Attorney Position with Snap


Attorney Position with Snap

We’re looking for an Associate General Counsel – Product to join Team Spectacles! We are looking for someone to lead the legal work of the Spectacles team, delving deep into the engineering, design, hardware, logistics, and commerce spaces to guide the development and launch of Spectacles into new markets. We’re looking for someone who is collaborative, quick, creative, and can easily spot problems before they arise. You’ll be asked to review design concepts, flag legal issues, and loop in the right colleagues to assess them.

Your ability to connect the dots across legal disciplines will be critical, as you’ll help the Spectacles team understand technologies that didn’t exist yesterday, and determine how they might be regulated tomorrow. Working from our Venice, CA headquarters, your work will play a critical role in determining what the Spectacles team at Snap Inc. will look like one, three, and five years into the future.

What You’ll Do: 

  • Work closely with the Engineering, Product, Design, Marketing, and Content teams to understand and assess new products and technologies, from early development stages through launch

  • Analyze potential legal risks and regulatory requirements applicable to new products and technologies

  • Work with legal colleagues to ensure regulatory compliance, including those related to hardware, import/export, international requirements, etc.

  • Help scale the Legal team and develop innovative processes to support the Engineering, Product, and Design teams

What we’re looking for:

  • J.D. with excellent academic credentials

  • Experience in scaling consumer hardware products, factory operations, and customer service

  • Membership in at least one state bar

  • 10+ years of experience practicing law (in-house experience required)

  • Experience across a range of legal disciplines related to hardware (IP, regulatory, marketing, e-commerce, retail, privacy) preferred

  • A quick study who is comfortable mastering new areas of law and tech

  • Excellent legal and business judgment, as well as strategic thinking and drafting skills

  • Ability to communicate effectively with stakeholders across the company on complex, multifaceted issues

  • A detail-oriented, business-friendly team player with the ability to think creatively and accommodate tight deadlines

  • Someone with a strong work ethic and the ability to work independently

  • Someone who doesn’t take themselves too seriously 🙂

Google, Facebook Face Tighter EU Grip With New Privacy Law

Google, Facebook Face Tighter EU Grip With New Privacy Law

Google, Facebook Inc. and other Internet companies will be covered by strict new European Union privacy rules that seek to limit access to consumers’ data.

The EU proposed in a draft law unveiled in Brussels Tuesday giving online users more control of their settings and limiting the “overload of consent requests” for cookies people encounter when browsing the web. The rules would extend the EU’s ePrivacy law beyond telecommunications operators to include “new providers of electronic communications services, such as WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Gmail, iMessage, or Viber,” the regulator said…

Techdirt’s First Amendment Fight For Its Life


Techdirt’s First Amendment Fight For Its Life

As you may have heard, last week we were sued for $15 million by Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. We have written, at great length, about his claims and our opinion — backed up by detailed and thorough evidence — that email existed long before Ayyadurai created any software. We believe the legal claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we intend to fight them and to win…

New Ethics Opinion on Attorney Blogging

Here is the latest ethical opinion from the CA Bar on attorney blogging.

Formal Opinion No. 2016-196 (re Attorney Blogging)

‘Hacking’ Service of Process: Using Social Media to Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice of Process


Angela Upchurch

‘Hacking’ Service of Process: Using Social Media to Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice of Process


On a fundamental level, the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires that a defendant be provided with adequate notice of any proceeding to be accorded finality. Since the Supreme Court announced the modern standard for determining the constitutionality of notice in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Co., there have been many opportunities for courts to determine whether newly conceived methods of service of process are constitutionally sufficient. Entirely new means of communication have been created and put into widespread use. As people have changed the way they interact with each other and how they receive information, service methods once perceived to be effective ways to communicate notice seem less so.

As our society has changed, we have witnessed revised application of the principles of due process to court procedures. For example, personal jurisdiction changed from a highly formalistic inquiry, focused on whether a defendant was located within the territorial authority of a state, to a more pragmatic inquiry focused on fairness and due process rights. Similar to the evolution of the personal jurisdiction standard, the notice requirement has been stretched since the time of Mullane as new communication tools such as television, telex, and fax became available. What makes the current environment unique is the speed at which human communication is changing. Never before has communication changed so quickly and in a way accessible to the general public. Television and fax, while revolutionary in the way they permitted people to send and access information, were largely tools that few people had the ability to harness for purposes of notice. Social media, by contrast, is a free medium, and the user can both receive and send information. Additionally, when coupled with the advancement of inexpensive mobile devices and ready access to the internet, individuals can access social media tools wherever they go. The widespread accessibility of these new technologies has radically altered the way in which people send and receive information.

Plaintiffs have long advocated for more efficient means of service of process when a defendant attempts to evade service or when service of process through in-hand personal service would be too expensive or impractical. While in-hand personal service will remain the gold standard service of process method, social media provides new avenues for achieving constitutionally sufficient notice. As such, service rules should be adopted that provide plaintiffs with a default option of service via social media while ensuring defendants’ constitutional rights are adequately protected. Additionally, service rules should be adopted that permit the court to order service via social media after considering the individual circumstances of the case. Finally, service rules should be adopted that facilitate securing the defendant’s consent to service via social media. This article explores the principles underlying the notice requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. Against this backdrop, this article examines the unique challenges presented by service via social media. This article proposes several legislative options that permit service of process on individual defendants via social media, while upholding the principles of due process and ensuring constitutional notice is provided to the defendant. Ultimately, social media provides an efficient “legal hack” because, for some defendants, it is more likely to provide notice than other, more traditional, methods of service.


Making News: Balancing Newsworthiness and Privacy in the Age of Algorithms

Erin C. Carroll


Making News: Balancing Newsworthiness and Privacy in the Age of Algorithms


In deciding privacy lawsuits against media defendants, courts have for decades deferred to the media. They have given it wide berth to determine what is newsworthy and so, what is protected under the First Amendment. And in doing so, they have often spoken reverently of the editorial process and journalistic decision-making.

Yet, in just the last several years, news production and consumption has changed dramatically. As we get more of our news from digital and social media sites, the role of information gatekeeper is shifting from journalists to computer engineers, programmers, and app designers. The algorithms that the latter write and that underlie Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other platforms are not only influencing what we read but are prompting journalists to approach their craft differently.

While the Restatement (Second) of Torts says that a glance at any morning newspaper can confirm what qualifies as newsworthy, this article argues that the modern-day corollary (which might involve a glance at a Facebook News Feed) is not true. If we want to meaningfully balance privacy and First Amendment rights, then courts should not be so quick to defer to the press in privacy tort cases, especially given that courts’ assumptions about how the press makes newsworthiness decisions may no longer be accurate. This article offers several suggestions for making better-reasoned decisions in privacy cases against the press.


Merry Christmas: Kamala Harris Files Brand New Criminal Charges Against Backpage Execs After Last Ones Were Tossed Out


Techdirt: Merry Christmas: Kamala Harris Files Brand New Criminal Charges Against Backpage Execs After Last Ones Were Tossed Out

Never let it be said that Kamala Harris gives up after being told her totally bogus legal crusade is totally bogus. She’s now filed brand new charges against the execs who run — despite having the very same lawsuit thrown out a few weeks ago.


Blog Stats

  • 5,006 hits
Follow LawandSocialMedia on

Criminal Law