Archive for Facebook

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Bland v. Roberts, 2012 US Dist. Lexis 57530, 4:11cv45 (E.D. Va.; Apr. 24, 2012)

Bland and his cohorts worked in the Hampton Sheriff’s Office, under B.J. Roberts. Roberts ran for re-election against Jim Adams, and the plaintiffs were lukewarm in their support of Roberts. In fact, three of the plaintiffs went so far as to “like” Adams’ Facebook page. Roberts won the election, and he decided to not retain the plaintiffs. He justified the terminations on cost-cutting and budgeting grounds, but plaintiffs argued that their termination violated their First Amendment rights. The court grants Roberts’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiffs alleged they engaged in a variety of protected activities, such as placing a bumper sticker on one of their cars and attending an Adams-sponsored cookout, but the court says there is no evidence that Roberts was aware of these activities. The one activity that Roberts knew about was “the presence” of two of the plaintiffs on his opponent’s Facebook page. However, with respect to this activity, the court says that plaintiffs did not point to any specific statements they made on Adams’ Facebook page. One plaintiff claimed he posted a comment to Adams’ page, but he later took it down, and the comment wasn’t presented to the court. Plaintiffs “liked” Adams’ Facebook page, and there was no dispute that Roberts was aware of this, but the court says this is insufficient:

[Roberts'] knowledge of the posts only becomes relevant if the court finds the activity of liking a Facebook page to be constitutionally protected. It is the court’s conclusion that merely “liking” a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.

Read More…

We’ve all heard the expression that your social media efforts should not be left to an intern (I’ve probably used it myself). But I thought it would be useful to give our perspective of how we’ve integrated someone into our social media universe. Particularly as a lawyer/law firm, “outsourcing your marketing” can be a recipe for disaster. In fact, I’m guessing many lawyers even question whether a non-lawyer can be integrally involved in a firm or lawyer’s outreach efforts. It has worked out well for us. Granted the person who handles much of our social media efforts is far from an intern (and has experience in the news business, which probably results in good instincts) but I thought her perspective would still be useful.

A quick background: Prior to Veronica entering the picture, I was our social media presence. I blogged a fair amount and I used Twitter as well. I still do. Veronica came on board, and among other things, offered to clean up our social media presence. She set up our Facebook page and our Twitter feed.  Her work on this front has been great. What impressed me the most is that Veronica has the ability to identify useful links and follow people that are relevant in the space.  Her tweets are very good, and I say this as someone who is an avid and discriminating Twitter user. We did not have any conversations with Veronica about this. I guess she’s a natural.

1. How much time do you spend per week tweeting/Facebooking?

I handle a variety of tasks for Focal, but I try to devote at least two hours/day to social media.

Read More…

[Post by Venkat Balausbramani]

Facebook, Inc. v. Maxbounty, Inc., CV-10-4712-JF (N.D. Cal.; Mar. 28, 2011)

The Northern District of California ruled that commercial posts to a Facebook user’s wall, news feed, and home page constitute “electronic mail messages” that are subject to CAN-SPAM. Two other courts in California had taken a similar approach with respect to MySpace messages (MySpace v. Wallace and MySpace v. TheGlobe.com).

Facebook brought claims against Maxbounty, which it alleged set up an affiliate scheme in violation of Facebook’s policies and procedures. As described in the complaint: Read More…

[Post by Venkat Balausbramani]

Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26441 (N.D. Ill.; March 15, 2011)

Employees increasingly promote their employers on Facebook and Twitter. As a result, there’s a fair amount of grey area around whether the employer or employee “owns” the account in question. One employer learned the hard way that it is risky to assume that the employer owns the employee’s Twitter and Facebook accounts. The employer accessed the employee’s Twitter and Facebook accounts without authorization, while the employee was in the hospital. As a result, the employee brought claims for impersonation and false endorsement. The court held that the claims could go forward.

As alleged in the complaint, Fredman is a prominent interior designer who runs the Susan Fredman Design Group (SFDG). SFDG also has an internet presence. Maremont is an interior designer that started working at SFDG in October 2005 (as SFDG’s Director of Marketing, Public Relations, and e-commerce). Read More…