WSGR logoWSGR logo
WSGR logo
  • Experience
  • People
  • Insights
  • About Us
  • Careers

  • Practice Areas
  • Industries

  • Corporate
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Patents and Innovations
  • Regulatory
  • Technology Transactions

  • Capital Markets
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate Life Sciences
  • Derivatives
  • Emerging Companies and Venture Capital
  • Employee Benefits and Compensation
  • Energy and Climate Solutions
  • Executive Advisory Program
  • Finance and Structured Finance
  • Fund Formation
  • Greater China
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Private Equity
  • Public Company Representation
  • Real Estate
  • Restructuring
  • Shareholder Engagement and Activism
  • Tax
  • U.S. Expansion
  • Wealthtech

  • Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)

  • Environmental, Social, and Governance

  • AI and Data Center Infrastructure
  • Energy Regulation and Competition
  • Project Development and M&A
  • Project Finance and Tax Credit Transactions
  • Sustainability and Decarbonization
  • Transportation Electrification

  • U.S. Expansion Library and Resources

  • Post-Grant Review
  • Trademark and Advertising

  • Antitrust Litigation
  • Arbitration
  • Board and Internal Investigations
  • Class Action Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Consumer Litigation
  • Corporate Governance Litigation
  • Employment Litigation
  • Executive Branch Updates
  • Government Investigations
  • Internet Strategy and Litigation
  • Patent Litigation
  • Securities Litigation
  • State Attorneys General
  • Supreme Court and Appellate Practice
  • Trade Secret Litigation
  • Trademark and Copyright Litigation
  • Trial
  • White Collar Crime

  • Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing
  • Antitrust and Competition
  • Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS)
  • Communications
  • Data, Privacy, and Cybersecurity
  • Export Control and Sanctions
  • FCPA and Anti-Corruption
  • FDA Regulatory, Healthcare, and Consumer Products
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Fintech and Financial Services
  • Government Contracts
  • National Security and Trade
  • Payments
  • State Attorneys General
  • Strategic Risk and Crisis Management
  • Tariffs, Customs, and Import Compliance

  • Antitrust and Intellectual Property
  • Antitrust Civil Enforcement
  • Antitrust Compliance and Business Strategy
  • Antitrust Criminal Enforcement
  • Antitrust Litigation
  • Antitrust Merger Clearance
  • European Competition Law
  • Third-Party Merger and Non-Merger Antitrust Representation

  • Anti-Money Laundering
  • Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI)
  • Team Telecom

  • AI in Healthcare
  • Animal Health
  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
  • Aviation
  • Biotech
  • Blockchain and Cryptocurrency
  • Clean Energy
  • Climate and Clean Technologies
  • Communications and Networking
  • Consumer Products and Services
  • Data Storage and Cloud
  • Defense Tech
  • Diagnostics, Life Science Tools, and Deep Tech
  • Digital Health
  • Digital Media and Entertainment
  • Electronic Gaming
  • Fintech and Financial Services
  • FoodTech and AgTech
  • Global Generics
  • Internet
  • Life Sciences
  • Medical Devices
  • Mobile Devices
  • Mobility
  • NewSpace
  • Quantum Computing
  • Semiconductors
  • Software

  • Offices
  • Country Desks
  • Events
  • Community
  • Our Diversity
  • Sustainability
  • Our Values
  • Board of Directors
  • Management Team

  • Austin
  • Boston
  • Boulder
  • Brussels
  • Century City
  • Hong Kong
  • London
  • Los Angeles
  • New York
  • Palo Alto
  • Salt Lake City
  • San Diego
  • San Francisco
  • Seattle
  • Shanghai
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Wilmington, DE

  • Law Students
  • Judicial Clerks
  • Experienced Attorneys
  • Patent Agents
  • Business Professionals
  • Alternative Legal Careers
  • Contact Recruiting
Brian M. Willen
Partner
Litigation
New York
bwillen@wsgr.com

D650-849-3340

Download vCard
Open PDF
  • Represents Online Innovators

    With a focus on internet-related litigation and counseling, Brian advises some of the world's most innovative online services—including Google, Dropbox, Flipboard, Pinterest, Twitter, Tumblr, and YouTube—on a range of complex and sensitive matters.

  • PragerU v. Google

    Brian argued and won an important Ninth Circuit case holding that online platforms like YouTube are not state actors under the First Amendment.

  • Terrorism Litigation

    Brian is lead counsel for Google in nearly a dozen landmark cases seeking to hold YouTube and other social media platforms liable for terrorist attacks around the world.

  • Government Experience

    Brian previously worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he advised the Executive Branch on complex issues of constitutional law and national security.

Brian Willen is a partner in Wilson Sonsini's internet litigation and strategy group. He advises some of the world’s most innovative online companies—including Google, Dropbox, Flipboard, Pinterest, Spotify, Twitter, and YouTube—on a range of complex and sensitive matters. Brian’s expertise includes copyright and trademark law (especially the DMCA safe harbors, fair use, and music copyright issues), Section 230 of the CDA, online privacy, government requests for user data, and the First Amendment.

Brian has an extensive and cutting-edge practice representing online platforms against attacks on their content-moderation practices. He is lead counsel for Google in nearly a dozen separate cases seeking to hold it liable for terrorist attacks around the world, including Gonzalez v. Google, which Brian argued in the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented both Google and Twitter against claims that they should be treated as state actors under the First Amendment, successfully arguing that issue in the Ninth Circuit in PragerU v. Google, the first major appellate decision holding that social media platforms are not public forums.

For nearly seven years, Brian was one of the lead lawyers for Google in the landmark Viacom v. YouTube litigation, and he has represented clients in many other copyright and internet law disputes, including cases under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Lanham Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Wiretap Act.

Prior to joining the firm, Brian worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he advised the Executive Branch on complex issues of constitutional law and national security. He clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2001-2002) and for Judge Ellen S. Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2002-2003).

Experience

Brian Willen is a partner in Wilson Sonsini's internet litigation and strategy group. He advises some of the world’s most innovative online companies—including Google, Dropbox, Flipboard, Pinterest, Spotify, Twitter, and YouTube—on a range of complex and sensitive matters. Brian’s expertise includes copyright and trademark law (especially the DMCA safe harbors, fair use, and music copyright issues), Section 230 of the CDA, online privacy, government requests for user data, and the First Amendment.

Brian has an extensive and cutting-edge practice representing online platforms against attacks on their content-moderation practices. He is lead counsel for Google in nearly a dozen separate cases seeking to hold it liable for terrorist attacks around the world, including Gonzalez v. Google, which Brian argued in the Ninth Circuit. He has also represented both Google and Twitter against claims that they should be treated as state actors under the First Amendment, successfully arguing that issue in the Ninth Circuit in PragerU v. Google, the first major appellate decision holding that social media platforms are not public forums.

For nearly seven years, Brian was one of the lead lawyers for Google in the landmark Viacom v. YouTube litigation, and he has represented clients in many other copyright and internet law disputes, including cases under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Lanham Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act, and the Wiretap Act.

Prior to joining the firm, Brian worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he advised the Executive Branch on complex issues of constitutional law and national security. He clerked for Judge Harry T. Edwards of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2001-2002) and for Judge Ellen S. Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (2002-2003).

Education
  • J.D., Yale Law School, 2001Member, Yale Journal of Law and Humanities
  • B.A., English, Yale University, 1998
Admissions
  • Bar of the District of Columbia
  • State Bar of Michigan
  • State Bar of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Credentials
Education
  • J.D., Yale Law School, 2001Member, Yale Journal of Law and Humanities
  • B.A., English, Yale University, 1998
Admissions
  • Bar of the District of Columbia
  • State Bar of Michigan
  • State Bar of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Representative Matters

  • Counsel for Google and YouTube in several important copyright cases, including Viacom v. YouTube and Ark Promotions v. YouTube
  • Counsel for Google in nationwide consumer privacy class actions, including Joffe v. Google and In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation
  • Counsel for Google in cases involving CDA § 230 and application of the First Amendment to search engine results
  • Represent Google in cases challenging ex parte orders requiring removal of content
  • Counsel for Meltwater in Associated Press v. Meltwater, an important case involving fair use and "hot news" misappropriation
  • Represent major consumer-electronics company in global privacy investigation
  • Represent online services in cases defending First Amendment right of anonymous speech
  • Counsel for Ferrari in dispute over control of branded pages on Facebook
  • Represent Dropbox and Google in cases under California automatic-renewal law
  • Counsel for Twitter and other online services in TCPA class actions
  • Filed amicus brief for Dropbox in First Amendment challenge to gag order prohibiting online services from disclosing information about national-security orders
  • Filed amicus briefs for Google, Pinterest, Twitter, and other clients in significant copyright cases, including Capitol Records v. Vimeo, Columbia Pictures v. Fung, and Disney v. Hotfile
Matters

Representative Matters

  • Counsel for Google and YouTube in several important copyright cases, including Viacom v. YouTube and Ark Promotions v. YouTube
  • Counsel for Google in nationwide consumer privacy class actions, including Joffe v. Google and In re Google Android Consumer Privacy Litigation
  • Counsel for Google in cases involving CDA § 230 and application of the First Amendment to search engine results
  • Represent Google in cases challenging ex parte orders requiring removal of content
  • Counsel for Meltwater in Associated Press v. Meltwater, an important case involving fair use and "hot news" misappropriation
  • Represent major consumer-electronics company in global privacy investigation
  • Represent online services in cases defending First Amendment right of anonymous speech
  • Counsel for Ferrari in dispute over control of branded pages on Facebook
  • Represent Dropbox and Google in cases under California automatic-renewal law
  • Counsel for Twitter and other online services in TCPA class actions
  • Filed amicus brief for Dropbox in First Amendment challenge to gag order prohibiting online services from disclosing information about national-security orders
  • Filed amicus briefs for Google, Pinterest, Twitter, and other clients in significant copyright cases, including Capitol Records v. Vimeo, Columbia Pictures v. Fung, and Disney v. Hotfile

Select Publications

  • "Ruling in Yelp Case Was First of Its Kind," Daily Journal, July 11, 2018
  • "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons: The Supreme Court Saves the First Sale Doctrine," CPI Antitrust Chronicle, May 28, 2013
  • Co-author with G. Poe, "Tailored to the Crime: Sentencing Case Shows Need to Defend Judicial Discretion," Legal Times, October 8, 2007
Insights

Select Publications

  • "Ruling in Yelp Case Was First of Its Kind," Daily Journal, July 11, 2018
  • "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons: The Supreme Court Saves the First Sale Doctrine," CPI Antitrust Chronicle, May 28, 2013
  • Co-author with G. Poe, "Tailored to the Crime: Sentencing Case Shows Need to Defend Judicial Discretion," Legal Times, October 8, 2007
Focus Areas
  • Advertising, Promotions, and Marketing
  • Digital Media and Entertainment
  • Internet Strategy and Litigation
  • Litigation
  • Supreme Court and Appellate
  • Trademark and Advertising
Recent Insights
Alerts
The “TAKE IT DOWN Act” Goes Up to President Trump’s Desk for Signature
On April 28, 2025, Congress passed the “TAKE IT DOWN Act.” In addition to criminalizing intentional publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including computer-generated intimate imagery (collectively, NCII), the bill requires “covered platforms” to develop a process for removing NCII within 48 hours of a valid report. Covered platforms are those that primarily provide a public forum for user-generated content. The term does not include ISPs, email providers, online services that consist primarily of non-user-generated content, or services for which chat, comment, or interactive functionality is directly related to the provision of non-user-generated content. The bill now awaits President Trump’s signature and is expected to be signed in light of receiving bipartisan support and an endorsement from the First Lady.
Learn More
Client Highlights
Wilson Sonsini Advises Computer & Communications Industry Association in Landmark Case Impacting Internet Free Speech Rights
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, marking a significant development in the realm of internet regulation and reinforcing the application of longstanding First Amendment principles to the online world. The cases centered around state laws enacted in 2021 by Florida and Texas, both of which target large social media platforms and internet companies. The laws aim to limit platforms' control over content moderation, including filtering and labeling user-generated content, and mandated detailed explanations for content removal or alteration.
Learn More
View All
  • people
  • insights
  • about us
  • careers
  • Binder
  • Alumni
  • Mailing List Signup
  • Client FTP Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Accessibility
WSGR logo
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Instagram
Youtube
Copyright © 2026 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. All Rights Reserved.