“Social media sites create significant litigation risk for companies. With almost one billion users worldwide, more than three billion photos, and 180 billion status posts each month, these sites are gold mines of data that savvy lawyers use for information and leverage.”
Law.com recently had their experts give some much needed advice on how to safely use social media and avoid getting in to “trouble.”
Read the full article here.
Four Steps to Safely Engage in Social Media
Judah Lifschitz and Laura Fraher
Corporate Counsel
December 22, 2011
In the October 2010 issue of Corporate Counsel, we provided five tips that corporations should follow to avoid “ETrouble,” a term we coined to refer to the devastating impact emails and electronically stored information (ESI) can have in litigation. With social media use exploding nationwide, the E-Trouble threat has expanded to platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, YouTube, and Foursquare, which all allow users to create profiles and “connect” with others to meet new people; share ideas, news, entertainment, personal information, photographs, and videos; and engage in networking.
An August 2011 Nielsen Company study found that Americans spend nearly a quarter of their online time on social networking sites and blogs, a 43 percent increase from the previous year. Since social media sites have become increasingly popular for marketing and business purposes, the risk of E-Trouble has increased, and managing that risk is mission-critical for corporations operating in today’s online world.
New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s fall from grace this past summer was caused by his misuse of social media. Weiner’s case may be extreme—he was forced to resign over a scandal begun by a Twitter post—but the case should serve as a warning: online activities do not remain “private” and can be very damaging. Even well-educated users exercise poor judgment while utilizing social media sites.
Consider these real-life examples:
A Domino’s employee posted a video of himself preparing sandwiches on YouTube in 2009. Viewers found the preparation unsanitary and disgusting, leading to a major public relations crisis—and brand damage.
Later the same year, Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson used a gay slur in a Twitter post, leading the gay advocacy group GLAAD to demand a public apology and causing public embarrassment for the franchise.
In early 2011, during the protests in Egypt that ultimately led to the fall of that nation’s government, Kenneth Cole was forced to remove an offending tweet and publish an apology on his Facebook page after he posted: “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo-KC.”
Social media firm New Media Strategies was fired by Chrysler after a NMS employee tweeted in March 2011: “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to fu**ing drive.”
The following month, PETA initiated an online boycott of GoDaddy.com after its CEO posted a video of himself killing an elephant and then tweeted about it. Competitor NameCheap.com launched a campaign for customers to transfer domains from GoDaddy to Namecheap.com for a discount, with 20 percent of the proceeds going to SaveTheElephants.com
Social media sites create significant litigation risk for companies. With almost one billion users worldwide, more than three billion photos, and 180 billion status posts each month, these sites are gold mines of data that savvy lawyers use for information and leverage.
Recently, courts have allowed discovery of the content of social media sites, providing fair warning to everyone that careless posts will come back to haunt you. In Romano v. Steelcase, Inc. (2010), a New York trial court rejected the plaintiff’s privacy concerns and held that the plaintiff’s social media profile, postings, and pictures were discoverable, because having posted that material online, the plaintiff could have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Romano is in line with other recent cases, including from federal courts in Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, and New Jersey.
n the October 2010 issue of Corporate Counsel, we provided five tips that corporations should follow to avoid “ETrouble,” a term we coined to refer to the devastating impact emails and electronically stored information (ESI) can have in litigation. With social media use exploding nationwide, the E-Trouble threat has expanded to platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, YouTube, and Foursquare, which all allow users to create profiles and “connect” with others to meet new people; share ideas, news, entertainment, personal information, photographs, and videos; and engage in networking.
An August 2011 Nielsen Company study found that Americans spend nearly a quarter of their online time on social networking sites and blogs, a 43 percent increase from the previous year. Since social media sites have become increasingly popular for marketing and business purposes, the risk of E-Trouble has increased, and managing that risk is mission-critical for corporations operating in today’s online world.
New York Congressman Anthony Weiner’s fall from grace this past summer was caused by his misuse of social media. Weiner’s case may be extreme—he was forced to resign over a scandal begun by a Twitter post—but the case should serve as a warning: online activities do not remain “private” and can be very damaging. Even well-educated users exercise poor judgment while utilizing social media sites.
Consider these real-life examples:

• A Domino’s employee posted a video of himself preparing sandwiches on YouTube in 2009. Viewers found the preparation unsanitary and disgusting, leading to a major public relations crisis—and brand damage.
• Later the same year, Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson used a gay slur in a Twitter post, leading the gay advocacy group GLAAD to demand a public apology and causing public embarrassment for the franchise.
• In early 2011, during the protests in Egypt that ultimately led to the fall of that nation’s government, Kenneth Cole was forced to remove an offending tweet and publish an apology on his Facebook page after he posted: “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo-KC.”
• Social media firm New Media Strategies was fired by Chrysler after a NMS employee tweeted in March 2011: “I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to fu**ing drive.”
• The following month, PETA initiated an online boycott of GoDaddy.com after its CEO posted a video of himself killing an elephant and then tweeted about it. Competitor NameCheap.com launched a campaign for customers to transfer domains from GoDaddy to Namecheap.com for a discount, with 20 percent of the proceeds going to SaveTheElephants.com

Social media sites create significant litigation risk for companies. With almost one billion users worldwide, more than three billion photos, and 180 billion status posts each month, these sites are gold mines of data that savvy lawyers use for information and leverage.
Recently, courts have allowed discovery of the content of social media sites, providing fair warning to everyone that careless posts will come back to haunt you. In Romano v. Steelcase, Inc. (2010), a New York trial court rejected the plaintiff’s privacy concerns and held that the plaintiff’s social media profile, postings, and pictures were discoverable, because having posted that material online, the plaintiff could have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Romano is in line with other recent cases, including from federal courts in Indiana, Colorado, Nevada, and New Jersey.
Given such a range of discovery, what real-life risks does social media content pose? Here are but two examples of the kinds of troubles that can arise:

1. Starbucks Coffee Corp. was granted summary judgment in a sexual harassment, religious discrimination, and retaliation case brought by a former employee after the employee’s MySpace page was admitted into evidence, displaying the following post: “Starbucks is in deep sh*t with GOD!!! I will now have 2 to turn my revenge side (GOD’S REVENGE SIDE) 2 teach da world a lesson about stepping on GOD. I thank GOD 4 pot 2 calm down my frustrations and worries or else I will go beserk [sic] and shoot everyone. . . .” Mai-Trang Thi Nguyen v. Starbucks Coffee Corp. (2009).
2. In remanding a plaintiff’s social security appeal, a New Jersey federal judge noted, “although the court remands the ALJ’s decision for a more detailed finding, it notes that in the course of its own research, it discovered one profile on what is believed to be plaintiff’s Facebook page where she appears to be smoking. . . . If accurately depicted, plaintiff’s credibility is justifiably suspect.” Purvis v. Commissioner of Social Security (2011). (Plaintiff claimed to be disabled due to bronchial asthma.)

Read the rest of the article and tips here.