Social Media Archives - Page 9 of 25 - The National Law Forum

Employee Fired for Facebook Selfie

A Georgia employee was recently terminated from his position at a marketing firm as a result of a disgraceful Facebook “selfie.” In this case, the employee took a “selfie” with a co-worker’s African American son and uploaded the image as his profile picture. The employee’s picture resulted in a number of Facebook “friends” making derogatory, racist, and disgraceful remarks about the child (we won’t be posting them here). In response to some of the remarks, the employee described the child as “feral.” Not surprisingly, the company promptly terminated the employee’s employment.

Why is this story worth mentioning? Because this Facebook post represents yet another clear example of social media activity that falls outside the scope of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

As many employers are aware, the NLRA provides some protection to employees engaging in social media activity when the content amounts to “protected concerted activity.” This occurs when two or more employees take action for their mutual aid or protection regarding the terms and conditions of employment (e.g., wages, hours, safety, etc.).

Analyzing whether a post amounts to “protected concerted activity” can be a difficult process. As a result, we believe it is best to work through the analysis with examples. On one end of the spectrum you may have a Facebook post between employees engaging in a civil discussion regarding workplace safety. This discussion would arguably constitute protected concerted activity. On the other end of the spectrum you may encounter a post like the example discussed above – arguably not protected concerted activity. Along the spectrum you may encounter various other examples:

“We don’t get paid enough to work overtime for that d@mn jerk!”
“Good thing OSHA isn’t around because my dumb boss doesn’t care about safety.”
“Our best customer, Mr. Smith, is a jerk.”
“The boss is too old to run the company.”
“I am going to beat up my supervisor and key his car.”

Examples 1 and 2 arguably constitute “protected concerted activity.” Examples 3-5 arguably do not. Remember: the farther the post strays from the “terms and conditions of employment,” the more likely discipline will be permissible. Of course the analysis is much more complex than this. Many other factors could come into play. As such, it is always prudent to involve outside counsel when evaluating whether an employee should be disciplined for a social media post.

Article By Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Biometrics: Facebook Files Motion to Dismiss Privacy Suit over Facial Recognition Technology

As discussed in a previous post on facial recognition technology, a putative class action has been filed against Facebook over the collection of “faceprints” for its online photo tagging function, Tag Suggestions. (See e.g., Licata v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2015CH05427 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. filed Apr. 1, 2015) (the case has been transferred to a San Francisco district court, Licata v. Facebook, Inc., No. 15-03748 (N.D. Cal. Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed Aug. 28, 2015)).

The plaintiffs claim that Facebook’s use of facial recognition technology to scan user-uploaded photos for its Tag Suggestions feature violates Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1, and has been used to create, what the plaintiffs allege, is “the world’s largest privately held database of consumer biometrics data.”

Plaintiffs allege that Facebook extracts face geometry data (or faceprints) from user-uploaded photographs and retains such “biometric identifiers” within the meaning of the BIPA. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Facebook collected and stored biometric data without adequate consent. The complaint seeks an injunction and statutory damages for each violation (note: BIPA provides for $1,000 in statutory damages for each negligent violation, and $5,000 for intentional violations, plus attorney’s fees).

Last week, Facebook filed its motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that based on the choice of law provision in its terms of service, California, not Illinois, law should apply (thereby precluding users from bringing a claim under BIPA), and that, regardless, Section 10 of BIPA expressly “excludes both ‘photographs’ and ‘information derived from photographs’ from its reach.”

Those wanting a preview of the plaintiffs’ response to Facebook’s motion should look to a similar privacy action against Shutterfly currently being litigated in Illinois federal court. (See Norberg v. Shutterfly, Inc., No. 15-05351 (N.D. Ill. filed June 17, 2015)). There, the plaintiff brought claims under BIPA against the photo storage service Shutterfly for allegedly collecting faceprints from user-upload photos for a tag suggestion feature without express written consent and “without consideration for whether a particular face belongs to a Shutterfly user or unwitting nonuser.” In its motion to dismiss, Shutterfly, like Facebook, argued that scans of face geometry derived from uploaded photographs are not “biometric identifiers” under BIPA because the statute excludes information derived from photographs.

In his rebuttal, the plaintiff Norberg claimed if the intermediation of a photograph before processing face geometry excluded such data from the definition of a biometric identifier, then the statute would be meaningless:

“Defendants’ interpretation of the BIPA as inapplicable to face scans of photographs is contrary to the very nature of biometric technology and thus would undermine the statute’s core purpose. A photograph of a face is exactly what is scanned to map out the unique geometric patterns that establish an individual’s identity. Taken to its logical conclusion, Defendants’ argument would exclude all the biometric identifiers from the definition of biometric identifiers, because they are all based on the initial capture of a photograph or recording.”

We will be watching both disputes closely – if the suits are not dismissed on procedural or contractual grounds, this will be the first time a court will have the opportunity to interpret the contours of the Illinois biometric privacy statute with respect to facial recognition technology.

Article By Jeffrey D Neuburger of Proskauer Rose LLP

Legal Marketing Stats Lawyers Need to Know

Using market trends to inform your law firm marketing efforts is a must for solos and small firms that have limited budgets and resources to market their firms.

Google recently aggregated research from FindLaw and its own inhouse data to provide a look at the legal market trends that should shape your legal marketing initiatives:

74% of prospects beginning a search online end up contacting the office via phone. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

87% of people who contact an attorney go on to hire an attorney and 72% of them only contact one attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

96% of people seeking legal advice use a search engine. (Google Consumer Survey, Nov 2013)

38% of people use the Internet to find an attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

62% of legal searches are non-branded (i.e., generic: “Phoenix divorce attorney,” etc.). (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

74% of consumers visit a law firm’s website to take action. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

25% of people researching legal topics visit YouTube during the process. (YouTube Internal Data 2012)

85% use online maps to find legal service locations. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

69% use both a smartphone and a PC for research. (Google Legal Services Study Sept 2013)

31% of all law firm related website traffic comes through mobile search (FindLaw Aggregated Hosted Site Data 2014)

71% of people looking for lawyer think it is important to have a local attorney. (FindLaw U.S. Consumer Legal Needs Survey 2014)

So what do you need to do to convert leads based on these facts? Here are a few action steps:

Provide multiple contact options — phone, email, online chat, etc.

Provide a mobile-friendly version of your website.

Have an intake system that allows consumers to reach your firm on the first call and intake specialists trained to convert consumers into clients.

Concentrate on local SEO to ensure your website shows up well in local search.

Article By Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

8 Proven Ways to Boost Engagement for Your Facebook Posts

If you’re using Facebook to “sell” your law firm, you are probably disappointed in your results. You see, Facebook is about engagement and anything that smacks of a hard-sell is usually tuned out.

You will get much better results if you simply surrender to what Facebook can deliver, which is an opportunity to meet new prospects and to share your knowledge that may someday lead to new business.

A lot of new business connections occur on Facebook based on people you used to know –old high school or college friends that you connect with there and then educate them naturally on what you do now. In that sense, approaching Facebook as a referral source cultivation opportunity could be a mindset that will pay you big dividends in the future.

That said, there are certain things you can do that research shows leads to more engagement with your Facebook posts.

According to Shareaholic research, social media now drives more traffic (31.2%) to the websites of people and organizations that post on social media sites than any other channel, including search. Facebook dwarfs all other social networks for driving that traffic, accounting for 25% of all website traffic coming from social media!

BuzzSumo recently analyzed 500 million Facebook posts to discover what types of posts create the most engagement. Use this data to plot your posting strategy and you will likely see an uptick in the number of likes, comments and shares your posts get on Facebook:

Schedule evening posts. Posts published between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET get 88% more interactions than the average Facebook post.
Use images. Image posts get 179% more interactions than the average Facebook post.
Pose a question. Posts ending with a question get 162% more interactions than the average post.
Use video. Videos are the most shared post type on Facebook, averaging 89.5 shares per video.
Post on Sundays. Posts published on a Sunday get 52.9% more interactions than the average post.
Keep posts brief. Posts with 150-200 characters performed the best, averaging 238.75 shares.
Post directly to Facebook. Posting with a third party tool results in 89.5% less engagement than posting directly to Facebook.
Link to longer content. Posts that link to long form content (2,000+ words) receive 40% more interactions than linking to shorter content.

Just like any social media network, the lion’s share of the attention goes to those who interact frequently – and genuinely – with followers and fans. Knowing how valuable and limited your time may be for social media marketing, you need to make efficient use of it to get the maximum benefit. These tips can help you do just that.

Article By Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

Study Reveals How Age Affects Consumers’ Social Media Habits [INFOGRAPHIC]

A new study from Accenture Interactive’s Acquity Group entitled, 2015 Next Generation of Commerce Study, reveals that while everyone and their grandmother is on social media these days, what they like and share is vastly different.

The report is based on surveys of more than 2,000 U.S. consumers on their digital engagement habits and preferences. Responses were broken down based on demographics, including age and gender.

What the researchers found is the consumers have high expectations from brands that seek to engage with them online. Driving this trend are consumers aged 18-30, who have grown up in a digital world that thrives on sharing.

The study reveals that almost 50% of consumers under the age of 50 have tried a service or product as a result of a campaign or ad on social media. Only about 30% of those who are 51-68 were so inclined, and only 14% of those over the age of 69 would try a service or product because they saw it on social media.

What is most surprising is that Facebook is considered to be the most trustworthy channel for content created by a company or brand.

Younger generations are more likely to trust social channels than their older counterparts.

Twenty-nine percent of college-aged consumers (ages 18-22) and 32% of Millennials (ages 23-30) rank Facebook #1, while only 16% of Baby Boomers (ages 52-68) do the same. Older consumers are more likely to trust traditional media, such as print (27%) or online news (20%).

This infographic breaks down the key data points from the Acquity Group study on what channels are most trusted and what types of content consumers are most likely to share with their networks:

Article By Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

Delaware Adds to Growing Patchwork of Social Media Laws

On August 7, Delaware Governor Jack Markell signed a law to prohibit employers from interfering with the personal social media accounts of their prospective and current employees. The new law, which also took effect on August 7, defines “personal social media” to encompass any account on a social networking site created and operated by a prospective or current employee exclusively for his or her personal use. The term does not include accounts created or operated by an employer and that are operated by an employee as part of his or her employment.

Specifically, the new law prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring a prospective or current employee to:

disclose a username or password for the purpose of allowing the employer to access personal social media;

access personal social media in the presence of the employer;

use personal social media as a condition of employment;

divulge any personal social media (except as otherwise permitted by the new law);

add a person, including the employer, to the list of contacts associated with the prospective or current employee’s personal social media,

invite or accept an invitation from any person, including the employer, to join a group associated with the prospective or current employee’s personal social media; or

alter settings on the prospective or current employee’s personal social media that affect a third party’s ability to view the contents of the medium.

The new law also forbids an employer from taking adverse action against a prospective or current employee for failing to comply with any of these requests or demands.

Despite these broad prohibitions, nothing in the new law prevents an employer from:

exercising its right or obligation under its personnel policies, federal or state law, case law, or other rules or regulations to require or request that an employee divulge a username, password, or social media “reasonably believed to be relevant” to an investigation of alleged employee misconduct or violation of applicable laws and regulations (so long as the social media is used solely for purposes of that investigation or a related proceeding);

requiring or requesting an employee to disclose a username, password, or other accessing credentials for (i) an electronic communication device supplied by or paid for in whole or in part by the employer; or (ii) an account or service provided by the employer, obtained by virtue of the employee’s employment relationship, or used for the employer’s business purposes;

accessing, blocking, monitoring, or reviewing electronic data stored on an employer’s network or on an electronic communications device supplied by or paid for in whole or in part by the employer;

complying with a duty to screen prospective or current employees, or to monitor or retain employee communications, (i) under federal or state law or by a self-regulatory organization, as defined in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (like FINRA); or (ii) in the course of a law enforcement employment application or officer conduct investigation performed by a law enforcement agency; or

accessing, using, or viewing information about a prospective or current employee otherwise available in the public domain.

The new Delaware law continues a growing trend across the country. Twenty-one other states have similar laws restricting employer access to a prospective or current employee’s personal social media account, including Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

ARTICLE BY Katharine H Parker & Daniel L. Saperstein of Proskauer Rose LLP

Twitter Terrorism: Criminals Choose the Hack Attack

In what appears to be yet another brazen demonstration of capability following an earlier hijack of government social media sites, a group calling itself the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) recently hacked into the U.S. Army’s main news and public information website, positing its own message for website visitors: “Your commanders admit they are training the people they have sent you to die fighting.” In response, the Army was forced to shut down the site to implement additional security measures to protect its systems.

Earlier this year, two of the U.S. military’s Central Command social media websites on YouTube and Twitter were similarly attacked and compromised. There, organization profile images were replaced by those of ISIS supporters on the official Twitter page, and two ISIS propaganda videos were uploaded to the Central Command YouTube account. Over the past several years, SEA has initiated similar attacks on the Twitter accounts of the BBC, The New York Times, 60 Minutes and the Associated Press.

Business Concerns

While the U.S. government reported that none of the internal systems were compromised and that there was no loss of classified information, the attacks have certified the anxiety of many business leaders over the potential vulnerability of their own companies, and highlight the concerns regarding the lack of knowledge or ability to prevent such attacks. Recent surveys have confirmed that risks associated with social media, whether through external portal access or internal sabotage, are among the top concerns facing businesses in 2015.

Without question, social media has become a crucial advertising vehicle for thousands of businesses around the world. The number of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other social media users continues to grow at an exponential rate, allowing businesses access to many new customers and clients every day. The ability to maintain control over these new electronic profiles, however, has become increasingly difficult as the perpetrators become more skilled and the targets more prized. In one particularly publicized account in 2013, social media hackers changed the Twitter account name of a premiere fast-food company to that of its chief competitor and posted multiple offensive tweets. Thereafter, damage control was all that could be done.

Businesses in 2015 have become enthralled by virtually unlimited access to customers and business partners via online platforms. Unfortunately, many have focused on the potential profits arising from such undertakings without sufficient consideration for the problems that too frequently arise from the use of such platforms. Social media has become the soft underbelly of many growing businesses eager for success but unaware of its vulnerabilities. In addition to direct attacks, courthouses nationwide have been flooded by lawsuits tied to the use and regulation of social media sites. The governance of employee use of social media, ownership of content and retention of information gathered through social media are generating more litigation every day. While increased exposure may be the incentive, preventative medicine will likely prove integral to long-term success.

Such “preventative medicine” includes not only the appropriate policies and procedures on access to and use of social media, but also an understanding of the vulnerabilities created by using these online platforms. Most importantly, organizations must train their employees on these issues. Defending itself from perils arising out of social media starts at the first line of defense – the user.

ARTICLE BY Scott Sweeney & Ian A. Stewart of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

Gone, But Not Forgotten – A Deactivated Facebook Account Can Be Discoverable

Courts have long grappled with social media in a legal context. The struggle to understand social media issues — and to craft coherent applicable legal policy — renders Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC amusing to show how the less-than-honest actions of an employee-plaintiff can make these difficult legal questions fairly simple for a court.

In May of 2014, Brannon Crowe sued Marquette Transportation, his employer, for an injury to his knee that he claimed to have suffered in an accident at work. Interestingly, however, Crowe allegedly sent a co-worker a message on Facebook which stated that he received the injury during a fishing trip, and not at work. When confronted with the message to the co-worker by opposing counsel during a deposition, Crowe stated the account the message was sent from was Brannon “CroWe,” and it couldn’t be his because he didn’t have a capital “W” in his last name.

At the deposition, Crowe also said that he no longer had an account after the previous October, and his response to a discovery request for the contents of his account was that, in addition to such a request being vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, he didn’t presently have a Facebook account. The court ordered Crowe to provide the contents of his account for the court to review in camera to determine if the contents of the account should indeed be discoverable. Later, however, Crowe’s counsel submitted to the court 4,000 pages of Facebook account information from the Brannon CroWe account, with an interesting wrinkle – the records of the account indicate that the account was deactivated – not deleted – four days after the discovery request for the account’s contents.

The court was understandably unamused, and suggested that the in camera review of 4,000 pages of Facebook account information would be a waste of time since this account information should have been produced earlier in response to Marquette’s request. The contradiction with Crowe’s testimony alone was enough to render the account information discoverable. Rather than review the documents fully in camera, the court ordered Crowe to turn over every single page of the Facebook account history to Marquette, as well as any login information for any Facebook accounts Crowe had at that time or in the past, and Crowe was ordered to consent to any authorization for Marquette to subpoena his Facebook information.

In effect, Crowe made the contents of the account discoverable through his attempts to keep it from being discovered, and that made the court’s decision on the issue clear. Luckily for Crowe, he only deactivated the account rather than deleted it, since he had a duty to preserve evidence in litigation. Spoliation of evidence is the negligent or intentional destruction or alteration of evidence that may be required in a lawsuit. Even though the evidence doesn’t look good for Crowe in the present case, had he deleted the account entirely, he would have been subject to the spoliation inference, which is a negative evidentiary inference in favor of the opposing party. A showing that a party has destroyed relevant evidence can lead to punitive sanctions against him as well.

Social media provides an abundant resource of data about a litigant, and both employers and employees alike should be a wary of even private messages sent to others in that context. When employees raise issues against employers in a legal setting, their interactions with coworkers on social media may be discoverable. This case also raises questions about how far those involved in legal proceedings can or should go to protect themselves with regard to their social media accounts. As courts become increasingly comfortable with the legal implications of social media and technology, issues such as evidence spoliation through deactivation and deletion will become more and more prominent as a trap for the unwary.

ARTICLE BY Brittany Blackburn Koch of McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Three Steps to Leverage LinkedIn for Your Law Firm

I have yet to find an attorney who could not benefit from having their profile on LinkedIn. It’s the number one online network for white-collar professionals.

Whether you want to connect with non-competing attorneys, non-legal professionals, or potential clients, the demographics on LinkedIn speak for themselves:

The average age range of a LinkedIn user is 30 to 49
44% of LinkedIn users report an annual income of more than $100,000
50% of members have a college degree
28% have a graduate degree

LinkedIn members are highly educated and affluent. Is this a demographic you would like to reach? For most attorneys, the answer is obvious.

The first step to using LinkedIn is to create a comprehensive profile. Use your entire bio in your profile and be sure to include your keywords in it. In other words, use the exact keywords that you believe prospects or potential referral sources would use to find an attorney with your skill sets.

For example, if you are a business attorney in Omaha it might sound like this:

“John Doe is a Omaha business attorney who works with small business owners and CEOs of mid-sized companies to create comprehensive operating agreements, buy-sell agreements and employment agreements. His Omaha business clients appreciate the fact that John is an attorney who has a strong business background, having owned and operated two different companies, including a high tech company with 25 employees.”

Next, go to the See Who You Already Know on LinkedIn page and import your email contact list. This makes it super simple to connect with people you already know who are also on LinkedIn. In addition, based on your contacts, LinkedIn will suggest relevant contacts for you to connect with on the site.

Then search LinkedIn Groups and join those where your clients and prospects are. Create content — blog posts, free reports, articles, etc. — that will attract their attention. You can also start your own group and invite contacts to join.

The key to utilizing LinkedIn effectively is to be involved and be consistent. You need to commit to investing at least 30-45 minutes every week to log in, post an update or a link to your blog, reach out to your contacts, answer any questions that are sent to you, and make yourself visible. Simply setting up a profile on LinkedIn will not lead to more referrals any more than a having a business card will automatically get you new business.

ARTICLE BY Stephen Fairley of The Rainmaker Institute

LinkedIn, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Real-World Implications of Online Activity

With the ever-increasing amount of information available on social media, employers should remember to exercise caution when utilizing social media as a part of their Human Resources/ Recruitment related activities. We live in a digital-age, and how people choose to define themselves is often readily showcased on social networking sites. Whether – and how – employers choose to interact with the online presence of their workforce will continue to develop as the relevant legal standards try to catch up.

A recent federal court filing in the Northern District of California against LinkedIn Corp. provides yet another example of the growing interaction between online personas and real-world employment law implications. There, in Sweet, et al v. LinkedIn Corp., the plaintiffs sought to expand the application of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by alleging that LinkedIn’s practice of providing “reference reports” to members that subscribe to LinkedIn’s program for a fee, brought LinkedIn within the coverage of the FCRA as a Credit Reporting Agency (“CRA”). Briefly, the FCRA (and relevant state statutes like it) imposes specific requirements on an employer when working with “any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.” In other words, there are rules – such as providing requisite disclosures and obtaining prior authorization – that apply when an employer engages a CRA to perform background checks, reference checks and related inquiries.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that LinkedIn was a CRA – and that these various rules should apply – because LinkedIn collected and distributed consumer information to third parties and the resulting reference reports “bear on a consumer’s character, general reputation, mode of living, or personal characteristics, and/or other factors listed in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).” Further, according to the complaint, LinkedIn violated the FCRA because it should have provided FCRA compliant disclosure and followed the reporting obligations applicable to CRAs.

LinkedIn, which is touted as the “world’s largest professional network,” does not portray itself as a CRA and moved to dismiss the complaint. LinkedIn argued that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the statute was too broad and, moreover, was inconsistent with the facts. A federal judge agreed and dismissed the complaint (although the plaintiffs have the opportunity to file another complaint). The Court ruled that these reference searches could not be considered “consumer reports” under the law – and LinkedIn was not acting as a CRA – because, in part, the plaintiffs had voluntarily provided their information to LinkedIn with the intention of it being published online. (The FCRA excludes from the definition of a consumer report a report that contains “information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report.”) The Court also noted that the allegations suggested that LinkedIn “gathers the information about the employment histories of the subjects of the Reference Searches not to make consumer reports but to ‘carry out consumers’ information-sharing objectives.’”

The LinkedIn case should still serve as a reminder of several important and interrelated trends. First, as it concerns the FCRA, the statute is broadly worded to cover “any written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency . . .” and the equally expansive definition of a CRA can apply in numerous situations that extend beyond the traditional notion of a consumer reporting agency. If applicable, the requirements of the FCRA must be followed. Second, employers need to continue to be mindful of the fact that their online activity can have real-world employment law implications. Third, as the law governing traditional employment law continues to evolve in response to online developments, the challenges to that activity will evolve as well.

Authored by: Ian Gabriel Nanos and Maxine Adams of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Business Concerns

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: