John D. Seiver

Senior Counsel

I advise and litigate in the often disparate worlds of data privacy and communications. I particularly enjoy biometrics, pole attachments, and interpreting new privacy laws and precedent – which are definitely not in short supply.

John Seiver is a seasoned legal expert with a passion for navigating the complex landscape of privacy and communications law – including infrastructure issues related to pole attachments. With a career spanning back to 1979, and communications expertise coinciding with enactment of the Cable Act of 1984, John boasts an impressive track record of direct involvement in some of the most prominent state and national communications litigation cases. In recent years, his focus has homed in on the ever-evolving realms of privacy, AI, and biometrics, but not ever forgetting pole attachments.

In an era where data privacy is at the forefront of compliance and legal scrutiny, John stands as a staunch defender of internet and telecommunications service providers that collect, store, share, and process personal data, biometrics, and communication content. Often, providers become targets of inquiry in civil and criminal investigations and litigation based on the personal data collected from and stored by users. Yet, the nuances of federal and state data disclosure laws are frequently overlooked, especially when a provider is regulated by differing and conflicting state and federal laws. John's unwavering commitment to clients ensures strict adherence to the intricate web of federal and state laws, including newly enacted state data privacy laws. He has been instrumental in assisting clients in responding to, or challenging, state and federal civil and criminal subpoenas, court orders, and warrants related to cable, CLEC, CPNI, wireless, device location (CSLI and GPS), cloud storage, and ISP data.

On the infrastructure side, as utilities and pole owners increasingly seek ways to expand their profit margins beyond cost reimbursement for hosting third-party attachments, John has been a committed advocate for attachers that provide cable, ISP, wireline, wireless, and voice services. He has been a trusted advisor and advocate both at the FCC, before state commissions, and in the courtroom. His involvement has been pivotal in the resolution of disputes involving makeready processes, permitting, NESC compliance, and the rates, terms, and conditions of pole attachments and rights-of-way access, often favoring attachers under relevant federal and state law.

With a deep-rooted commitment to interpreting and applying existing and new laws while setting important legal precedents, John is a trailblazer in the world of privacy, biometrics, and pole attachment litigation. His unwavering dedication to ensuring compliance with data privacy laws and advocating for the interests of attachers has solidified his reputation as a leading figure in this complex legal terrain.

Practice Highlights

Privacy litigation

Private parties and governmental entities are more often turning to websites, ISPs, CLECs, wireless and wireline providers, cloud storage providers, and other transactional data providers for details on subscribers, transactions, location data (CSLI and GPS), content, and web usage. Representing and advising clients in matters regarding Cable Act and CPNI (orders and subpoenas), ECPA and SCA, (warrants, orders, subpoenas, wiretaps, trap and trace, pen registers) CFAA, BIPA, DPPA, and VPPA; terms of use, subscriber agreements, acceptable use policies.

Pole attachment litigation

Litigated and prevailed through appeals in the first ALJ matter at the FCC, challenging rates on "full" poles with changeouts—part of the changes in pole attachment rate formulas. Litigated "takings" issues, "insufficient capacity," and telecom rate formula application and amendment, as well as cases involving municipally or cooperatively owned poles under state law.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Stored Communications Act (SCA)

With an ever-increasing number of subpoenas and orders in the context of investigating allegations of child abuse, defamation, and copyright infringement, ISPs are more often drawn into disputes with copyright owners and others looking to identify or pursue allegedly bad actors or infringers. Resolving and ensuring compliance with safe harbors for publishers and service providers; repeat infringer policies and related disclosure issues while observing subscribers' privacy and First Amendment rights.

Privacy and Security

Harris v. House Subcommittee

Sued U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol for issuing a sweeping subpoena duces tecum to compel a third-party telecommunications company to produce phone records reflecting privileged communications between a journalist and her confidential sources. Pending. (D.D.C. 2021)

Valentine v. Nebuad

Obtained dismissal on lack of jurisdiction, on behalf of internet service provider Bresnan Communications in federal privacy lawsuit challenging the use of deep-packet inspection technology (2009). Won dismissal of ECPA claims in sister-case in Montana and in the 9th Circuit enforcing arbitration. (N.D. Cal. 2011; 9th Cir. 2013)

Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins

Submitted amicus brief on behalf of a group of eight media amici urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit's ruling allowing a class action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to go forward without any allegation of an "injury in fact" for standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and highlighting the damage to media companies caused by class actions where plaintiffs leverage technical violations of privacy statutes to threaten enormous statutory damages, severely impacting those companies' business models, and chilling speech. (U.S. 2015)

BMG v. Cox

Submitted amicus brief in support of Cox’s successful appeal of a $25 million contributory copyright infringement verdict (2016) based on alleged infringements by Cox’s internet service subscribers. The decisions and verdict eliminate protections in the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions vital to providing internet service, rendering them ineffective for all ISPs. The Fourth Circuit reversed the verdict in 2018.

Subpoena enforcement matter for national provider of broadband services and other ISPs

Federal appeals court defense of subscriber privacy claims under Digital Millennium Copyright Act; multiple proceedings in state and federal courts for ISPs responding to, quashing or objecting to subpoenas for subscriber information. 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005)

Pole Attachments and Communications Regulatory

Florida Cable Telecommunications Association, et al. v. Gulf Power Company

Represented cable operators in victory at a trial before an FCC ALJ and before the full commission on appeal of that victory in a pole attachment complaint against Gulf Power, after the defendant terminated pole attachment agreements and demanded new ones with 600 percent rate increases. FCC 07D-01; E.B. Docket No. 04-381 (F.C.C. 2011) affirmed in D.C. Circuit.

Pole attachment rate litigation for national provider of broadband services

Won motion to dismiss utility complaint company demanding higher pole attachment payments for the operator's provision of telecommunications and voice services over its cable system. (E.D. Va. 2010)

Pole attachment rate litigation for cable system operator

Represented cable operator in obtaining an Atlanta court ruling which placed jurisdiction over pole attachment rate disputes with the FCC. Victory in litigation that has been going on since 2006 over the application of the telecom attachment rate to mixed cable and telecom networks, with approximately $5 million at stake directly and hundreds of millions of dollars at risk nationally from adverse rulings. (2009)

Buena Vista Television v. Adelphia Communications Corp.

Defended Adelphia against suit seeking more than $500 million in damages for copyright infringement arising from Adelphia’s failure to pay copyright royalties during the 2002/1 accounting period, when Adelphia declared bankruptcy. (2004)

Pole attachment rate rulemaking proceedings

On behalf of major cable television operators and state cable associations filed comments and reconsideration petitions before the FCC; prevailed at FCC and on appeals to the D.C. and Eighth Circuits.

Admitted to Practice

District of Columbia, 1979
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2011
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan

Education

J.D., Boston University School of Law, 1979
B.A., Economics, University of Virginia, 1975, with distinction

Memberships & Affiliations

- Federal Communications Bar Association
- American Bar Association
- Outside Counsel to the Mt. Zion / Female Union Band Historic Memorial Park, and Female Union Band Society Trust, Georgetown

Professional Recognition

- Named one of the "Best Lawyers in America" by Best Lawyers in Communications Law, 2023-present
- Named to "Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll" by the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court, 2022-2024
- Recipient, Finest Law Firm Writers of 2015 Award, The Burton Awards

Background

- Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 2007-2008
- Partner, Cole, Raywid & Braverman LLP, 1984-2006
- Associate, Cole, Raywid & Braverman LLP, 1979-1984