Social media sites are transforming not only the daily lives of consumers, but also how companies interact with consumers. Here at Morrison Foerster, across all of our practice groups, we are seeing complex, cutting-edge legal issues arising out of social media. As with the Internet boom during the mid-to-late 1990s, social media is generating new legal questions at a far faster pace than the law’s ability to provide answers to such questions. In an effort to stay on top of these emerging issues, and to keep our clients and friends informed of new developments, Morrison Foerster publishes this blog devoted to the law and business of social media.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data- and technology-intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud-based technology, digital media (social media, AR/VR, gaming, streaming media, AdTech), AI, healthcare, consumer electronics, e-commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on branding and marketing, trademark licensing, and content-related transactions, as well as the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin-offs, and private equity investments.He has represented clients such as Autodesk, Meta, OpenAI, Splunk, Konami, Kaiser Permanente, SoftBank, Visa, and Yahoo, among others.Aaron has been recognized by numerous publications for his work on market-defining technology transactions. He is currently ranked by Chambers USA for “Technology Transactions.”Aaron also serves as co-editor of Socially Aware, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics. Aaron is also a sought-after speaker on new and emerging areas of law, and is a frequent presenter and panelist at conferences and legal services programs. In addition to his active practice, Aaron regularly provides pro bono assistance to various nonprofit and charitable organizations such as Common Sense Media and the Starlight Children’s Foundation. He is a member of the board of directors of California Lawyers for the Arts.While in law school at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, Aaron served as executive editor of the California Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Following law school, Aaron served as law clerk to the Honorable William H. Orrick and the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins, both United States District Judges for the Northern District of California.

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Aaron is the chair of our Technology Transactions Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals. Aaron’s practice focuses on advising both established and emerging companies in a variety of data– and technology–intensive sectors, including software, SaaS, cloud computing, AR/VR, AI, gaming, healthcare, consumer electronics, social media, e–commerce, other online business models, and mobile applications. He also maintains an active practice counseling companies on the intellectual property aspects of mergers, acquisitions, asset spin–offs, and private equity investments.

Aaron P. Rubin

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.Lawrence focuses his practice on technology transactions and licensing matters. His diverse experience includes advising on SaaS agreements, cross-licensing agreements, research and collaboration agreements, development agreements, and distribution agreements. He counsels a broad range of companies across the software, hardware, life sciences, biotech and FinTech spaces, as well as other entities including universities.He advises clients in connection with general corporate matters including contract negotiations, and leasing and technology placement agreements.Lawrence also serves as co-editor of <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/" target="_blank">Socially Aware</a>, the firm’s award-winning newsletter and blog devoted to the law and business of social media, and regularly publishes on various IP and technology-related topics.Prior to joining the firm, Lawrence was counsel at another major law firm. Before earning his law degree, Lawrence was a web consultant, project manager, and web developer in Portland, Oregon, where he managed and consulted on projects using industry methodologies and performed custom development and integration of content management systems.Lawrence was named a Super Lawyers “Rising Star” in 2015 and 2018–2022, and is licensed in both California and New York. Lawrence earned his J.D. from the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he was the electronic systems editor for the Buffalo Law Review and awarded the ABA-BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Law.

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster.Anthony advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. He regularly advises companies on the IP aspects of their M&A transactions. His clients include technology, digital media and content for television and music, financial services, and communications companies with diverse intellectual property assets and issues.His practice focuses on the legal aspects of developing, licensing, and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts, including outsourcing transactions, as well as content and data licenses. He regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to licensing and commercialization of digital media and content, digital content that is distributed over the Internet or streamed, mobile applications and social media, as well as the licensing of recorded music for distribution via digital platforms. Anthony is also experienced with issues relating to open-source software, software development, artificial intelligence and machine learning, cloud-based technology, and protection of proprietary information.Anthony has extensive experience working on matters involving disruptive technologies, such as blockchain. He has helped fintech clients with general intellectual property issues in connection with terms of service for online financial products and services.Anthony is an integral part of the outside pro bono legal team for nonprofit organizations based in New York, including advising clients on legal issues regarding entertainment, social media, privacy rights, and the negotiation of outsourcing and service agreements. Anthony received his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 2009. He received his B.S. from Cornell University in 2004.

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

Anthony Ramirez is a partner in the Technology Transactions Group in the New York office of Morrison Foerster. He advises clients on general commercial and transactional matters. His clients include technology, media, and communications companies with considerable intellectual property assets. His practice focuses on the legal aspects of licensing and commercializing technology and intellectual property, as well as negotiating general commercial contracts. He also regularly assists clients with legal issues relating to mobile applications and social media.

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

Socially Aware is devoted to the law and business of social media, proactively addressing emerging issues and keeping our clients informed of new developments. We cover fields such as artificial intelligence, privacy and data security, Section 230, intellectual property, and much more.

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

MoFo’s Socially Aware blog provides timely updates and analysis of the many complex and cutting-edge legal and business issues arising out of social media.

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from Socially Aware. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

Social Links: Age Verification, X Appeal, and the Great White North

Social Links: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

Lawrence W. Gallick on Toth v. Everly Well, Inc.

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security measures. In May 2019, the CNIL imposed a EUR 400,000 fine on a French real estate company for failing to have basic authentication measures on a server and for retaining information too long. This is the second fine by the CNIL under the EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR) after the one against Google. The decision is among many pre-GDPR fines imposed by the CNIL for failing to meet security standards, and shows that data security continues to be a high enforcement priority for the CNIL.BackgroundFrench real estate company Sergic operated a website where individuals could upload information about themselves for their property rental applications. Responding to a complaint by an applicant, the CNIL investigated Sergic in September 2018, as it appeared that applicants’ documents were freely accessible without authentication (by modifying a value in the website URL). The CNIL confirmed the vulnerability and found that almost 300,000 documents were accessible in a master file containing information such as individuals’ government issued IDs, Social Security numbers, marriage and death certificates, divorce judgments, and tax, bank and rental statements. The CNIL also discovered that Sergic had been informed of the vulnerability back in March 2018 but did not fix it until September 2018. FindingsAs a result, the CNIL held that Sergic had failed to ensure:<ul class="li-margin"><li>Data security: According to the CNIL, a vulnerability (lack of authentication) is an essential requirement to significantly reduce the risk of a data breach occurring, and is one of the most widespread problems; the CNIL has already issued several public fines for cases with similar facts (see this page of the CNIL’s website, for example). This vulnerability does not require any particular computing mastery to exploit – only changing a value in the website URL. The infringement was aggravated by the sensitive nature of the data and by Sergic’s lack of diligence in remedying the security failure (i.e., it took six months to remedy).  The fact that no individual was harmed, did not change the result of the CNIL’s decision.</li><li>Storage limitation: The CNIL also held that, if the processing purposes had been reached, personal data would either have to be deleted or archived (i.e., moved to another logically separated section of the active database or to an archiving database); but Sergic did not purge the applicants’ documents.</li></ul>As a result, the CNIL imposed a EUR 400,000 fine. Unfortunately, the CNIL (again) did not explain how it determined the actual fine amount, other than stating that the fine was justified and proportionate. It is interesting to note that it appears that the CNIL’s rapporteur initially requested a EUR 900,000 fine. Why (and how) the CNIL ultimately reduced the fine to less than half of that amount is not indicated.<div class="container-fluid main"><div class="row body"><div class="body-container "><div class="col-md-8 col-md-push-2 col-sm-12 col-xs-12"><div>Below are a few good practices to consider, given the GDPR and CNIL enforcement activity.Security and retention good practices in FranceSecurity<ul class="li-margin"><li>Check the CNIL’s guide on data security, available in French and English.</li><li>Check the CNIL’s guidance on password hygiene, available in French and in English.</li><li>Check other security guides, such as those produced by the French National Authority for the Security of Information Systems, available in French.</li><li>Check security guidance issued in other countries (e.g., the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s guide for business and security guides from the Australian, Spanish, and U.K. data protection/cybersecurity authorities).</li><li>Don’t reinvent the wheel – leverage your security program across the many areas where the GDPR applies (e.g., data protection impact assessments, privacy by design, record keeping, data breaches, transfers, audits, and processor/processing agreements). Consider also how to repurpose security practices flowing from legislation from other sectors and regions.</li><li>Be prepared (e.g. with the right people, resources, and response plans), responsive, and don’t work in silos – this is especially true when a data breach occurs. Consistent, efficient, and swift communication and action, internally and externally, are key.</li></ul>Storage limitationCheck legal statutes of limitation, as well as regulatory guidance. For example, CNIL guidance on specific topics (e.g., biometric access controls, HR management, and customer relationship management) may contain explanations of retention periods.</div></div></div></div></div>

van-der-wolk_alex_blog_150x150.png

van-der-wolk_alex_common_640x280.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

van-der-wolk_alex_social_600x600.jpg

Managing Partner, Brussels

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management. 

With more than a decade of experience, Mr. van der Wolk helps clients develop privacy strategies for digital transformations, industrial IoT, telematics, Big Data, commercial and marketing programs, a

Alex van der Wolk

Alex van der Wolk, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s preeminent Global Privacy & Data Security practice and managing partner of the firm’s Brussels office, employs his nearly 20 years of experience to advise global companies on their most complex data strategies and compliance programs governing all aspects of information management.

07_10_blog_computerscreen_600px-300x189.jpg

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

The CNIL Strikes Again – Mind Your Security

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, continues to fine organizations for failing to adopt what the CNIL considers to be fundamental data security mea

A California Superior Court’s recent ruling in <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2968&context=historical" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Murphy v. Twitter</a> held that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> shielded Twitter from liability for suspending and banning a user’s account for violating the platform’s policies. As we have previously noted, Section 230 has come under pressure in recent years from both courts and legislatures. But we have also <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/04/30/appeals-court-upholds-section-230-protections-in-case-against-grindr/">examined</a> <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/08/22/section-230-survives-to-fight-another-day-following-california-supreme-court-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">other cases</a> demonstrating Section 230’s staying power. The ruling in Murphy again shows that, despite the challenges facing Section 230, the statute continues to serve its broader purpose of protecting social media platforms from the actions of their users while allowing those platforms to monitor and moderate their services.From January to mid-October 2018, Meghan Murphy posted a number of tweets that misgendered and criticized transgender Twitter users. After first temporarily suspending her account, Twitter ultimately banned her from the platform for violating its Hateful Conduct Policy. Twitter had amended this policy in late October 2018 to specifically include targeted abuse and misgendering of transgender people.Murphy filed suit against Twitter for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and unfair competition in violation of California law. She alleged, among other things, that Twitter had changed its Hateful Conduct Policy without notice and retroactively applied it to her, and that Twitter had falsely advertised itself as not monitoring or censoring user content when in fact it did. She sought injunctions to prevent Twitter from enforcing the rule against misgendering and to restore access to all accounts that had violated the policy.Twitter filed both a motion to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute, as well as a demurrer (essentially a motion to dismiss). The court disposed of the motion to strike because it found that Murphy’s suit sought only injunctive and declaratory relief that would benefit other Twitter users who were similarly situated to her (as opposed to monetary damages that would confer a greater benefit on her). Because this qualifies as an action brought in the public interest, the court found it was exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute and denied the motion.However, the court sustained Twitter’s demurrer, dismissing Murphy’s entire suit by holding it was barred under Section 230.Was Twitter acting as a publisher?Section 230(c)(1) states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The court found it was already well-established that Twitter is a provider of an interactive computer service, citing <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv00230/306970/58/0.pdf?ts=1512465175" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pennie v. Twitter, Inc.</a> and <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2336&context=historical" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fields v. Twitter, Inc.</a>The key issue was whether Twitter was acting in its capacity as a publisher when it suspended and then banned Murphy’s account. The court found that it was, and found this determination dispositive in holding that Twitter’s actions qualified for Section 230 protection.First, the court found that the classification of a service as a “publisher” does not depend on whether that service chooses to take down content or to actively post content. Citing a series of California and federal cases (including <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1282926.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Barrett v. Rosenthal</a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2017-a148623.pdf?ts=1502308864" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cross v. Facebook, Inc.</a>), the court identified a growing line of precedent that found no distinction between withdrawal and posting of content under Section 230. Both are considered publishing activity.Second, the court specifically addressed the question of whether suspensions or deletions of users’ accounts are considered publishing activity under Section 230. The court cited Fields, <a href="https://casetext.com/case/riggs-v-myspace-inc">Riggs v. MySpace, Inc.</a>, <a href="https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/117/389733/123113101708.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cohen v. Facebook, Inc.</a>, and Mezey v. Twitter, Inc., finding that courts have routinely found Section 230 protects platforms’ choices regarding suspension or deletion of accounts.Finally, Murphy argued that her claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel were outside the scope of Section 230 because they sought to hold Twitter liable for breaching its contractual promises to her as stated in its policies, rather than for anything it did as a publisher. However, the court found that Twitter allegedly violated its contractual duties to Murphy only because of actions it undertook as a publisher (suspending and banning Murphy’s accounts). Because her claims sought to hold Twitter liable specifically for these actions, which, as discussed above, were those of a publisher, the suit was still barred.Distinguishing from DemetriadesThe court rejected Murphy’s argument that her suit was like <a href="https://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2014-b247151.pdf?ts=1406232055" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc.</a>, a case in which the plaintiff had sued to prevent Yelp from making public statements about the quality of its reviews (namely, that its “filter” for unreliable reviews was highly effective and that it had “the most trusted reviews”). The court in Demetriades found that Section 230 did not bar the plaintiff’s suit because it sought to hold Yelp liable for its own public-facing statements, rather than for any statements made by third-party Yelp reviewers.The court concluded that Murphy’s claims, in contrast, sought to hold Twitter liable for the application of its Hateful Conduct Policy in suspending and banning her. At no point did she allege a cause of action purely related to Twitter’s public or user-facing statements. Because her claims were related to Twitter’s publishing activity, they remained susceptible to the protection of Section 230.*   *   *  *The court’s ruling in Murphy represents another win for providers of social media platforms. It also further clarifies that, at this time, publishing activity encompasses social media platforms’ decisions to suspend or ban certain users. We will continue to post regular updates here on Socially Aware regarding new developments in this evolving area of the law.

Aaron is the chair of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group and co-chair of the Interactive + Digital Media Group. He advises clients on a wide range of complex transactions involving intellectual property and technology, including structuring and negotiating strategic licensing, development, collaboration, procurement, and distribution deals.

Aaron Rubin

06_27_gettyimages-1018117980_600px-300x263.jpg

California Court Finds Section 230 Protects Decision to Suspend and Ban Twitter Account

California Court Finds Section 230 Protects Decision to Suspend and Ban Twitter Account

A California Superior Court’s recent ruling in Murphy v. Twitter held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shielded Twitter from liability for sus

As we have <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/04/30/appeals-court-upholds-section-230-protections-in-case-against-grindr/">frequently</a> <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/08/22/section-230-survives-to-fight-another-day-following-california-supreme-court-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> on Socially Aware, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> protects social media sites and other online platforms from liability for user-generated content. Sometimes referred to as “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-law-that-gave-us-the-modern-internet-and-the-campaign-to-kill-it/279588/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the law that gave us the modern Internet</a>,” Section 230 has provided robust immunity for website operators since it was enacted in 1996. As we have also <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2016/12/15/the-decline-and-fall-of-section-230/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">written previously</a>, however, the historically broad Section 230 immunity has come under pressure in recent years, with both courts and legislatures chipping away at this important safe harbor.Now, some lawmakers are proposing legislation to narrow the protections that Section 230 affords to website owners. They assert that changes to the section are necessary to protect Internet users from dangers such as sex-trafficking and the doctored videos known as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/12/deep-fakes-fake-news-truth">deep fakes</a>.”The House Intelligence Committee HearingRecently, a low-tech <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/23/faked-pelosi-videos-slowed-make-her-appear-drunk-spread-across-social-media/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9839f9d73f7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fraudulent video</a> that made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s speech appear slurred was widely shared on social media, inspiring Hany Farid, a computer-science professor and digital-forensics expert at the University of California, Berkeley, to tell <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/05/23/faked-pelosi-videos-slowed-make-her-appear-drunk-spread-across-social-media/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9839f9d73f7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Washington Post</a>, “this type of low-tech fake shows that there is a larger threat of misinformation campaigns—too many of us are willing to believe the worst in people that we disagree with.”In the wake of the fraudulent video of Rep. Pelosi going viral, the House Intelligence Committee held a hearing to analyze the risks that this type of technology poses to national and election security.“At the outset of the hearing,” <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/13/18677847/deep-fakes-regulation-facebook-adam-schiff-congress-artificial-intelligence" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Verge reported</a>, “[House Intelligence Chairman Adam] Schiff came out challenging the ‘immunity’ given to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, asking panelists if Congress should make changes to the law that doesn’t currently hold social media companies liable for the content on their platforms.”Laws Intended to Impede Sex Trafficking OnlineRep. Schiff’s suggestion that Section 230 should be amended isn’t the first of its kind. The enactment in April 2018 of a package of laws referred to as SESTA-FOSTA (known as the “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/text" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act</a>” in the Senate and the “<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act</a>” in the House of Representatives) created an exception to Section 230 related to facilitation of sex trafficking.That exception, in the words of <a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the online publication Vox</a>, “means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution—including consensual sex work—on their platforms. The goal of this is supposed to be that policing online prostitution rings gets easier. What FOSTA-SESTA has actually done, however, is create confusion and immediate repercussions among a range of internet sites as they grapple with the ruling’s sweeping language.”The Answer to Statutes’ Imperfect Attempts to Correct Internet Evils In response to Rep. Schiff’s comments about Section 230’s protections at the House Intelligence Committee hearing, Maryland Carey School of Law professor Danielle Keats Citron suggested, “Federal immunity [for websites] should be amended to condition the immunity on reasonable moderation practices rather than the free pass that exists today.”Georgetown University Law Center technology scholar Joshua Geltzer agrees that websites should enact practices to reasonably police their own content. In an <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2019/02/cda-section-230-trump-congress.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslogin&stream=topp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article for Slate</a>, he writes, “In reality, Section 230 empowers tech companies to experiment with new ways of imposing and enforcing norms on new sites of discourse, such as deleting extremist posts or suspending front accounts generated by foreign powers seeking to interfere with our elections. . . . The real question lawmakers now face isn’t whether companies are somehow forfeiting their protections by trying to tackle today’s online challenges. It’s whether companies are doing enough to deserve the protections that Section 230 bestows.”

0114_sa_image-300x300.jpg

Legislators Propose Narrowing § 230’s Protections

Legislators Propose Narrowing § 230’s Protections

As we have frequently noted on Socially Aware, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects social media sites and other online platforms from liabili

In March, <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2018/03/12/social-links-inline-linking-to-tweet-containing-photo-could-constitute-copyright-infringement-proposed-california-legislation-could-restrict-website-operators-efforts-to-have-minors-consent/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Socially Aware reported on a lawsuit</a> involving several prominent news outlets’ publication of a photo of NFL quarterback Tom Brady on Twitter. The case had the potential to upend a copyright and Internet-law rule that, in the words of a <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kaifalkenberg/2019/05/29/settlement-of-suit-over-tom-brady-photo-leaves-major-online-copyright-issue-unresolved/#3f764dfe5695" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Forbes columnist</a>, “media companies had viewed as settled law for over a decade.” <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kaifalkenberg/2019/05/29/settlement-of-suit-over-tom-brady-photo-leaves-major-online-copyright-issue-unresolved/#3f764dfe5695" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Read</a> exactly what common-law copyright rule the case called into question, and how the Tom-Brady-Twitter-photo lawsuit concluded without resolving the status of that rule.Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-blocks-daily-caller-twitter-unconstitutional-2019-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blocked the conservative media outlet The Daily Caller</a> from following her on Twitter after the publication disputed something she’d said in connection with her Green New Deal resolution. Some First Amendment experts argue that public officials’ blocking of accounts on social media doesn’t violate the free speech rights of the owners of those blocked accounts. Last year, however, in a case filed by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and seven individuals who claimed President Trump had blocked them on Twitter, a <a href="https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/trump-block-twitter-users-unconstitutional-court-ruling-1202819850/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">federal district court in New York held that Twitter’s “interactive space” constitutes a public forum, and that blocking users violates their right to free speech</a>.A draft law in Germany is believed to be the first regulatory proposal in Europe “<a href="https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2019/05/29/germany-proposes-europes-first-diversity-rules-for-social-media-platforms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to impose binding diversity obligations on social media platforms’ ranking and sorting algorithms</a>,” according to the authors of a post on a media blog belonging to the London School of Economics. The proposed law would, among other things, prohibit “media intermediaries”—a category that includes social media platforms, search engines and news aggregators—from “unfairly disadvantage[ing] (directly or indirectly) or treat[ing] differently providers of journalistic editorial content to the extent that the intermediary has potentially a significant influence on their visibility.”The government of Bahrain, an island-country in the Persian Gulf that has been increasing security since a Shi’ite Muslim-led uprising in 2011, recently sent text messages to its citizens’ phones warning them that <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bahrain-security-socialmedia/bahrain-says-following-opposition-social-media-could-result-in-legal-action-idUSKCN1T30PU" target="_blank" rel="noopener">merely following activist social media accounts could result in legal liability</a>.Pursuant to a 2016 Russian law that requires social media sites to acquiesce to the government’s requests for user data, the <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/tinder-ordered-hand-over-its-user-data-russias-security-services-1441828" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Russian government is requiring the dating app Tinder to collect and turn over all of its user data</a> for at least six months. Blackmail fodder, anyone?North Face, an outdoor-activity-accoutrements company,<a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/29/18644158/north-face-wikipedia-hack-leo-burnett-top-imagens" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> secretly executed an ad campaign on Wikipedia</a>. The campaign may have been an ingenious way to get North Face’s products at the top of world travelers’ Google results, but it violated the educational platform’s terms of service and struck many people as unethical. The company and its ad agency have since <a href="https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/north-face-apologizes-its-wikipedia-hack/2174591" target="_blank" rel="noopener">apologized</a>.In a case that serves a reminder of the increasing use of social media posts as evidence in courts of law, a court near Paris held that a French <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/world/europe/johnny-hallyday-instagram-will.html?searchResultPosition=1ns" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rock star’s Instagram account provided sufficient evidence</a> to prove that the musician had spent enough time in France over several years to give a French court competence over the his estate.

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

oneill_julie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

oneill_julie_social_600x600.jpg

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance c

Julie O'Neill

Clients seek out Julie because of her practical advice on cutting-edge issues at the intersection of privacy and consumer protection laws. She provides clients with practical solutions to compliance challenges around a wide variety of both online and offline privacy issues, including tracking, interest-based advertising, geo-targeting and other mobile tracking, personalization, and cross-device tracking. Recognized in The Legal 500 US 2014, 2016, 2019, and 2020 and Chambers USA 2021 for her exceptional legal work, her clients praise her saying, “She is really good at giving practical, targeted advice and taking stock of what the risk profile of the client is, so that the advice is holistic.” (Chambers USA 2021).

Social Links: Suit over “embedded tweet” with Tom Brady’s photo settles; brand agency manipulates Wikipedia; evidence from Instagram wins French rock star’s kids a share of his estate

In March, Socially Aware reported on a lawsuit involving several prominent news outlets’ publication of a photo of NFL quarterback Tom Brady on Twitter. The cas

Social Links: Suit over “embedded tweet” with Tom Brady’s photo settles; brand agency manipulates Wikipedia; evidence from Instagram wins French rock star’s kids a share of his estate