Photo of Jacob Canter

Jacob Canter is an attorney in the San Francisco office of Crowell & Moring. He is a member of the Litigation and Privacy & Cybersecurity groups. Jacob’s areas of emphasis include technology-related litigation, involving competition, cybersecurity and digital crimes, copyright, trademark, and patent, as well as general complex commercial matters.

Jacob graduated from the University California, Berkeley School of Law in 2018, where he launched Berkeley’s election law outreach program and pro bono project. He joins the firm after a year of practice at an international law firm in Washington, D.C., and a year clerking in the Southern District of New York for the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield. Jacob was exposed to and provided support in a variety of complex substantive and procedural legal topics during the clerkship, including trade secrets, insurance/reinsurance, contracts, class actions, privacy, intellectual property, and arbitrability.

Click here to register for Crowell & Moring’s webinar on the shifting landscape of AI governance and regulation. Following the release of the White House’s “America’s AI Action Plan” in July 2025 and the President’s signing of related Executive Orders, the White House has emphasized (at least rhetorically) a preference for innovation, adoption, and deregulation. But that does not tell the entire story. The Administration remains committed to exercising a heavy hand in AI, including by banning the U.S. government’s procurement of so-called “woke AI,” intervening in the development of data centers and the export of the AI technology stack, imposing an export fee for certain semiconductors to China, and assuming a stake in a U.S. semiconductor company. State legislatures are also racing to implement their own regulations, particularly around AI’s use in critical areas, such as healthcare, labor and employment, and data privacy. The many sources of regulation raise the specter of a fragmented compliance environment for businesses. This webinar will delve into the Administration’s AI strategy, going beyond the headlines to analyze:Continue Reading The Artificial Intelligence Agenda from Capitol Hill to State Capitals: Where We Are and Where We Are (Probably) Going

Artificial intelligence is now a mainstay in our daily lives. It’s in our phones and computers. It helps us draft emails and learn math. It recommends purchases and guides our online searches. It’s everywhere—and every sign suggests that it’s here to stay.

Unsurprisingly, the Federal Government has shown a lot of interest in artificial intelligence as well. Congress has held hearings on various A.I. topics. In late 2024, the White House Office of Science and Technology and former President Biden issued a Blueprint for an A.I. Bill of Rights and Executive Orders to guide agency policy. Just days before leaving office, former President Biden issued an Executive Order aimed at building large-scale data centers and clean power infrastructure to safely develop A.I. In his first day in office, President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14110, providing for safe, secure, and trustworthy development of A.I. Members of Congress have introduced A.I. bills into committee, on topics as various and critical as national security, intellectual property, online personal safety, and education. But action directed at consumers has been minimal.Continue Reading States are Taking Action on Artificial Intelligence. It is a Trend That is Likely to Continue

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded a set of Florida and Texas laws restricting social medial companies’ ability to curate, amend or edit online user content in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, but in so doing noted that “to the extent that social media platforms create expressive products, they receive the First Amendment’s protection.”[1]Continue Reading The State Law Landscape After Justices’ Social Media Ruling

Last week the Supreme Court unanimously held that §13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not give the Federal Trade Commission the power to seek equitable monetary relief such as disgorgement or restitution. The Court’s opinion in AMG Capital Management LLC v. Federal Trade Commission removes a powerful tool that the FTC has long relied on to pursue monetary relief for consumers in both consumer protection and competition matters.Continue Reading The Supreme Court Limits FTC’s §13(b) Powers