David Yolkut

David has substantial experience in matters of critical importance to the media and entertainment industry. He has represented and advised media conglomerates, technology companies, broadcast and cable television networks, concert promoters, and satellite and digital music services in significant high-value cases. His current matters include representing Meta in a copyright infringement action brought by the publisher of Eminem’s musical compositions, and representing Pandora Media in a first-of-its-kind series of lawsuits brought by comedians and their estates concerning the licensing of spoken-word comedy recordings. David also counsels several of the largest television programmers and broadcasters in the country and has published and spoken on legal issues involving the cable and satellite television industry.

David also maintains a nationally recognized pro bono practice focused on religious freedom and combating antisemitism in public education—work that has garnered national and international attention.

Before joining Mayer Brown, David was Counsel at another major international law firm.

• Winning a motion to dismiss a class action complaint brought against Scripps Networks, LLC alleging violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act in connection with the website HGTV.com. David and his team were recognized in AmLaw’s “Litigators of the Week” column for this victory.
• Representing The North American Concert Promoters Association in a copyright rate-setting federal bench trial against Broadcast Music, Inc.
• Prevailing for Discovery Communications (n/k/a Warner Bros. Discovery) and Animal Planet in a multimillion-dollar breach of contract suit. David’s team won a complete victory in a bench ruling in federal court following a multi-week trial and upheld that victory on appeal before the Fourth Circuit.
• Successfully defending Discovery Communications (n/k/a Warner Bros. Discovery) in a breach of contract, copyright, and trademark infringement suit in California federal court arising out of Discovery’s termination of its relationship with a television production company.
• Securing highly favorable sound-recording royalty rates for Pandora Media for the 2016–2020 license period, following a six-week trial before the Copyright Royalty Board, impacting billions in royalty payments.
• Successfully representing Univision Communications (n/k/a TelevisaUnivision) in a high-profile programming dispute with cable operators concerning the implications of significant cable operator acquisitions and mergers, resolved on favorable terms by settlement.
• Successfully representing Univision Communications (n/k/a TelevisaUnivision) in a programming dispute brought by DISH Network alleging breach of contract in connection with Univision’s offering of a select number of Liga MX soccer matches via a new English-language service on Facebook.
• Prevailing for ESPN as lead associate in a jury trial in federal district court in New York in a $150 million-plus lawsuit brought by DISH Network alleging breaches of certain terms of a licensing agreement.Prevailing for ESPN, ABC Cable Networks Group, and other Disney-related entities as lead associate in a jury trial in New York state court against DISH Network, and also securing summary judgment on a counterclaim worth over $65 million.

Antitrust

David has extensive experience defending multinational corporations—including Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toray Industries, and JVC Kenwood—in global antitrust cartel investigations and related civil class actions.

In 2020, he prevailed for Bridgestone in a Sixth Circuit appeal challenging a district court order that permitted ordinary consumers to bring a nationwide antitrust class action involving anti-vibrational rubber parts, despite Bridgestone’s prior settlement of a nationwide indirect-purchaser class action involving the same claims.

Employment

David has successfully prosecuted and defended restrictive covenant and trade secret litigation on behalf of employers. In 2019, David and his team obtained a temporary restraining order in a high-profile breach of contract dispute in New York federal court involving employee and customer solicitation in the insurance industry, resulting in a highly favorable settlement.

Constitutional Law and Appellate Practice

David has played key roles in multiple high-profile appellate victories, including matters of first impression:

• Successfully represented the National Restaurant Association in a constitutional challenge, upheld on appeal by the New York Court of Appeals, to New York City’s “soda ban,” which prohibited certain establishments from selling sugar-sweetened drinks in containers that hold more than 16 ounces.
• Successfully appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Schindler Elevator Corporation, helping to secure an important victory for the company in a case that interpreted the “public disclosure” bar of the False Claims Act.
• Successfully represented the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in a high-profile appeal to the New York Court of Appeals that led to the reversal of an intermediate appellate court’s decision finding the Port Authority liable for damages caused by the 1993 terrorist attack at New York’s World Trade Center.
• Won summary judgment for ESPN and Disney (later affirmed on appeal) dismissing all claims in a defamation and false light lawsuit brought by boxing promoter Don King claiming more than $1.0 billion in damages.
• Served as amicus curiae counsel to the Fund for Modern Courts in support of former Chief Judge Judith Kaye's successful lawsuit—affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals—against the Governor, New York Senate and New York State Assembly concerning inadequate judicial salaries for New York's judges.

Pro Bono Practice

David maintains an active and nationally recognized pro bono practice focused on religious freedom and combating antisemitism. His key matters include:

• Filing a Title VI complaint against the School District of Philadelphia on behalf of the ADL. This matter—Mayer Brown’s “Pro Bono Litigation Matter of the Year” for 2025—resulted in a Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights requiring systemic reforms to address antisemitic harassment and discrimination.
• Filing a Title VI complaint, together with the ADL and the Brandeis Center, against the Concord-Carlisle Regional School District in Massachusetts alleging pervasive antisemitic harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
• Successfully representing the East End Eruv Association (EEEA) and the Bergen Rockland Eruv Associations (BREA) in a series of high-profile civil rights cases against municipalities in New York and New Jersey concerning the establishment of eruvin, including:
• Prevailing before the Second Circuit in 2015, which held that the installation of an eruv in Westhampton Beach, New York does not violate the Establishment Clause, and obtaining an Article 78 judgment annulling a zoning determination improperly classifying “lechis” as prohibited signs.
• Securing agreements from the Townships of Mahwah, Upper Saddle River, and the Borough of Montvale to cease efforts blocking expansion of an eruv following litigation in the District of New Jersey.
• Securing one of the largest-ever recoveries under RLUIPA—$2.5 million—on behalf of Congregation Shomrei Torah of Clifton, NJ, along with required municipal infrastructure improvements to allow construction of a house of worship.
• Securing a sweeping settlement on behalf of Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland after the Second Circuit held the school could pursue claims of religious discrimination, civil-rights violations, and tortious interference against the Town of Clarkstown and its officials.
• Securing a settlement restoring the Sabbath elevator program at The Colony in Fort Lee, NJ, enabling observant Jewish residents—many elderly or disabled—to access religious services with dignity on the Sabbath and holidays.
• Filing an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit in favor of a coalition of Orthodox Jewish schools and parents of special-needs children who successfully sued the California Department of Education and others for discrimination in the provision of special-education funding.