Skip to main content
Karl Stephen Kronenberger

About Karl Kronenberger

About me

Karl Kronenberger is an indispensable resource and trusted advisor to his clients on issues relating to Internet law, media and technology.

A seasoned litigator, Karl has tried more than 20 jury trials and many more bench trials, and he regularly handles complex Internet law issues, such as Internet trademark and copyright infringement, spam litigation defense, Internet defamation and false advertising, cybersquatting, FTC lawsuits, website agreements and privacy disputes. Karl thrives on litigating matters where the legal terrain is uncharted, as is often the case in the realm of Internet disputes.

As a former general counsel to technology and non-technology companies alike, he has handled many of the day-to-day legal issues these companies face, including intellectual property issues, licensing and distribution agreements, and domain name disputes. Additionally, he handles a variety of transactions and business disputes for services, technology and media companies.


A former prosecutor and Army JAG Corps officer, he is both aggressive and creative in solving problems, while maintaining the highest of ethical standards.

Karl is frequently called upon as an Internet law expert by the media and at industry conferences. He has received the highest "AV Preeminent" rating by his peers through Martindale-Hubbell and is named to the 2011 list of Northern California Super Lawyers for his work in Internet law.

Karl is licensed to practice in California, New York, Georgia and Ohio and before the District Courts for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California, District Court for the Southern District of New York, District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco.

He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame (1990) and the University of Cincinnati College of Law(1993).


Representative Matters


•Represented a major Internet advertising network in $11 million federal spam lawsuit by professional spam plaintiff. Prevailed on behalf of the client at summary judgment on all claims in the lawsuit. Obtained order awarding over $806,000 in fees and sanctions against the professional spam plaintiff, which pushed plaintiff into insolvency and caused them to cease operations.  


•Represented a cloud computing and file sharing company backed by more than $600 million in venture financing in a lawsuit where the firm successfully obtained the domain name containing the client’s primary trademark. 


•Represented a social networking app developer backed by more than $350 million in venture financing in a TCPA class action lawsuit.  Obtained speedy settlement and voluntary dismissal of putative TCPA class action against client, after early discovery and independent research by the Firm demonstrated that the SMS text message at issue was initiated by the plaintiff’s acquaintance, not the client.  


•Represented a medical records imaging technology company in lawsuit against an unknown person who hacked into client’s network. Upon discovering that the hacker was a competitor, and that the competitor stole trade secrets and used them to compete with client, the Firm amended the John Doe complaint to name the competitor as a defendant, leading to a complete win in the case and the criminal indictment of the defendant competitor.  


•Represented an international nonprofit organization in lawsuit involving theft of its trade secrets and dissemination of such trade secrets by defendants anonymously via multiple blogs.  


•Seized a domain name portfolio from a notorious cybersquatter and judgment debtor, auctioned the domain name portfolio for $302,000, and in the process created new Ninth Circuit law concerning the ability to seize domain names as property.  


•Represented defendants in an FTC lawsuit alleging $350 million in damages arising from what the FTC described as “bogus free trial offers”, including preparing and presenting nine expert witnesses in an opposition to a preliminary injunction.  


•Represented defendants in a FTC lawsuit involving $42.5 million regarding unsolicited SMS text messages marketing free gift cards, resulting in a public settlement where defendants paid only a fraction of the damages alleged by the FTC.  


•Represented a medical school in lawsuit against a bogus non-profit consumer review website and company; following a round of subpoenas served on various service providers for defendants, the firm discovered that the defendant was actually controlled by a direct competitor of the client.  The matter settled promptly after this revelation.   


•Represented the nation’s largest broker of moving and relocation services in false advertising lawsuit against a so-called consumer review website. The complaint alleged that defendant engaged in search engine spam by numerous uses of our client’s trademark under the auspices of a “black list”, which directly benefited the competitors of the firm’s client.  


•Represented the nation’s top retailer of ink and toner products in a false advertising lawsuit brought by a billion dollar printer manufacturer.  


•Represented the U.S. Chess Federation in a lawsuit involving unknown parties hacking into the email account of a member of the board of directors of our client, and stealing information regarding the internal investigation of two other directors of the organization (Susan Polgar and Paul Truong).  After multiple rounds of subpoenas, the firm discovered that the person responsible for the hacking was an employee of Susan Polgar, which led to the criminal indictment of such employee and an eventual resolution of the case.  


•Defeated motion for class certification in hotly-contested, multi-million dollar consumer class action against Internet advertiser by using arguments made by plaintiff in refusing to arbitrate—namely, that the version of the website plaintiff viewed did not contain certain disclosures—against him to demonstrate that plaintiff could not establish the requisite commonality or typicality.  The case was resolved shortly thereafter through voluntary dismissal by plaintiff and no payment by the client.