Rosemarie T. Ring

Ring represents the nation’s most influential technology and entertainment companies, including Facebook Inc., LinkedIn, The Walt Disney Co. and ESPN in litigation and government investigations involving a variety of products and services.

The Munger partner has long defended Facebook in numerous matters. “Any big company is a big target for litigation,” she said. “I focus on consumer class actions, and they are very common.”

So far she is not involved in lawsuits newly filed by users and investors over the disclosure of Facebook user data to political research firm Cambridge Analytica.

Ring is currently lead counsel in three such cases for Facebook focused on claims that its advertising platform is discriminatory. The most recent was filed earlier this year in the Southern District of New York by the National Fair Housing Alliance over claims that advertisers use Facebook’s platform to discriminate against users, asserting various theories of liability under the Fair Housing Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. National Fair Housing Alliance v. Facebook Inc., 18-cv-02689 (S.D. N.Y., filed March 27, 2018).

In the Northern District, she represents Facebook in a nationwide class action challenging ads for housing, employment and credit that allegedly discriminate against users on the basis of race and ethnicity in violation of state and federal laws, including Title VII, the Fair Housing Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Ring and her team moved to dismiss the case in April 2017, arguing that Facebook is immune from liability under the federal Communications Decency Act. The case remains pending before U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila of San Jose. Mobley v. Facebook Inc., 16-cv-06440 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2016).

In San Mateo County, she is lead for the defense in a class action challenging Facebook’s Ad Platform brought by a California class. These plaintiffs do not limit their claims to housing, employment and credit ads or to alleged targets such as race and ethnicity. Instead, they assert that targeting any ad type based on any protected class violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Ring has demurred to the complaint, again citing the Communications Decency Act. Riddick v. Facebook Inc., 16-cv-02526 (San Mateo Super. Ct., filed Nov. 23, 2016).

“Facebook is not placing these ads,” Ring said, outlining her defense approach. “As a publisher, it is not liable for the acts of third parties. The case in New York has just been filed, but the 9th Circuit has supported treating platforms as not responsible for content posted on it.”

— John Roemer