest online platforms on privacy and human rights issues arising from government and third-party access to people’s electronic data.
Randy Tyler represents online platforms, communications providers, and other technology companies on issues related to digital search, seizure, and disclosure demands from around the world. These matters range from domestic and cross-border government demands for communications data in criminal investigations, to private parties seeking records in civil cases, to intergovernmental agencies investigating atrocity crimes.
Randy’s experience includes statutory issues involving the Stored Communications Act, Wiretap Act, Pen Register Trap and Trace Act, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, All Writs Act, California Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and related state and local laws. He also counsels on cross-border digital evidence, including advising clients on issues arising from bilateral and multilateral international instruments, such as the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention), and other mechanisms used by governments and litigants to obtain evidence from a platform in one country for use in another.
Randy has litigated numerous cases on novel issues related to cross-border demands and provides guidance on search, seizure, and data removal. He has helped companies of all sizes develop policies and procedures to lawfully respond to these demands in a manner consistent with human rights standards.
Addressing Constitutional concerns in his practice, Randy has particular knowledge of those related to the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraints, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments’ right to due process, the Sixth Amendment’s right to compulsory process, and related civil and criminal procedure rules. He helps clients protect free speech rights, including litigating or negotiating matters involving attempts to unmask anonymous online speakers.
In addition to litigation, Randy helps communications providers develop and implement compliance programs to handle law enforcement and third-party requests for user data and offers product-counsel advice on federal and state privacy law compliance. He assists in creating and maintaining physical security policies, including access to premises, search and seizure, and physical threats.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, J.D., cum laude, 2009
- Monmouth University, M.A., Corporate & Public Communication, 2005
- Monmouth University, B.A., English & Communication, cum laude, Dean's List, 2001
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Related Employment
- American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, Seattle, WA, Legal Fellow, 2009-2010
- University of Pennsylvania Transnational Legal Clinic, Philadelphia, PA, Law Student Counselor, 2009
- New Jersey Office for The Public Defender, Camden, NJ, Summer Intern, 2007
Professional Recognition
Listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers, 2024
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Digital Search, Seizure and Disclosure
In re Search of Google Email Accounts
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Moved to amend and unseal a federal search warrant to Google, resulting in a published opinion holding that Google has a right to move to quash or amend a search warrant; that the government cannot force a provider to conduct an evidentiary review of user emails; and that the First Amendment required the court to unseal its opinion.
Facebook, Inc., et al., v. Superior Court (Hunter)
State Superior Court of California
Represent Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in opposing a criminal defense subpoena that seeks to compel disclosure of communications contents associated a victim of and witness to a crime. Successfully obtained opinion from Court of Appeal, 240 Cal. App. 4th 203, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443, 450 (2015), upholding the constitutionality of the SCA’s prohibition on disclosure, and directing the trial court to quash the subpoena. Currently pending before the California Supreme Court.
In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google, Nos. 16-960-M-01, 16-1061
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.
Matter of Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-mc-80263
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.
In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [Redacted]@gmail.com That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, Inc., No. 17-mj-757 (GMH)
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.
In re: Two email accounts stored at Google, Inc., No. 17-M-1235
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.
Intermarine, LLC v. Spliethoff Bevrachtingskantoor
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
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.
Facebook Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) Compliance Program
Counseling and litigation related to subpoenas, court orders, warrants and other requests for user information subject to the ECPA, Stored Communications Act and other federal and state statutes.
First Amendment and Free Speech
Worth Unlimited, LLC v. Reddit, Inc.
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County
Defended motion to compel production of the identity of an anonymous speaker pursuant to domesticated subpoena in connection with out-of-state litigation.
Sarkar v. Doe
Court of Appeals of Michigan
Represented Google and Twitter as amici curiae arguing that the First Amendment requires a litigant that seeks to unmask an anonymous online speaker for purposes of filing a defamation claim to first make an evidentiary showing in support of the claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed that the First Amendment barred disclosure of the anonymous speaker’s identity.
United States v. Apel
U.S. Supreme Court
Represented amicus curiae Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in First Amendment case.
Commercial Litigation and Regulatory Investigations
In the Matter of Google Inc.
Federal Trade Commission
Successfully represented Google before the Federal Trade Commission in defense of FTC complaint regarding launch of Buzz social networking application and Gmail user privacy. The resulting consent decree was the first FTC privacy and EU Safe Harbor settlement. Assisted the company in implementation of the privacy program described in the consent decree.
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.
Mobile Advertising Network
Federal Trade Commission
Represented mobile advertising network in defense of Federal Trade Commission investigation under Section 5 of the FTC Act and COPPA. Investigation closed.
Online Advertising Platform Company
Federal Trade Commission
Represented online advertising platform company in defense of Federal Trade Commission investigation under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Investigation closed.
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.
Rudgayzer v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Google in defense of purported class action challenging settlement of In re Google Buzz Privacy Litigation, and alleging violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in connection with the launch of Google Buzz social networking application. Obtained dismissal of all claims.
ICF Technology, Inc. v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Successfully represented Google in defense of complaint seeking to force Google to change its Search results. The complaint alleged tortious interference, defamation, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Obtained denial of motion for temporary restraining order, after which the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.