Connecticut Business Litigation Blog : Connecticut Business Lawyer & Attorney : N. Kane Bennett : Aeton Law Partners LLP : Hartford, Middletown, Glastonbury

Lawyers are all over Facebook and LinkedIn.  What are they doing?  If they are not marketing or social networking, they are fishing or "mining" for information about individuals and businesses.  They are looking for this information to help with lawsuits.  The business and employment trends involving social media are growing and as a result we will continue to see a variety of different lawsuits and legal issues involving some aspect of Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace and YouTube.  For example, read the posts yesterday by Dan Schwartz's Employment Law Blog detailing how privacy settings on Facebook permit easier production in electronic discovery and how facebook wall postings might be unavailable in discovery and deemed private. 

One of the issues lawyers will have to address when mining for data on Facebook and other sites is how to get the information.  Do you seek the material in discovery and possibly risk a judge deeming the information unavailable as private or irrelevant?  Do you just limit your search to what is publicly available?  Better yet, what about having an investigator try to "friend" your target so you can get access to the information that is not available to public searches?   If you are concerned about the ethics of this type of searching, you good instincts. 

Lawyers fishing on Facebook would be well advised to read through a few ethical opinions on the issue. Recently, the New York Bar Association issued an opinion related to ethical concerns for lawyers "fishing" for information and evidence on Facebook and LinkedIn.  The verdict?  Relying in part on a 2009 Pennsylvania Bar Association opinion, it was deemed ethical for lawyers to search for this information from public pages.  Seeking to "friend" for improper purposes, however, is more problematic and may land a lawyer in ethical trouble.  Specifically, if deception was used (by either the lawyer or a third party directed by the lawyer) to gain access as a "friend," it likely would violate the rules of professional conduct. 

Clearly, LinkedIn and Facebook are treasure troves for litigation attorneys.  However, it is a good idea to be cautious about how you access any information from these sites, especially if the information is not generally available from public searches. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The tragic suicide of Rutgers University student, Tyler Clementi, shows the potential devastating impacts arising from misuse of the Internet and social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.  This incident also serves as a reminder of the rapid sea change that technology brings and how our laws struggle to keep pace especially when it comes to new forms of media and the Internet.  I have seen two trends develop as it relates to lawsuits and social networking litigation. Both of these trends will continue. 

The first trend concerns the potential problems and risks to business owners over social media.  These issue have been well documented for over a year now.  Some of these issues include privacy rights, defamation, trade secrets, non-competition agreements, electronic monitoring, evidentiary use, and concerns over social media policies in the workplace. 

The second trend that has developed is the unfortunate increase and rise in cyber bullying, harassment, and invasion of privacy from users posting content on Blogs, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and YouTube.  The sad fact is that this often involves school age children as victims of cyber attacks or as users who do not fully understand the significance and devastation that might result from posting content online to the entire world.

As another glaring example, Anderson Cooper of CNN reported just last night on the disturbing story of Chris Armstrong, an openly gay student at the University of Michigan.  The story detailed how a Michigan Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Shrivell, was outright harassing and stalking Mr. Armstrong both in person and on a blog.   Mr. Shrivell's conduct was revolting and disturbing for anyone let alone a law enforcement official.   His actions are an example of someone running wild on the Internet with harassment.

Individuals facing harassment or bullying over the Internet often feel as if there is nothing that can be done to stop the conduct.  For example, as of last night, the Michigan Attorney General had done nothing to discipline Shrivell for his conduct based on purported concerns for "First Amendment" rights.  Although the available laws for bringing a lawsuit for improper use of the Internet continue to evolve, an attorney can help a victim of Internet or online harassment.  In short, something can be done.  Some of the legal theories available for a civil lawsuit include defamation, negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, stalking statutes, and infliction of emotional distress.  

The explosive growth of use of social media is not going to end. Instead, these trends will continue to dominate and grow.   As use and misuse of social media and the Internet continues, litigation attorneys would be well served to stay on top of the evolving legal issues.  Businesses and individuals will continue to need legal representation  to address these growing trends.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My firm receives many calls from new or existing businesses with Internet privacy questions.  Many calls come from e-commerce businesses, start ups, or businesses that want to utilize information gathered from users accessing their Web sites. Some business owners have ideas or concepts that test the limit on use of user profiles, preferences, and content.  The question becomes, just what are the limits for user expectations on privacy?

Take Facebook for example.  Facebook has a reported 400 million users.  Facebook is constantly in the headlines over its privacy policies and security settings related to its user's profile information.  Whether it is a class action lawsuit in California  or the recent $10 million settlement for its Beacon program, you can count on Facebook to have dealt with any number of privacy issues in litigation.  

Recently, another lawsuit has been filed over Facebook's "opt out" setting concerning the instant personalization feature.  Wendy Davis on  Online Media Daily reported on the story.  This feature automatically shares user information with three outside companies, Microsoft Docs, Pandora, and Yelp.  The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island for violation of the Stored Communications Act (Download here).  By my count, Facebook has been sued at least 30 times in Federal court in recent years.

In the Internet privacy area, Facebook tests the outer limits of what is acceptable for privacy rights and user expectations.  When Facebook makes a change or tries something new, everyone pays attention.  As a result, Facebook's privacy policies get vetted by 400 million users, numerous industry and trade groups, leading technology blogs like TechCrunch, and even the federal government. 

If you want to know what crosses the line when it comes to privacy on the Internet,  just watch Facebook.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

When I started this blog, I decided I would keep an eye on lawsuits related to social networking websites as it seems this type of evidence will soon take the place of the smoking gun email of the last ten years.  The impact of social networking evidence in Connecticut business litigation will continue to grow.

My interest in social networking cases started with a Facebook lawsuit so I made a Facebook category on this blog and discussed some concerns for individuals and Connecticut businesses.  Then Twitter exploded to growth of 1000% last year, so I added a Twitter defamation case and a new category.  And now, its finally here ... I need a  LinkedIn category for LinkedIn lawsuits. 

I do not claim to know about all of the social networking lawsuits out there.  There are also some social networking sites that I ignore, like the dying MySpace.  Nevertheless, I do track cases of interest in this area.  You might also check out Megan Erickson's Social Networking blog as a resource to check on these type of claims or visit Dan Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog for resources and tips on policies for employers related to social networking.  

The LinkedIn lawsuit involves a non-compete agreement and solicitation of employees by a former employee. Molly DiBianca with The Delaware Employment Law Blog detailed the case in a post about the lawsuit filed by TEKSystems against its former employees.  Nothing strange about this type of lawsuit, only in this case, TEKSystems claims it has evidence of breach of the employment contract arising from post-termination solicitation of its employees through the LinkedIn connections of one of the defendants.  Here is a copy of the lawsuit (go to paragraph 37). 

Molly DiBianca states it is the first lawsuit she is aware of using an employee's LinkedIn account.  She may be right, as I am not aware of another case like it.  Nevertheless, I certainly expect this type of social networking evidence to be the focus of more lawsuits and it was only a matter of time for LinkedIn to be involved in a case with media attention.  In Connecticut, we had our own social networking evidence case with Facebook.  In a bullying case involving Miss Porter's School, Judge Arterton ruled that the plaintiff's postings in an expired account were relevant.   

The way I see it, this is only the beginning.  Soon enough, social networking evidence will be as significant and commonplace as email evidence.  At that point, I'll have to find something else to blog about ....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the Business Torts category of this blog, I recently covered the basic law in Connecticut concerning interference with business relationships.  Today's post concerns another business tort known as "defamation" and how it intersects with the growing use of social networking sites.

There already have been several lawsuits for defamation arising out of use of social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook. For example,  The California Defamation Blog lists several celebrities involved in defamation cases, including Courtney Love who was sued by a fashion designer for defamation after a series of derogatory Twitter posts by Love.  Craig Kanalley of Chicagonow.com reported that a property owner sued a tenant for disparaging Twitter comments. The Chicago Tribune recently reported on a defamation lawsuit brought by a mother and her son after a phony Facebook profile was created showing the son was a racist.   

Should Connecticut businesses be concerned?  Clearly, the type and variety of these suits are on the rise. In legal circles, these type of claims have a category of their own called "cyber slander" or "internet defamation."  Given the popularity in use of social networking sites, and the ease in which statements can be broadcast to millions, it is safe to  predict that more defamation cases will be filed in the future. 

Connecticut businesses can be affected by defamation suits involving social networking sites and the internet in a number of ways, such as:

• Employees making comments about a competitor
• Employees making comments about supervisors or co-employees
• Employees making comments about the company's products
• Competitors making derogatory comments about the company
• Phony Facebook or Twitter profiles
• Derogatory comments about the company 

In Connecticut, defamation encompasses defamation by spoken (slander) and written (libel) words. In general, to raise a proper claim for basic defamation, a plaintiff must show that:

1. A defamatory statement was made
2. The statement identified the plaintiff to a third person
3. The statement was published to a third person
4. The plaintiff's reputation suffered injury as a result of the defamatory statement

In regards to businesses, there is also a defamation claim sometimes referred to as "commercial disparagement" or "trade libel."  For this type of claim, a plaintiff must prove disparagement of a business' goods or services by falsehoods published or communicated to a third person.

With the ease of publication to millions over the internet, it is easy to see how someone might publish a defamatory comment whether it be on a blog, social networking site, or website.   Chances are, if you are in business, either you, someone who works for you, or a competitor has commented about the business in cyberspace.

For a business, the best way to avoid a lawsuit for defamation as a result of employee use of sites such as Twitter and Facebook is to have a written policy that governs employee use.  The details of each policy will differ depending on your business, but clearly the policy should prohibit any defamatory or derogatory comments about the business, employees, or competitors.

In situations where a competitor or customer disparaged your business' products or services, a business may want to consider legal action and determine if grounds exist to issue a cease and desist letter, a take down letter, or initiate a lawsuit.  Internet defamation can ruin a business' reputation overnight and should be addressed immediately regardless of whether the business pursues legal action.   

For a business, whether legal action is taken may depend on the severity of the disparagement and the damage done.  In some cases, a cease and desist or retraction is a practical solution especially when a defamation suit would bring added attention to the matter.  In other cases, legal action, such as a defamation lawsuit, may be required to stop ongoing damage or serious problems.

Regardless of the situation, Connecticut businesses should, at a minimum, monitor cyberspace for defamatory comments.  Comments that might lead to a lawsuit could come from your own employees, a competitor, or a disgruntled customer.  A written policy is a good way to minimize risks of employee comments.  As for competitors and customers, Google alerts is a good way to monitor use of a business' name on the Internet. The alert will send you an email every time your business name is found on the internet. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If your business is advertising on Facebook, or considering it, you should do some research on the newest allegations of advertising fraud against the online giant.  Facebook reportedly has over 250 million users so it is understandable that a business would want access to Facebook's users.  Facebook offers businesses advertising space online that is targeted to specific demographics of its users.  Facebook charges for the advertising based on the number of views or clicks that the ad receives from users.

As reported by TechCrunch's Michael Arrington, massive complaints started surfacing recently against Facebook for "click fraud."  Basically, advertisers were clicking on competitor's ads, or paying others to do it, to artificially drive the price up.  Advertisers were also reporting that Facebook was charging for more clicks than the ad was actually receiving. There are now three lawsuits filed against Facebook for advertising click fraud.

 The most recent lawsuit was filed on July 31st by an individual advertiser seeking class action status.   The second lawsuit was filed by Unified ECM, a software company, seeking class action status for massive click fraud by Facebook.  The first click fraud lawsuit was filed by sports company RootZoo and it also seeks class action status. 

BNET Media's Catharine Taylor posted a good report on the details of the first two lawsuits including email comments from Facebook.  In the email, Facebook maintained that the Unified lawsuit is "unnecessary and baseless."  Wendy Davis of Online Media Daly posted a good report on the fist lawsuit by RootZoo. All three suits alleged discrepancies between the charges by Facebook and the actual number of clicks recorded by the advertisers.

Although Facebook has denied all the fraud allegations, TechCrunch takes the position that the click fraud problem is real and confirmed by Facebook. The Lost Press Marketing Blog presents a different view accusing Unified ECM of a "marketing stunt" to get exposure through press coverage of its lawsuit. 

Any business considering advertising with a pay per click campaign, should take caution whether on Facebook, another website, or a search engine.  If you want to measure your return on investment, you should consider monitoring any pay per click campaign internally.   If you are considering Facebook, you should wait to see what Facebook does to reassure its advertisers that fraud will be monitored effectively.  For now, the problem does not appear to be going away.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link