Cindy Abramson is a litigation associate in the firm’s Global Privacy and Data Security Group, Intellectual Property Group, and Financial Services Group.
She advises clients on compliance with state and federal privacy, information security, and database breach notification laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, as well as intellectual property law, financial services laws, and developments in class action litigation.
In 2013, she completed a secondment in the privacy department at a major financial institution.
She earned her J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, where she was the senior notes editor for the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. In addition, she was awarded the Cardozo Service and Achievement Award for achievement and outstanding service to the law school. She received her B.A. from The New School.
Before law school, Ms. Abramson worked as a development executive in the cable television industry.
Edward L. White P.C. v. West Publishing Corp. and Reed Elsevier Inc.
(Southern District of New York). Represented LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., in a putative class action involving copyright infringement claims by attorneys who authored legal briefs filed in court that were available on the lexis.com online database. On a motion to dismiss, successfully defeated claims of the proposed subclass of authors who had not registered their briefs with the Copyright Office, and the plaintiff subsequently dropped the class allegations. Subsequently succeeded on a motion for summary judgment on the remaining individual claims by proving that LexisNexis’s use of the works at issue constituted fair use.
Henley et al. v. DeVore et al.
(Central District of California). Achieved a landmark ruling clarifying copyright fair use and parody on behalf of musicians Don Henley, Mike Campbell, and Danny Kortchmar, who brought a copyright infringement action against California politician Chuck DeVore regarding his use of the plaintiffs’ well-known songs in Internet campaign advertisements. The court granted plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and ruled that DeVore’s use of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted material did not satisfy the test for fair use and parody, and thus DeVore’s copying of the plaintiffs’ works for his own political gain was infringement. The court’s opinion can be found at 733 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (C.D. Cal. 2010).