{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":2839},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Atlanta's John Marshall Law School","value":2830},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Bond University","value":2841},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Bucerius Law School, Germany","value":2898},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"Chicago-Kent College of Law","value":3050},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"College of Law, Guildford, UK","value":2646},{"name":"College of Law, London, UK","value":2647},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"Delhi University","value":3099},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Durham University","value":2708},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University","value":2936},{"name":"ELTE University Budapest","value":2969},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce School of Law","value":2259},{"name":"Free University Berlin","value":2903},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"Fudan University","value":2986},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Guildhall University, London","value":2863},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"Inns of Court School of Law, UK","value":2649},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany","value":2653},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"King Saud University College of Law \u0026 Political Sciences","value":2823},{"name":"King's College London","value":2987},{"name":"King's College, University of London, UK","value":2654},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Leiden University","value":2926},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"Liverpool University, UK","value":2657},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"London School of Economics and Political Science, UK","value":2658},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich","value":3105},{"name":"Lund University","value":3084},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":3047},{"name":"Monash University, Australia","value":2660},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":2715},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Oxford University, UK","value":2669},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queen's University Faculty of Law","value":2801},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":2725},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Sciences Po Paris","value":2925},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Manchester","value":2845},{"name":"The University of Melbourne","value":2836},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2752},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá Colombia","value":2677},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Iberoamericana","value":2915},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"Université Catholique de Louvain, Licencie en Droit","value":3213},{"name":"Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium","value":2679},{"name":"Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne","value":2680},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University College London, UK","value":2760},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Augsburg","value":2779},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of Bonn, Germany","value":2682},{"name":"University of Bristol, UK","value":2761},{"name":"University of Buenos Aires, Argentina","value":2683},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Cambridge, UK","value":2684},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Cape Town, South Africa","value":2854},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Cologne, Germany","value":2885},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of Deusto, Spain","value":2685},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of East London","value":2963},{"name":"University of Exeter, UK","value":2770},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3112},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Hamburg, Germany","value":2688},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois at Chicago School of Law","value":2202},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kent at Canterbury, UK","value":2690},{"name":"University of Kent","value":2849},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Law","value":2954},{"name":"University of Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Lima","value":2859},{"name":"University of London","value":2692},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2739},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":3064},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of New South Wales","value":2871},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Nottingham, England","value":2881},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Otago, New Zealand","value":2694},{"name":"University of Paris II, Pantheon-Assas, France","value":2695},{"name":"University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne","value":3190},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of Sheffield","value":2805},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Sydney, Australia","value":2700},{"name":"University of Tasmania","value":2835},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Tokyo","value":3153},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Turku","value":3083},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Warwick, UK","value":2771},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Western Australia","value":2949},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2755},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wollongong, Australia","value":2873},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"University Toulouse Capitol","value":3109},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"10","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":443994,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6954,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"benjamin-softness","email":"bsoftness@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Softness","nick_name":"Benjamin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","years_held":"2011 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Benjamin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-softness-7b16322/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12616}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Softness{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).{{ FIELD }}Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case{{ FIELD }}Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory).{{ FIELD }}Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.{{ FIELD }}Ben is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company’s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.\nBen was one of Google’s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company’s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\nBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\nBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named “Litigator of the Week” by Global Competition Review and “Legal Lion” by Law360 for his work. Partner Litigator of the Week Global Competition Review, 2019 Legal Lion Law360, 2020 Amherst College  University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia New York Bar Association of San Francisco Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018). Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic. Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win. Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory). Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.","searchable_name":"Benjamin Softness","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448707,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T21:53:47.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:53:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":448692,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2860,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWes Steimle is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Product Liability and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Wes has\u0026nbsp;over 11 years of experience in handing complex cases on behalf of major pharmaceutical, petroleum, chemical, and technology companies. He focuses on the defense of cases involving product liability, premises liability, toxic torts and commercial litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-steimle","email":"wsteimle@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePharmaceutical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of personal injury cases in state and federal courts throughout California which involve claims that plaintiffs sustained degeneration of shoulder joint cartilage (chondrolysis) as a result of the post-operative administration of anesthetic to their shoulder joints.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of claims that an antipsychotic medication causes weight gain, diabetes, and pancreatitis, which are pending in state and federal courts in California.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous product liability actions in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, in which it was alleged to be the successor to a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine. Wes prepared and argued successful pleadings challenges that ultimately led to the statewide dismissal of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eSmartHealth Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of the latex glove product liability cases in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLead Paint Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Cyanamid Company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lead paint public nuisance lawsuit prosecuted by several cities and counties in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eToxic Tort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in product liability claims based upon alleged exposure to benzene.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eUnion Oil Company of California\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of multiple personal injury claims involving alleged exposure to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003eseveral defendants\u003c/strong\u003e in asbestos product liability and premises liability actions throughout California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea network solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of commercial litigation relating to the sales of its products abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003ea major specialty chemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e in commercial litigation pending in federal court in the Central District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eRhodia Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in commercial litigation involving contracts covering the provision of uniforms for its employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnfair Competition/Antitrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a California state action by pharmacies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among manufacturers of brand name drugs in violation of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Laws.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steimle","nick_name":"Wes","clerkships":[],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWes Steimle is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Product Liability and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Wes has\u0026nbsp;over 11 years of experience in handing complex cases on behalf of major pharmaceutical, petroleum, chemical, and technology companies. He focuses on the defense of cases involving product liability, premises liability, toxic torts and commercial litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePharmaceutical\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of personal injury cases in state and federal courts throughout California which involve claims that plaintiffs sustained degeneration of shoulder joint cartilage (chondrolysis) as a result of the post-operative administration of anesthetic to their shoulder joints.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of claims that an antipsychotic medication causes weight gain, diabetes, and pancreatitis, which are pending in state and federal courts in California.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eThe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e in numerous product liability actions in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, in which it was alleged to be the successor to a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine. Wes prepared and argued successful pleadings challenges that ultimately led to the statewide dismissal of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eSmartHealth Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of the latex glove product liability cases in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLead Paint Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Cyanamid Company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lead paint public nuisance lawsuit prosecuted by several cities and counties in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eToxic Tort\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major chemical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in product liability claims based upon alleged exposure to benzene.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eUnion Oil Company of California\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of multiple personal injury claims involving alleged exposure to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003eseveral defendants\u003c/strong\u003e in asbestos product liability and premises liability actions throughout California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea network solutions provider\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of commercial litigation relating to the sales of its products abroad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003ea major specialty chemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e in commercial litigation pending in federal court in the Central District of California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented \u003cstrong\u003eRhodia Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in commercial litigation involving contracts covering the provision of uniforms for its employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnfair Competition/Antitrust\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents \u003cstrong\u003ea major pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a California state action by pharmacies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among manufacturers of brand name drugs in violation of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Laws.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1202}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-28T21:51:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-28T21:51:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Steimle{{ FIELD }}Pharmaceutical\nRepresents a major pharmaceutical company in the defense of personal injury cases in state and federal courts throughout California which involve claims that plaintiffs sustained degeneration of shoulder joint cartilage (chondrolysis) as a result of the post-operative administration of anesthetic to their shoulder joints.{{ FIELD }}Represents a major pharmaceutical company in the defense of claims that an antipsychotic medication causes weight gain, diabetes, and pancreatitis, which are pending in state and federal courts in California. {{ FIELD }}Successfully defended The Dow Chemical Company in numerous product liability actions in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, in which it was alleged to be the successor to a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine. Wes prepared and argued successful pleadings challenges that ultimately led to the statewide dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented SmartHealth Inc. in the defense of the latex glove product liability cases in California.{{ FIELD }}Lead Paint Litigation\nRepresents American Cyanamid Company in a lead paint public nuisance lawsuit prosecuted by several cities and counties in California.{{ FIELD }}Toxic Tort\nRepresents a major chemical manufacturer in product liability claims based upon alleged exposure to benzene.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Union Oil Company of California in defense of multiple personal injury claims involving alleged exposure to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). {{ FIELD }}Represents several defendants in asbestos product liability and premises liability actions throughout California.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation\nRepresents a network solutions provider in defense of commercial litigation relating to the sales of its products abroad.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a major specialty chemicals company in commercial litigation pending in federal court in the Central District of California.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Rhodia Inc. in commercial litigation involving contracts covering the provision of uniforms for its employees.{{ FIELD }}Unfair Competition/Antitrust\nRepresents a major pharmaceutical company in a California state action by pharmacies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among manufacturers of brand name drugs in violation of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Laws.{{ FIELD }}Wes Steimle is counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Product Liability and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices.\nWes has over 11 years of experience in handing complex cases on behalf of major pharmaceutical, petroleum, chemical, and technology companies. He focuses on the defense of cases involving product liability, premises liability, toxic torts and commercial litigation. Counsel University of California-Santa Barbara  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California State Bar of California Pharmaceutical\nRepresents a major pharmaceutical company in the defense of personal injury cases in state and federal courts throughout California which involve claims that plaintiffs sustained degeneration of shoulder joint cartilage (chondrolysis) as a result of the post-operative administration of anesthetic to their shoulder joints. Represents a major pharmaceutical company in the defense of claims that an antipsychotic medication causes weight gain, diabetes, and pancreatitis, which are pending in state and federal courts in California.  Successfully defended The Dow Chemical Company in numerous product liability actions in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Orange Counties, in which it was alleged to be the successor to a manufacturer of the Salk polio vaccine. Wes prepared and argued successful pleadings challenges that ultimately led to the statewide dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. Successfully represented SmartHealth Inc. in the defense of the latex glove product liability cases in California. Lead Paint Litigation\nRepresents American Cyanamid Company in a lead paint public nuisance lawsuit prosecuted by several cities and counties in California. Toxic Tort\nRepresents a major chemical manufacturer in product liability claims based upon alleged exposure to benzene. Successfully represented Union Oil Company of California in defense of multiple personal injury claims involving alleged exposure to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).  Represents several defendants in asbestos product liability and premises liability actions throughout California. Commercial Litigation\nRepresents a network solutions provider in defense of commercial litigation relating to the sales of its products abroad. Successfully represented a major specialty chemicals company in commercial litigation pending in federal court in the Central District of California. Successfully represented Rhodia Inc. in commercial litigation involving contracts covering the provision of uniforms for its employees. Unfair Competition/Antitrust\nRepresents a major pharmaceutical company in a California state action by pharmacies alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among manufacturers of brand name drugs in violation of the Cartwright Act and California's Unfair Competition Laws.","searchable_name":"William E. Steimle (Wes)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442997,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6044,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHunter\u0026nbsp;Southall is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's\u0026nbsp;Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Her\u0026nbsp;practice focuses on employment law, benefits and compensation, corporate compliance, data privacy, and workplace investigations. Hunter's\u0026nbsp;experiences include representing clients in congressional investigations, discrimination lawsuits, and conducting comprehensive legal surveys on privacy rights.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter received her law degree from Harvard Law School, where she served on the Student Funding Board and was a member of the Labor and Employment Lab. Hunter also contributed to the Lab\u0026rsquo;s blog. Prior law school, she gained practical experience as a judicial intern at the Superior Court in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"hunter-southall","email":"hsouthall@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Southall","nick_name":"Hunter Nia","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Hunter","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2023-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHunter\u0026nbsp;Southall is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's\u0026nbsp;Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Her\u0026nbsp;practice focuses on employment law, benefits and compensation, corporate compliance, data privacy, and workplace investigations. Hunter's\u0026nbsp;experiences include representing clients in congressional investigations, discrimination lawsuits, and conducting comprehensive legal surveys on privacy rights.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHunter received her law degree from Harvard Law School, where she served on the Student Funding Board and was a member of the Labor and Employment Lab. Hunter also contributed to the Lab\u0026rsquo;s blog. Prior law school, she gained practical experience as a judicial intern at the Superior Court in Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13168}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-17T22:21:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T22:21:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Southall{{ FIELD }}Hunter Southall is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Her practice focuses on employment law, benefits and compensation, corporate compliance, data privacy, and workplace investigations. Hunter's experiences include representing clients in congressional investigations, discrimination lawsuits, and conducting comprehensive legal surveys on privacy rights.\nHunter received her law degree from Harvard Law School, where she served on the Student Funding Board and was a member of the Labor and Employment Lab. Hunter also contributed to the Lab’s blog. Prior law school, she gained practical experience as a judicial intern at the Superior Court in Delaware.\n  Associate University of Delaware  Harvard University Harvard Law School California","searchable_name":"Hunter Southall (Hunter Nia)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}