California Technology Litigation Lawyer: CIPA Defense (2026 Wiretapping Rulings) in San Diego

California Technology Litigation Lawyer handling CIPA wiretapping claims, data breaches, trade secrets, and AI disputes. San Diego tech companies: protect your innovations under 2026 laws. Free consultation.

“Key Takeaways”

CIPA Wiretapping Defense: 2025-2026 rulings in Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr. and Torres v. Prudential hold that session replay software does not violate CIPA’s “in transit” requirement, creating powerful defenses .
Rule 11 Sanctions Available: In Mitchener v. Talkspace (Jan. 2026), the court sanctioned plaintiffs for unfounded privacy allegations—defendants can recover fees .
Standing for Pen Register Claims: Under Popa v. Microsoft and Khamooshi v. Politico (2025), collection of device fingerprints alone lacks Article III standing .
Data Breach Liability: Hartman v. Wisner Baum (2026) shows negligence, implied contract, and UCL claims remain viable for breach victims .
AI and Crypto Disputes: Technology litigation now encompasses deepfakes, smart contract exploits, and AI safety—with novel legal strategies emerging .

Full Pillar Page: California Technology Litigation—Your Strategic Roadmap to Protecting Innovation in San Diego

The Technology Litigation Landscape: Beyond Intellectual Property

When your technology company faces a lawsuit—a website wiretapping class action, a trade secret misappropriation claim, a data breach class action, or a dispute over AI training data—you need counsel who understands both the technology and the rapidly evolving legal frameworks governing it. At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp., we navigate the intersection of emerging technology, California’s unique privacy statutes, and federal court procedure to protect your innovations and your bottom line.

San Diego’s Technology Litigation Ecosystem

San Diego has emerged as a significant hub for technology-related disputes, with a robust ecosystem of technology companies, patent attorneys, and complex litigation specialists . The region is home to:

Biotechnology and life sciences companies
Software and SaaS platforms
Telecommunications and semiconductor firms
Defense and aerospace contractors
Clean technology innovators

Technology litigation in San Diego often proceeds in the Southern District of California or San Diego Superior Court, with complex cases sometimes designated for Department 72 or other complex litigation departments .

The CIPA Wiretapping Litigation Crisis: 2025-2026 Developments

What is CIPA and Why Does It Matter?

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), codified at Penal Code §§ 630-638, was enacted in 1967 to protect against eavesdropping and wiretapping. In recent years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have repurposed this statute to sue companies over their use of:

Website pixels (Meta, TikTok, Google Analytics)
Session replay software (recording user interactions)
Chatbot integrations
Third-party tracking tools

Hundreds of class actions have been filed, alleging that these technologies violate CIPA’s prohibition on eavesdropping without consent .

The 2025-2026 Defensive Wins Reshaping CIPA Litigation

1. Doe v. Eating Recovery Center, LLC (October 2025)

In Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr., LLC, –F. Supp. 3d–, 2025 WL 2971090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2025), a California federal court granted summary judgment for the defendant on a CIPA § 631(a) wiretapping claim . The court held:

Plaintiffs failed to “satisfy [CIPA’s] ‘in transit’ requirement as a matter of law” because session replay data does not become readable until after storage and reassembly.

Critically, the court called upon the California Legislature to “step up” and “speak clearly” about whether and how CIPA applies to website-based data collection tools, describing the statute as “a total mess” and “ill-suited for application to internet communications” .

2. Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc. (April 2025)

In Torres v. Prudential Financial, Inc., 2025 WL 1135088 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025), the court granted summary judgment on similar grounds :

“Events recorded by session replay software do not become readable content until after they are stored and reassembled into a session replay.” Therefore, a defendant cannot “read” (or attempt to read) session replay data “in transit,” as CIPA requires.

3. Khamooshi v. Politico LLC (October 2025)

In Khamooshi v. Politico LLC, 2025 WL 2822879 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2025), the court applied the Ninth Circuit’s Popa v. Microsoft decision to dismiss a CIPA “pen register” claim under § 638.51 for lack of Article III standing :

“As in Popa,” plaintiffs who alleged collection of device type, browser type, and “device fingerprints” “identifie[d] no embarrassing, invasive, or otherwise private information collected.”

4. Saedi v. Clearblue (February 2025)

In Saedi v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostics d/b/a Clearblue, 2025 WL 1141168 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2025), the court dismissed on multiple grounds a pixel wiretapping suit against a health-related website .

5. Washington v. Flixbus, Inc. (June 2025)

In Washington v. Flixbus, Inc., 2025 WL 1592961 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2025), the court held that user consent provided during a checkout process, even with a 10-minute timer, bars CIPA claims. The court rejected the argument that a countdown timer “imposes undue pressure that negates any consent” .

Strategic Implications for Technology Companies

Ruling	Defense Strategy
Doe and Torres	Move for summary judgment on “in transit” requirement for session replay data
Khamooshi	Challenge standing for pen register claims based on device fingerprints alone
Flixbus	Document user consent during checkout and sign-up processes
Saedi	Challenge pleading sufficiency at motion to dismiss stage

Our Strategy: At Leeran S. Barzilai, we begin every CIPA defense by analyzing the specific technology at issue—is it session replay? A pixel? A chatbot?—and map it against the 2025-2026 case law. We then develop a motion strategy targeting standing, statutory elements, and consent.

Rule 11 Sanctions: The Mitchener v. Talkspace Bombshell

On January 7, 2026, in Mitchener v. Talkspace Network LLC, No. 2:24-CV-07067-JAK (BFMX), 2026 WL 84466 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2026), the court issued a sanctions order admonishing plaintiffs’ lawyers for “advancing unfounded and irrelevant allegations” about a business’s sharing of “health information” .

Key Holding: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) requires plaintiffs’ lawyers to ensure that “factual contentions” in a complaint “have evidentiary support.” When they fail to do so, sanctions are appropriate.

Strategic Opportunity: For technology companies facing baseless privacy lawsuits, this ruling provides a roadmap to recover fees and deter future meritless claims. We evaluate every complaint for Rule 11 violations and consider sanctions motions where appropriate.

Data Breach Litigation: The Hartman v. Wisner Baum Framework

Case Overview

On January 30, 2026, Donna Hartman filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Wisner Baum LLP in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the law firm failed to protect sensitive personal and medical information compromised in an October 2025 data breach .

Key Allegations:

Unauthorized third party infiltrated the firm’s computer network around October 8 or 9, 2025
Exposed PII included names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, bank account details, and medical information
Firm failed to implement reasonable security measures consistent with industry standards
Notification letter dated January 23, 2026—more than three months after discovery
Victims face “substantially increased risk of fraud, identity theft and misuse”
Anxiety and emotional distress from loss of privacy

Legal Claims:

Negligence
Breach of implied contract
Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

Remedies Sought:

Damages
Restitution
Injunctive relief to compel improved data security practices

Strategic Takeaways for Technology Companies

Lesson	Application
Timely notification critical	Three-month delay was a key allegation—notify affected individuals promptly
Security measures must be reasonable	Failure to implement encryption and follow FTC/HIPAA guidelines alleged
Multiple legal theories available	Negligence, implied contract, and UCL all remain viable
Injunctive relief is a real threat	Courts may order ongoing security improvements

CCPA Private Right of Action

The California Consumer Privacy Act provides a private right of action for data breaches involving specified categories of personal information :

Social Security numbers
Driver’s license numbers
Financial account credentials
Medical information
Health insurance information

Damages range from $100 to $750 per consumer per incident or actual damages, whichever greater.

Trade Secret and IP Litigation in Technology

The Cybersecurity and Trade Secrets Intersection

Technology litigation increasingly involves trade secret misappropriation through cyber intrusion. Michael Burshteyn of Greenberg Traurig has handled multiple “existential competitive” and “cybercrime” disputes, including:

Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction proceedings involving computer hacking, crypto, and AI
Recovery of $200 million+ in stolen assets through international coordination
Development and execution of global enforcement takedown campaigns involving software theft, trademark and copyright infringement, bots, scams, and fraud

Patent Litigation in Technology

San Diego is home to sophisticated patent litigation, particularly in:

Semiconductor and memory technologies
Telecommunications and standards-based issues
Medical devices
Software and business methods

Mike Rueckheim, a patent litigator who joined King & Spalding in March 2026, handles patent matters from pre-suit investigations through jury trials and PTAB post-grant processes, with a focus on standards-based issues .

AI and Emerging Technology Disputes

The 2025-2026 period has seen an explosion of AI-related litigation:

Deepfakes and AI Safety: Attorneys now counsel clients on “deepfakes, AI safety, data collection, and other AI litigation and regulatory topics” .

Biometric Privacy: Class actions against facial recognition AI companies under biometric privacy statutes are actively litigated, with some achieving voluntary dismissals after motions to dismiss and Rule 11 motions .

Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT): The 2026 CCPA regulations require risk assessments for businesses using ADMT for “significant decisions”—employment, housing, lending, healthcare . These assessments create discoverable documents in subsequent litigation.

Crypto and Blockchain Litigation

The Emerging Crypto Litigation Landscape

California has become a hub for cryptocurrency litigation, with attorneys pioneering novel legal strategies on issues of first impression :

Representative Matters:

Lead counsel in multiple $100 million+ crypto fraud and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act litigations in federal and state courts
Lead counsel in $100 million+ smart contract exploit and market manipulation civil recovery action in SDNY
Represent victim witnesses in related criminal trials
Lead counsel in $30 million+ arbitration involving contract and inducement issues
Recovered $250 million+ in stolen crypto across USA, Latin America, Europe, Middle East, and Asia Pacific
Represent crypto projects in $140 million+ token disputes, defeating anti-SLAPP motions and making new law
Defend crypto organizations in SEC, CFTC, and DOJ inquiries and investigations

Key Legal Issues in Crypto Litigation

Issue	Legal Framework
Smart contract exploits	Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, common law fraud
Token disputes	Securities laws, contract law, anti-SLAPP
Exchange liability	Consumer protection statutes, UCL
Regulatory investigations	SEC, CFTC, DOJ enforcement actions

Class Action Defense in Technology

Consumer Protection Class Actions

Technology companies face class actions under numerous statutes:

Automatic Renewal Law (ARL): California’s ARL requires clear disclosures and easy cancellation. Violations trigger class action exposure .

Wiretapping Statutes: Beyond CIPA, companies face claims under the federal Wiretap Act and other state wiretapping laws. In Goulart v. Cape Cod Healthcare, Inc. (June 2025), the court held that the federal Wiretap Act’s “crime-tort exception” does not apply when data is collected for “commercial purposes or advantages” .

Consumer Protection Statutes: UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims regularly target technology companies’ marketing and business practices.

Product Liability in Technology

Technology products—from blenders to pressure cookers—face product liability class actions. Recent defensive wins include:

Biscovich v. SharkNinja Operating, LLC (2026): Dismissal without leave to amend where plaintiff’s claims were prudentially unripe because defendant had initiated a voluntary CPSC recall and plaintiff never participated .
Zamani v. SharkNinja Operating LLC (2025): Dismissal of all class-related claims at pleading stage .
Mendoza v. SharkNinja Operating LLC (2025): Exclusion of plaintiff’s engineering expert and summary judgment after Rule 702 analysis .

The 2026 Privacy Regulatory Landscape

Cybersecurity Audit Requirements

Businesses whose processing poses “significant risk” to consumer security must conduct cybersecurity audits :

Revenue Threshold	First Submission Deadline
> $100 million	April 1, 2028
$50-100 million	April 1, 2029
< $50 million	April 1, 2030

ADMT Risk Assessment Requirements

Beginning January 1, 2026, businesses using automated decision-making technology for “significant decisions” (employment, housing, lending, healthcare) must conduct formal risk assessments . These assessments must weigh benefits against potential harms, including unlawful discrimination and psychological impacts.

For technology litigation, these assessments become discoverable documents that can establish a business knew its systems posed risks but proceeded anyway.

Data Broker Regulation

Effective August 1, 2026, SB 1106 requires the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish a centralized deletion mechanism allowing consumers, through a single verifiable request, to demand every registered data broker delete all personal information they hold .

Hyper-Local San Diego Procedures for Technology Litigation

We practice in San Diego courts daily. Here’s what you need to know.

Where to File Based on Case Value

Unlimited Civil Cases (over $25,000): Hall of Justice, 330 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Limited Civil Cases ($25,000 and under): Madge Bradley Building, 1409 4th Ave, San Diego, CA 92101
Federal Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101

San Diego Superior Court Local Rules (2026)

The San Diego County Superior Court Rules, effective January 1, 2026, govern all civil proceedings:

Division II – Civil (Revised January 1, 2026):

Case management conference requirements
Motion filing deadlines
Discovery cut-off dates
Expert witness disclosure schedules

Complex Case Designation

Technology litigation involving novel issues, multiple parties, or significant damages may receive complex case designation and assignment to Department 72 or other complex litigation departments. The judges in these departments expect strict adherence to page limits and filing deadlines.

The Civil Case Cover Sheet Requirement

Every complaint must include Judicial Council Form CM-010 (Civil Case Cover Sheet). For technology cases, check the appropriate cause of action box.

Service Deadline: 60 Days (CRC 3.110(b))

Under CRC 3.110(b), you must serve the complaint within 60 days after filing. Failure risks sanctions or dismissal.

The Mandatory E-Filing Requirements

Effective 2026, all attorneys filing civil cases in San Diego Superior Court must submit documents electronically:

Exhibits must be bookmarked: Each exhibit requires a separate PDF bookmark under CRC 3.1110(f)
Metadata must be stripped: Hidden document history must be removed
Redaction required: All but last four digits of SSNs and financial accounts redacted

Evidence Preservation and Litigation Readiness

CIPA/Wiretapping Claims

Documentation of user consent mechanisms
Privacy policies and terms of use at relevant times
Technical specifications of tracking tools
Contracts with third-party vendors
Data flow diagrams

Data Breach Claims

Security policies and procedures
Encryption and access controls documentation
Breach notification timeline
Forensic investigation reports
Communications with affected individuals

Trade Secret Claims

Confidentiality agreements
Access logs and security measures
Documentation of trade secret identification
Evidence of misappropriation
Reverse engineering prohibitions

Class Action Defense

Form contracts and policies
Uniform practices across class members
Existence of arbitration agreements
Class waiver provisions

FAQ Section

Question: What is CIPA and why are so many technology companies being sued under it?

Answer: The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) was enacted in 1967 but has been repurposed to sue companies over website pixels, session replay software, and tracking tools. Plaintiffs allege these technologies violate CIPA’s prohibition on eavesdropping without consent .

Question: What were the key 2025-2026 rulings in CIPA wiretapping cases?

Answer: In Doe v. Eating Recovery Ctr. and Torres v. Prudential, courts held that session replay software does not violate CIPA’s “in transit” requirement. In Khamooshi v. Politico, the court held that collecting device fingerprints alone lacks Article III standing. In Mitchener v. Talkspace, the court sanctioned plaintiffs for unfounded allegations .

Question: Can I recover attorney’s fees if I defeat a baseless privacy lawsuit?

Answer: Yes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, courts can impose sanctions when plaintiffs advance allegations without evidentiary support. The Mitchener v. Talkspace case (January 2026) demonstrates this strategy .

Question: What claims can plaintiffs bring in a data breach lawsuit?

Answer: Common claims include negligence, breach of implied contract, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and the CCPA private right of action (for certain data categories). Hartman v. Wisner Baum (2026) illustrates these theories .

Question: What is the statute of limitations for technology litigation claims in California?

Answer: It varies: CIPA claims generally have a 1-year statute of limitations. Trade secret misappropriation has 3 years from discovery. Breach of written contract has 4 years. UCL claims have 4 years. Always consult an attorney immediately—deadlines are strict.

Question: Are crypto companies subject to federal antitrust lawsuits?

Answer: Yes. Cryptocurrency companies face Sherman Act claims like any other industry. Attorneys are actively litigating crypto fraud, smart contract exploits, and market manipulation cases, recovering hundreds of millions in stolen assets

Question: What are the 2026 CCPA regulations for AI and automated decisions?

Answer: Beginning January 1, 2026, businesses using automated decision-making technology for “significant decisions” (employment, housing, lending, healthcare) must conduct formal risk assessments weighing benefits against potential harms .

Question: What is the “in transit” requirement in CIPA wiretapping claims?

Answer: CIPA § 631(a) requires that a defendant “read” or “attempt to read” content “in transit.” In Torres v. Prudential (2025), the court held that session replay data does not become readable until after storage and reassembly, so it cannot violate this requirement .

Question: Where do I file a technology litigation lawsuit in San Diego?

Answer: File in San Diego Superior Court for state claims or U.S. District Court, Southern District of California for federal claims. Unlimited civil cases (over $25,000) go to the Hall of Justice, 330 W Broadway .

Question: What are the e-filing requirements for technology litigation in San Diego?

Answer: Effective 2026, all attorney filings must be submitted electronically with bookmarked exhibits under CRC 3.1110(f). Metadata must be stripped, and all but last four digits of SSNs and financial accounts must be redacted.

Question: Do you serve clients in languages other than English?

Answer: Yes. Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. provides services in Chinese (普通话) and Hebrew (עברית). Hablamos

Contact Our Office

You cannot afford to face a CIPA wiretapping class action without understanding the 2025-2026 case law, ignore the Rule 11 sanctions available under Mitchener, or mishandle a data breach response in light of Hartman. A single misstep can expose your technology company to millions in liability.

At Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp., we handle technology litigation across all fronts—CIPA defense, data breach response, trade secret protection, and AI/crypto disputes. If your technology company faces a legal challenge in San Diego County, we will evaluate your situation, develop a strategic response based on the latest case law, and take decisive action to protect your innovations.

Call us today for a free consultation. Let’s put California’s technology litigation frameworks to work for you.

Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp.
4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109
(619) 436-7544

服務提供中文 | שירותים זמינים בעברית

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The $103 Million Verdict That Changed Everything: What San Diego Workers Need to Know About Age Discrimination in 2026

March 18, 2026

The $103 Million Verdict That Changed Everything: What San Diego Workers Need to Know About Age Discrimination in 2026 A … Read More Continue Reading
California Wage Theft in 2026: New Minimum Wage, Stronger Laws, and How to Calculate What You’re Owed

March 17, 2026

California Wage Theft in 2026: New Minimum Wage, Stronger Laws, and How to Calculate What You’re Owed California‘s 2026 minimum … Read More Continue Reading
$150 Demand Letter for Licensed California Attorney: Triggering Interest Under § 3287 in San Diego

March 16, 2026

$150 Demand Letter for Licensed California Attorney: Triggering Interest Under § 3287 in San Diego “Key Takeaways” Full Pillar Page $150 Demand … Read More Continue Reading
High-Profile “Wins”: When a Demand Letter Gets Results

March 15, 2026

High-Profile “Wins”: When a Demand Letter Gets Results In California, high-profile cases often involve demand letters that leverage significant legal … Read More Continue Reading
The $100M Bel-Air Mansion That Courts Ordered Demolished: A Land-Use Cautionary Tale

March 14, 2026

San Diego Construction Lawyer on the Hadid Demolition Order When a court orders the demolition of a $100 million mansion, … Read More Continue Reading
What the Kanye West $140K Verdict Teaches Us About California Wage and Injury Claims

March 12, 2026

What the Kanye West $140K Verdict Teaches Us About California Wage and Injury Claims When news broke that a Los … Read More Continue Reading
$2.9M & Other Top San Diego Motor Vehicle Crash Settlements — What Clients Should Know

March 12, 2026

$2.9M & Other Top San Diego Motor Vehicle Crash Settlements — What Clients Should Know Explore a recent $2.9 million … Read More Continue Reading
California Independent Contractor Laws (AB5): How to Legally Classify Your Team Without Breaking the Bank

March 10, 2026

Worried about California independent contractor laws? Learn how to self-audit your team under AB5 and avoid massive EDD fines with … Read More Continue Reading
Illegal Retaliation California: Your Rights When You’re Fired for Speaking Up

March 9, 2026

Were you recently fired after complaining about unsafe conditions, reporting discrimination, or requesting medical leave in California? If so, you … Read More Continue Reading
The $500 Mistake: Why a Generic Online Contract Template Could Bankrupt Your California Startup

March 8, 2026

Avoid costly California startup legal mistakes. Using a generic online contract template can lead to fines, lawsuits, and back wages. … Read More Continue Reading

California Technology Litigation Lawyer Subpages

ENGLISH PAGES (Primary)

1. California Software License Dispute Lawyer

URL: /california-software-license-dispute-lawyer-san-diego

We resolve software license disputes involving breach of licensing agreements, unauthorized use, and royalty calculations, representing both software developers and enterprise users in litigation and arbitration. Our software license practice includes analysis of complex end-user license agreements (EULAs), scope-of-use restrictions, and the unique challenges of software monetization and compliance .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

2. California SaaS Litigation Lawyer

URL: /california-saas-litigation-lawyer-san-diego

We handle disputes arising from Software-as-a-Service agreements, including service level breaches, data migration issues, and termination disputes, representing technology companies and business clients throughout San Diego . Our SaaS litigation practice addresses subscription models, uptime guarantees, and the unique contractual relationships inherent in cloud-based service delivery.

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

3. California Data Breach Litigation Lawyer

URL: /california-data-breach-litigation-lawyer-san-diego

We represent businesses and consumers in data breach litigation, including class actions arising from cybersecurity incidents, under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other privacy statutes . Our data breach practice includes defense of cloud software companies in multidistrict litigation and claims for statutory damages when companies fail to protect sensitive consumer information .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

4. California Website Terms of Service Lawyer

URL: /california-website-terms-service-lawyer-san-diego

We draft, enforce, and challenge website terms of service and browsewrap agreements, litigating disputes over enforceability, forum selection clauses, and user rights under California law. Our terms of service practice includes analysis of clickwrap versus browsewrap agreements, arbitration provisions, and compliance with California’s evolving standards for online contract formation .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

5. California E-Discovery Dispute Lawyer

URL: /california-e-discovery-dispute-lawyer-san-diego

We handle e-discovery disputes involving electronically stored information (ESI), including spoliation claims, search protocol disputes, and sanctions for discovery violations in technology-related litigation. Our e-discovery practice includes advising on data preservation obligations, predictive coding technologies, and the admissibility of digital evidence in San Diego Superior Court and federal court .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

6. California Computer Fraud Litigation Lawyer

URL: /california-computer-fraud-litigation-lawyer-san-diego

We pursue claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and California Penal Code § 502 against employees and competitors who access computer systems without authorization or exceed authorized access to obtain trade secrets and confidential information . Our computer fraud practice includes forensic analysis of access logs, damages calculations for data loss, and claims for injunctive relief in San Diego federal court .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

7. California Biometric Privacy Lawyer

URL: /california-biometric-privacy-lawyer-san-diego

We represent businesses and consumers in biometric privacy disputes, including claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and California’s emerging biometric privacy framework . Our biometric privacy practice includes class action defense for companies using facial recognition, fingerprint scanning, and other biometric technologies, as well as claims against companies that fail to obtain proper consent .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

8. California Social Media Defamation Lawyer

URL: /california-social-media-defamation-lawyer-san-diego

We represent businesses and individuals harmed by defamatory statements on social media platforms, pursuing claims for reputational harm and navigating Section 230 immunity issues . Our social media defamation practice includes anti-SLAPP motion strategy, identification of anonymous speakers, and takedown procedures to mitigate ongoing harm across platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

9. California Artificial Intelligence Litigation Lawyer

URL: /california-artificial-intelligence-litigation-lawyer-san-diego

We handle cutting-edge litigation involving artificial intelligence systems, including copyright disputes over AI training data, algorithmic bias claims, and liability for AI-generated content . Our AI litigation practice places us at the forefront of generative AI legal issues, representing technology companies in putative class actions involving copyright and trade dress claims directed to the training and output of image models and large language models .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

10. California Blockchain Litigation Lawyer

URL: /california-blockchain-litigation-lawyer-san-diego

We represent blockchain and cryptocurrency companies in disputes involving smart contracts, token offerings, and digital asset transactions, addressing the unique legal challenges of decentralized technologies . Our blockchain litigation practice includes advising on the legal and regulatory aspects of developing and commercializing blockchain-based products and services, and representing clients in disputes before state and federal courts .

Contact: Leeran S. Barzilai, A Prof. Law Corp. | (619) 436-7544 | 4501 Mission Bay Dr. #3c, San Diego, CA 92109

中文页面 (CHINESE PAGES)

圣地亚哥技术诉讼中文律师服务

1. 加州软件许可纠纷律师

URL: /chinese-california-software-license-dispute-lawyer-san-diego

我们处理涉及违反许可协议、未经授权使用和版税费用的软件许可纠纷，代表软件开发者和企业用户进行诉讼和仲裁。我们的软件许可实践包括分析复杂的最终用户许可协议（EULA）、使用范围限制以及软件盈利和合规的独特挑战。