Bio

Before starting his own practice in 2015, Greg spent seven years as a litigator at Public Citizen and three years as a partner at the boutique appellate firm Gupta Wessler (then Gupta Beck) in Washington, DC. Greg has litigated cases in the U.S. Supreme Court; the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits; and district courts around the country. Greg has been quoted widely in media including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, U.S. News and World Report, the National Law Journal, Wired Magazine, and National Public Radio’s All Things Considered and On the Media. He has spoken at events hosted by the American Bar Association; the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers; the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, and New York City bars; the National Association of Attorneys General; and others. He also teaches appellate advocacy as an adjunct law professor.

Greg has brought a series of successful First Amendment challenges to state lawyer advertising regulations. Two of these cases, Alexander v. Cahill and Harrell v. The Florida Bar, were featured in a front-page Wall Street Journal article. He frequently consults with lawyers on advertising issues, and has represented them in opposing the adoption of stricter advertising regulations. Greg has also argued for appropriate limitations on the scope of commercial speech doctrine in cases involving the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and data mining.

Greg’s cases often involve complex and cutting-edge questions at the intersection of technology and the law. He argued Vernor v. Autodesk, a leading case testing the boundaries of software copyright, and Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion, a key case on Internet jurisdiction. His understanding of technology issues is enhanced by his experience in the field. Greg previously worked as a computer programmer at Microsoft, paid his way through law school doing contract programming work, and still enjoys coding in his spare time.

Greg served as a law clerk to Judge Michael R. Murphy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and interned for U.S. District Judge Michael McCuskey. He graduated summa cum laude from Northwestern University and was first in his law school class, where he was Articles Editor of the Law Review and received the Outstanding Clinical Student Award for his work at the law school’s Civil Litigation Clinic. During law school, he worked at a legal aid clinic, defending consumers in debt collection and landlord-tenant disputes, and for a health care advocacy group, where he brought attention to the practice of jailing consumers for failing to pay hospital bills—a practice that contributed to the loss of tax-exempt status for some Illinois hospitals.

Greg lives with his wife and son in Maryland, just outside of Washington, DC.

Representative Cases

U.S. Supreme Court

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144 (2017) (Does a state law that prohibits credit-card surcharges but allows cash discounts regulate commercial speech protected by the First Amendment?) (counsel for amicus curiae U.S. PIRG)

Charvat v. First National Bank, 134 S. Ct. 1515 (2014) (Does Congress have the power to create injuries cognizable under Article III?) (co-counsel; drafted successful brief in opposition)

Catsimatides v. Irizarry, 134 S. Ct. 1516 (2014) (Does the Fair Labor Standards Act authorize personal liability for owners or officers of corporate employers?) (co-counsel; drafted successful brief in opposition)

Zinni v. Convergent Outsourcing, 133 S. Ct. 2337 (2013) (Does a defendant’s informal, unaccepted offer to settle a plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collections Practices Act claims deprive a federal district court of jurisdiction to decide those claims, where the defendant has neither tendered the offered settlement amount nor agreed to entry of an enforceable judgment?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012) (Does the Little Tucker Act waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity for claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act?) (briefed at merits and certiorari stages)

Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, 562 U.S. 195 (2011) (Do Truth-in-Lending regulations require notice of a credit-card rate increase, where the cardholder agreement authorizes a maximum default rate?) (briefed and argued at merits stage)

Vernor v. Autodesk, No. 10-1421 (Can the owner of a copyright in a work, by granting a “limited license” in that work, withhold ownership of particular copies and thus deprive the public of the right to resell copies under the first-sale doctrine?) (drafted petition for certiorari)

United Air Lines v. Hughes, No. 10-1395 (Does the Railway Labor Act completely preempt retaliatory-discharge claims under the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Sorrell v. IMS Health, No. 10-779 (Does Vermont’s restriction on sale of prescription information for marketing purposes violate the First Amendment?) (counsel for amici curiae Public Citizen, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumer Action, Public Good, and U.S. PIRG)

Alexander v. Cahill, No. 10-203 (Does the First Amendment allow a state to impose categorical restrictions on lawyer advertising that is unverifiable or irrelevant to the selection of counsel?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., No. 08-1423 (Does the first-sale doctrine apply to imported goods manufactured abroad?) (counsel for amicus curiae Public Citizen)

Franklin County Power v. Sierra Club, No. 08-1304 (Does the Sierra Club have standing to challenge construction of a power plant under the Clean Air Act?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Sociedad Espanola v. Morales, No. 08-169 (Does the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act prohibit a hospital from turning away a patient for lack of insurance when the patient is in an ambulance that has not yet reached the hospital’s emergency room?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Tyson Foods v. de Asencio, No. 07-1014 (Does an activity not requiring significant exertion constitute “work” under the Fair Labor Standards Act?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Bostic v. Gray, No. 06-895 (Did a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment by arresting a nine-year-old girl for threatening to hit her gym teacher?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Riverboat Services v. Gaffney, No. 06-389 (Does the Seaman’s Protection Act protect whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting safety violations committed by a government agency rather than by a private employer?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Flying J, Inc. v. Keeton, No. 05-1550 (Is a lateral transfer to another office location a “tangible employment action” giving rise to liability for sexual harassment under Title VII?) (drafted successful brief in opposition)

Kircher v Putnam Funds Trust, 05-409 (Is a district court’s decision to remand to state court appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), where the basis for the remand order was the district court’s conclusion that removal was not authorized by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act?) (brief for amici curiae law professor Arthur Miller and others)

Powerex v. Reliant Energy Services, No. 05-85 (Is a district court’s decision to remand to state court appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), where the basis for the remand order was the district court’s conclusion that a state-owned corporation was not an “organ of a foreign state” entitled to removal under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?) (brief for amici curiae law professors Arthur Miller, Erwin Chemerisnki, and others)

Federal and State Appellate Courts

Low v. Trump University, No. 17-55635 (9th Cir.) (arguing that class members had the right to opt out of a class-action settlement after learning the settlement’s terms) (counsel for amici curiae National Association of Consumer Advocates, professors of consumer law, and plain-language notice experts)

Robinson v. Pfizer, 855 F.3d 893 (8th Cir. 2017) (arguing that it would not violate due process to hold a defendant accountable in Missouri for the claims of plaintiffs from multiple states) (drafted brief on behalf of amici curiae National Consumer Law Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Justice, and the American Association for Justice)

United States Telecom Association v. FCC, 825 F.3d 674 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (arguing that the FCC’s net neutrality rules do not violate the First Amendment) (counsel for amici curiae First Amendment scholars)

Osorio v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2014) (arguing that, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a consumer’s “express consent” to receive automated calls on a cell phone cannot be provided by a third party) (briefed and argued for appellants)

Dilts v. Penske, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014) (arguing that a provision of the California labor code requiring meal and rest breaks for truck drivers was not preempted by federal law) (co-counsel on briefs)

Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union, 725 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2013) (arguing that consumers had standing to pursue a claim for statutory damages under a federal statute requiring notice of ATM fees) (co-counsel; drafted briefs on appeal)

Catsimatides v. Irizarry, 722 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2013) (arguing that a corporate owner and officer was personally liable under Fair Labor Standards Act claims) (co-counsel; drafted briefs on appeal)

In re Petition to Adopt Changes to Rules of Professional Conduct on Lawyer Advertising, No. M2012-01129-S (Supreme Court of Tennessee) (filed comments on behalf of the Tennessee First Amendment Society, an association of lawyers opposed to adoption of stringent new rules governing lawyer advertising in Tennessee)

Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 724 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to agency rules governing hours-of-service for truck drivers) (briefed for petitioners Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and Truck Safety Coalition)

Juntikka v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. 11-56397 (9th Cir.) (defending an objecting lawyer’s right under Rule 23 and the First Amendment to contact members of class to express his opposition to a proposed class-action settlement) (briefed for appellant; also briefed and argued prior interlocutory appeal)

Zinni v. ER Solutions, No. 11-12413 (11th Cir.) (arguing that defendants’ informal offers to settle FDCPA claims for full statutory damages and unspecified “reasonable” attorneys’ fees did not moot those claims) (briefed and argued for appellants)

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, No. 11-5332 (D.C. Cir.) (arguing that the First Amendment does not prohibit mandatory graphic warning labels on cigarette packages) (briefed for amici curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Legacy Foundation, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Citizens’ Commission to Protect the Truth, Public Citizen, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium)

Lane v. Facebook, 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) (arguing that the district court abused its discretion in approving a class-action settlement awarding cy pres to a foundation established and partially controlled by the defendant) (co-counsel for objector)

Alexander v. Cahill, No. 09-1752 (2d Cir. dismissed pursuant to settlement Mar. 13, 2012) (appeal of award of attorneys’ fees in successful First Amendment challenge to New York lawyer advertising restrictions) (briefed for appellants; after filing of opening brief, voluntarily dismissed pursuant to settlement)

Public Citizen v. FMCSA, No. 09-1094 (D.C. Cir. dismissed pursuant to settlement Feb. 8, 2012) (Administrative Procedure Act challenge to agency rules governing hours-of-service for truck drivers) (brief for petitioners Public Citizen, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Truck Safety Coalition) (briefed for appellants; after filing of opening brief, voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a settlement in which the agency agreed to reopen rulemaking and reconsider the challenged rule)

Public Citizen Inc. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 632 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2011) (successful First Amendment challenge to several of Louisiana’s attorney advertising regulations) (briefed and argued for appellants)

Harrell v. The Florida Bar, 608 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2010) (successful appeal of district court’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction over attorney’s First Amendment challenge to lawyer advertising rules) (briefed and argued for appellants)

Alexander v. Cahill, 598 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2010) (successful First Amendment challenge to several of New York’s attorney advertising regulations) (briefed and argued for appellants)

Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010) (arguing that copyright does not protect the character Holden Caulfield independently of the work in which the character is fixed) (co-counsel for amicus curiae Public Citizen)

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010) (arguing that a software company’s grant of a “limited license” in software did not withhold ownership of particular copies of that software and thus did not deprive the public of the right to resell copies under the first-sale doctrine) (briefed and argued for appellee)

Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201 (Fla. 2010) (arguing that Florida’s long-arm statute did not encompass defamation claims based on comments posted on an out-of-state blog) (briefed for amicus curiae Public Citizen)

Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2008) (arguing that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant on an eBay seller’s claim that an out-of-state copyright owner had wrongly invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to terminate the seller’s auctions) (briefed and argued for appellant)

Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., 540 F.3d 179 (3d Cir. 2008) (arguing that the district court had diversity jurisdiction over a partnership in which one partner was a United States citizen residing abroad) (briefed and argued for appellant)

Verni v. Lanzaro, 960 A.2d 405 (N.J. App. Div. 2008) (arguing that the trial court erred in sealing documents related to a settlement) (briefed for appellants)

Nickolas v. Fletcher, No. 07-0515 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2007) (opposing a petition for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) in First Amendment challenge to Kentucky governor’s ban on access to certain blogs on state-owned computers) (briefed for respondent)

Trial-Level Litigation

Searcy v. Florida Bar, 140 F.Supp.3d 1290 (N.D. Fla. 2015) (holding unconstitutional under the First Amendment a Florida rule prohibiting lawyers from advertising their specialization or expertise in an area of the law)

Rubenstein v. Florida Bar, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (holding unconstitutional under the First Amendment a prohibition on advertising a lawyer’s past results in television advertisements)

Chamber of Commerce v. Servin (Yes Men), No. 09-02014 (D.D.C.) (whether a parody Chamber of Commerce press conference by climate-change activists constitutes trademark infringement) (co-counsel for amicus curiae Public Citizen)

Soto v. Does, No. 11-3439 (Va. Cir. Ct. dismissed May 24, 2012) (motion to quash subpoena for identity of anonymous Internet speaker who criticized a Florida plastic surgeon) (co-counsel on motion to quash; after the motion was filed, the plaintiff dismissed the case)

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 823 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2011) (arguing that the First Amendment does not prohibit mandatory graphic warning labels on cigarette packages) (lead counsel for amici curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Legacy Foundation, American Lung Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Citizens’ Commission to Protect the Truth, Public Citizen, Tobacco Control Legal Consortium)

Harrell v. The Florida Bar, No. 08-00015 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2011) (successful First Amendment challenge to several Florida Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyer advertising) (lead counsel for plaintiffs)

Koch Indus., Inc. v. Does (Youth for Climate Truth), No. 10-1275 (D. Utah May 9, 2011) (whether a spoof website and press release concerning an industrial conglomerate’s position on climate change constitutes trademark infringement, cybersquatting, computer hacking, or breach of contract) (co-counsel for anonymous defendants)

Allergen, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-1879 (D.D.C. dismissed pursuant to settlement Oct. 14, 2010) (arguing that prohibitions on off-label drug promotions do not violate the First Amendment; case subsequently settled) (lead counsel for amicus curiae Public Citizen)

Lane v. Facebook, No. 08-3845 (N.D. Cal. May 27, 2010) (arguing that the court should reject a proposed class-action settlement awarding cy pres to a foundation established and partially controlled by the defendant; currently on appeal) (lead counsel for objector)

Smith v. Levine Leichtman Capital Partners, Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1205 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (successful response to defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion in FDCPA case) (co-counsel for plaintiffs on response to anti-SLAPP motion)

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Bd., 642 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. La. 2009) (declaring unconstitutional several of Louisiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct governing lawyer advertising) (lead counsel for plaintiffs)

Rothman v. The Florida Bar, No. 09-80503 (S.D. Fla. dismissed pursuant to settlement Nov. 11, 2009) (First Amendment challenge to Florida Bar rules governing websites and online advertising) (lead counsel for plaintiff; following filing of the complaint, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement)

In re TD Ameritrade Accountholder Litig., 266 F.R.D. 418 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (successful objection to settlement of a class action over a massive security breach that exposed sensitive customer data) (lead counsel for named plaintiff/objector)

IA Global v. Does, No. 08-482287 (Cal. Super. Ct. dismissed pursuant to settlement Jun 16, 2009) (motion to quash subpoena seeking the identity of the author of an anonymous post criticizing a company’s performance and management) (co-counsel for defendant John Doe; following filing of motion to quash, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement)

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1165 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (successfully argued that a software company’s grant of a “limited license” in software did not withhold ownership of particular copies of that software and thus could not deprive the public of the right to resell copies under the first-sale doctrine; reversed on appeal) (lead counsel for plaintiff)

Nickolas v. Fletcher, No. 06-43 (E.D. Ky. dismissed pursuant to settlement June 13, 2008) (First Amendment challenge to Kentucky’s ban on access to certain blogs on state-owned computers) (lead counsel for plaintiff; following district court’s denial of the state’s motion to dismiss, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement)

Powermark Homes v. Doe, No. 07-625465 (Ohio Ct. C.P. Dec. 15, 2008) (successful motion to quash subpoena seeking the identity of the author of an anonymous website criticizing a homebuilding company) (lead counsel for defendant John Doe)

Alexander v. Cahill, 634 F. Supp. 2d 239 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (successful First Amendment challenge to several of New York’s amended rules on attorney advertising) (lead counsel for plaintiffs)

Dynetech v. Leonard, 523 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (successfully represented two consumer-review websites in this Internet free speech dispute, in which an infomercial company attempted to invoke trademark law to stifle critical commentary about its questionable investment software products) (co-counsel for defendants)

Swiger v. Allegheny Energy, No. 05-5725 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 7, 2007) (abuse of process, invasion of privacy, and wrongful discharge claims against an energy company for using the courts to, without notice, obtain the identity of and terminate an anonymous employee who criticized the company in an online message board) (lead counsel for plaintiff)

McMann v. Does, No. 2006-092226 (Ariz. Super Ct. Jan. 18, 2007) (successful motion to a quash subpoena seeking the identity of the anonymous author of a website criticizing a housing developer) (lead counsel for defendant John Doe)

Mohl v. Dymo, No. 06-549 (M.D. Fla. dismissed pursuant to settlement  July 17, 2006) (alleging unlawful interference with eBay auctions of compatible printer cartridges) (lead counsel for plaintiff; following filing of the complaint, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement)

Kopp v. Vivendi Universal Games, No. 06-01767 (C.D. Cal. dismissed pursuant to settlement  June 8, 2006) (alleging unlawful interference with eBay auctions of an unofficial guide to World of Warcraft) (lead counsel for plaintiff; following filing of the complaint, the case was dismissed pursuant to settlement)

Central Committee of the Hamilton County Republican Party v. Dalton, No. A0509834 (Ohio Ct. C.P. Nov. 23, 2005) (successful opposition to motion for an injunction by the Hamilton County Republican Party against a website critical of the party but with a similar domain name)

Selected Appearances

Panelist, “Approaching Free Speech and Lawyer Regulation,” International Legal Ethics Conference, New York, July 16, 2016

Presenter, “Advertising Trends and Ethics,” Loyola University, New Orleans, October 10, 2015

Panel on Attorney Advertising, Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers, February 14, 2015

Presentation to Attorney General Eric Holder and Co-Chairs of the Consumer Protection Working Group, National Consumer Protection Week Summit, March 9, 2012

Panelist, “Litigation Update: Top Cases in Tobacco,” Food and Drug Law Institute, Tobacco Regulation and Litigation Conference, December 5, 2011

Guest lecturer, Civil Procedure, Harvard Law School,  October 31, 2011

Speaker, “Practicing Public Interest Law,” Harvard Law School, October 31, 2011

Panelist, “First Amendment Issues in Consumer Protection,” National Association of Attorneys General, Consumer Protection Conference, October 18, 2011

Panelist, “Sorrell: Toward Greater Commercial Free Speech Protection?” TechFreedom, Event on “Sorrell: The Supreme Court Confronts Free Speech, Marketing & Privacy,” July 19, 2011

Guest lecturer (with Ralph Nader), Topics in Consumer Protection, Washington College of Law, American University, June 22, 2011

Panelist, “Copy Owners v. Copyright Owners: Is the First-Sale Doctrine Dead in the Digital Era?” D.C. Bar, June 1, 2011

Speaker, “How Litigation Is Affecting Tobacco Control,” American Cancer Society, May 4, 2011

Panelist, “Intellectual Property Protection Versus the First Amendment,” The Florida Bar, Second Annual Intellectual Property Symposium, April 14, 2011

Panelist, “Who Owns My Data? Privacy Regulations and the First Amendment,” Washington College of Law, American University, March 15, 2011

Guest speaker, Georgetown University Law Center, Litigation Skills, October 6, 2009

Guest speaker, Vanderbilt University Law School, Public Interest Litigation, November 14, 2008

Moderator and Panelist, “Future of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, June 4, 2009

Panelist, “Return to Bates v. Arizona—The Ongoing Ethics Debate,” American Bar Association, First National Marketing Conference, November 8, 2007

Panelist, “What Do the Attorney Advertising Rules Mean Now?” New York City Bar, December 6, 2007

Moderator and Panelist, “Defending Internet Free Speech,” Equal Justice Works Conference, October 19, 2006

Moderator, “Future of Fair Use,” Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, May 3, 2006