Ryan Spear
Clients turn to Ryan for litigation experience and strategic counseling on cutting-edge privacy, security, and artificial intelligence issues.
The world's most innovative companies engage Ryan Spear to represent them in complex class-action cases involving biometric privacy, including cases arising under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). He has achieved notable victories and favorable settlements for clients in several significant BIPA matters across the country. Ryan also has extensive experience litigating individual and class-action cases arising under other privacy and data security laws, including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
In addition to his litigation practice, Ryan counsels clients on the complex patchwork of federal, state, and local laws governing privacy, security, and artificial intelligence, including Section 5 of the FTC Act; the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA); other consumer privacy laws; and emerging laws and regulations focused on artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automated decision making.
Ryan also has more than a decade of experience counseling clients on content moderation issues and has represented some of the world's foremost companies in high-profile cases involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment.
Ryan was previously a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel, a bipartisan organization created by Congress to oversee the U.S. Department of the Treasury's response to the 2008 financial crisis. He also served as a law clerk to the Hon. Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Prior to attending law school, Ryan worked in social services, with a focus on affordable housing and refugee rights.
Education & Credentials
Education
- Harvard Law School, J.D., Editor, Harvard Law Review, 2007
- University of Washington, B.A., English, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1997
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- 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 Northern District of Illinois
Related Employment
- Congressional Oversight Panel, Washington, D.C., Legislative Fellow, 2009
- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, Summer Associate, 2006
- Counterterrorism Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Clinical Intern, Fall 2005
Clerkships
- Hon. Paul Friedman, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Professional Recognition
Listed in Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Cyber Lawyers, 2024
Listed as a "Washington Rising Star" by Super Lawyers Magazine, 2017-2018
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Privacy and Data Security Litigation
Defense of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. In Multiple Putative Class Actions Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Lead litigation counsel for Amazon and Amazon Web Services in multiple putative class actions alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with various products and services, including the Rekognition software service.
Defense of Google, Inc. In Multiple Putative Class Actions Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Circuit Court of Illinois, Cook County
Circuit Court of Illinois, Will County
Litigation counsel for 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.
Archer-Hayes v. ToyTalk, Inc., et al.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
State Superior Court of California
Defended ToyTalk, Inc. (now PullString, Inc.) and Mattel, Inc., in a purported nationwide class action asserting claims for unfair competition, negligence, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) based on allegations that Hello Barbie violated the Children’s Online Protection Privacy Act (COPPA). Following ToyTalk and Mattel’s removal of case to federal court and filing of motions to dismiss and to compel arbitration, the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
Rudgayzer v. Google Inc., Amalfitano v. Google Inc.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Represented Google in defense of purported class action challenging previous class-action settlement and alleging claims under the Stored Communications Act (SCA) in connection with the launch of Google Buzz social networking application. Obtained order transferring case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and successfully defended that order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After case was transferred, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court recently denied plaintiff’s petition for certiorari.
Facebook Inc. v. Banana Ads, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Facebook in a lawsuit against more than 20 defendants who registered and used domain names incorporating Facebook’s trademarks or deliberate misspellings of Facebook’s trademarks (cybersquatting or typosquatting). Obtained default judgments awarding statutory damages of $2.8 million and requiring transfer of dozens of infringing domain names to Facebook.
Communications Decency Act and Free Speech Litigation
La'Tiejira v. Facebook, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Represented Facebook in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff alleged various claims based on user-generated content and, in addition, sought a declaration that the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is unconstitutional. Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, under the CDA and the Texas Citizens Participation Act (Texas anti-SLAPP statute). Also obtained order awarding attorneys’ fees to Facebook.
Caraccioli v. Facebook, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Facebook in a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, unfair competition, and various torts based on user-generated content. Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice, under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and Facebook’s terms of service. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in its entirety. The Supreme Court recently denied plaintiff’s petition for certiorari.
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.