Jacob Canter
Overview
Jacob Canter’s practice focuses on privacy, cybersecurity, intellectual property, and artificial intelligence (AI). Leveraging his experience across these areas of law, Jacob helps companies succeed through strategic compliance counseling, negotiations and licensing to support business transactions, and litigation when disputes arise.
Career & Education
- Reed College, B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, 2014
- University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D., 2018
- California
- District of Columbia
Jacob's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Speaking Engagement | 07.29.26
"Privacy & Data Protection for Nonprofits: A Guide to Navigating Privacy Laws," Justice and Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco
Publication | 05.14.26
Blog Post | 05.07.26
Government Contractors, Take Note: Illinois Court Curtails Broad BIPA Exemption
Representative Matters
- Defending legal AI innovator ROSS Intelligence Inc. against copyright and tortious interference allegations involving whether a party may copy judicial opinions. Brought antitrust counterclaims alleging an impermissible tying arrangement, which have survived the pleadings.
- Successfully defended legal technology innovator Proctorio Inc. against federal copyright law claims and allegations that the client violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
- Bringing copyright, federal antitrust, and local competition claims against multinational companies on behalf of Xinuos Inc., a UNIX-based server operating system company.
- Providing ongoing counseling and guidance related to data breach incidents, compliance with federal and state data breach laws, and litigation liability risks attendant to incidents.
Jacob's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Speaking Engagement | 07.29.26
"Privacy & Data Protection for Nonprofits: A Guide to Navigating Privacy Laws," Justice and Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco
Publication | 05.14.26
Blog Post | 05.07.26
Government Contractors, Take Note: Illinois Court Curtails Broad BIPA Exemption
Insights
California Court Of Appeal Expands ALPR Privacy Liability: What Businesses Need To Know
|03.16.26
Daily Journal
Is Section 230 Going To Change? The FTC, DOJ And FCC Signal Significant Change For Online Businesses
|06.26.25
The Computer & Intranet Lawyer
Class Actions: The California Invasion of Privacy Act
|05.14.24
Privacy and Cybersecurity Outlook: The 2024 Landscape
"Privacy & Data Protection for Nonprofits: A Guide to Navigating Privacy Laws," Justice and Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco
|07.29.26
"Catching Fire: The Latest Cyber Law Hot Topics," RSAC 2026
|03.25.26
“Expanding Recovery Streams to Include Insurance,” Twelfth Annual In-House Recovery Conference, Dana Point, CA
|03.05.26
"A Holistic Approach to Securing Energy Infrastructure," Law-Tech Connect Workshop—Energy Edition Webinar, 2023.
|07.11.23
- |
12.23.22
OneTrust DataGuidance
As Young Lawyers Churn Through Jobs, Firms Search For Ways to Fulfill Them
|01.28.22
The American Lawyer
Government Contractors, Take Note: Illinois Court Curtails Broad BIPA Exemption
|05.07.26
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
- |
04.16.26
Crowell & Moring’s State AG Blog
Landmark Verdicts Against Meta and YouTube Signal New Era of Social Media Platform Liability
|04.01.26
Crowell & Moring’s Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
DHS Announces Virtual Town Halls on CIRCIA Final Rule
|02.20.26
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
CMMC for AI? Defense Policy Law Imposes AI Security Framework and Requirements on Contractors
|01.08.26
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
The FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act
|12.29.25
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
- |
10.28.25
Crowell & Moring’s Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
- |
09.23.25
Crowell & Moring’s State AG Blog
- |
08.01.25
Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Legal Forum
Ninth Circuit Affirms that CIPA Only Applies to Third-Party Eavesdropping
|06.27.25
Crowell & Moring’s Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer
Jacob's Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 08.03.26
The Pipe, Not the Posts: How Section 230’s Protections Extend to Generative AI Platforms
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“Section 230”) protects online platforms from liability for user-generated speech. Based on the premise that platforms generally do not create original content but instead curate their users’ own speech, Section 230’s protections have historically applied to a platform’s algorithmically assembled, selected or sequenced content; algorithms or features that amplified or directed user generated speech to particular users were generally protected. Indeed, the old rule of thumb was the more a platform used algorithms or automation, the more likely user generated speech remained user generated speech. GenAI has the potential to change that calculus. A platform that ingests user generated content and publishes a transformed output, can blur Section 230’s line between publication and creation. The central question is whether Section 230 protects GenAI, which analyzes, but does not alter, user-created content to produce an outcome, and its corresponding outputs.
Speaking Engagement | 07.29.26
"Privacy & Data Protection for Nonprofits: A Guide to Navigating Privacy Laws," Justice and Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San Francisco
Publication | 05.14.26
Blog Post | 05.07.26
Government Contractors, Take Note: Illinois Court Curtails Broad BIPA Exemption




