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

Autodesk

HM Revenue and Customs

Home Office, Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health

Intel

ITworx

lastminute.com

NYSE-listed health tech company

One of UK's largest public EV charging networks

Phoenix Group

Telenor

UK Border Agency

maughan_alistair_blog_150x150.png

maughan_alistair_common_640x280.jpg

maughan_alistair_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

maughan_alistair_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

maughan_alistair_social_600x600.jpg

Alistair Maughan co-leads Morrison & Foerster's European Technology & Commercial Practice.

Alistair Maughan

Alistair advises on the deployment of new technology platforms involving, for example, the internet of things, AI and machine-learning, and blockchain and distributed ledger technology.

The Internet of Things Part 2: The Old Problem Squared

Cisco estimates that 25 billion devices will be connected in the Internet of Things (IoT) by 2015, and 50 billion by 2020. Analyst firm IDC makes an even bolder

The Internet of Things Part 2: The Old Problem Squared

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of everyday physical objects that surround us and are increasingly being embedded with technology to enable those objects to collect and transmit data about their use and surroundings. TVs connected to the Internet and refrigerators connected to online delivery services are just the start of it. In the new world of the IoT, the possibilities are enormous, and the technology industry has so far only scratched the surface of what “machine-to-machine” (M2M) interconnectivity could achieve.But the ingenuity and innovation which companies will apply to turn the IoT into practical reality is constrained by law and regulation. Existing issues may take on new dimensions and, as technologies combine, so will the legal consequences of those technologies.In this post, we look at the prospects for the IoT. In a second post to be published shortly, we will examine the likely legal and regulatory factors that will affect the development and growth of IoT technology and the markets that such technology will create.BackgroundThe phrase “Internet of Things” was <a href="http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?4986">first coined</a> in 1999 to mean the connection of everyday objects and devices to the Internet. The idea was that “If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things—using data they gathered without any help from us—we would be able to track and count everything, and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost. We would know when things needed replacing, repairing or recalling, and whether they were fresh or past their best. We need to empower computers with their own means of gathering information, so they can see, hear and smell the world for themselves, in all its random glory.”Back in 1999, however, the technology required to make the IoT concept a reality was expensive, slow, reliant on dial-up Internet and limited by inadequate storage and processing power. Fast-forward 15 years, and the landscape in 2014 looks very different. All the key factors have converged to create the ideal conditions to harness the power of M2M connectivity: smartphones, Wi-Fi and broadband connectivity are now ubiquitous; storage capacity “in the cloud” is growing rapidly; sensor technology has developed sophistication while becoming cheap enough to deploy in almost any location; and data handling technology makes it possible to process large volumes of data in real time.Coupled with improvements in the ability to process and analyse vast qualities of data—i.e., “Big Data”—the possible applications for Internet-connected devices are seemingly endless. Imagine stepping through your front door to find that your watch has downloaded to your computer details of your heart rate, pulse and vital signs, the thermostat has turned the heating up because of the cold weather outside, the bath has run automatically, and that later, while you sleep, your baby’s clothes monitor her breathing and heart rate while she sleeps. All of this technology is now available, although, in some cases, still at considerable cost: Wi-Fi-enabled Internet fridges currently cost a cool $3,700.The uses of the IoT in a commercial context are also exceptionally wide-ranging: ATM data can be used to provide location-specific advertising to consumers via their smartphones, logistics companies can provide real-time parcel tracking services, and motor insurance providers can use telematics to monitor driving behaviour in order to charge tailored premiums. (For more on telematics, see our June 2013 alert Monitoring Your Own Behaviour – Guidance for Insurers on the Use of Telematics.) The IoT also looks set to revolutionise other sectors, including health care, with hospitals providing care via remote monitoring systems, and energy, with the advent of so-called “smart metering”.As with previous waves of technology revolution, the consequences for business will be significant, in ways that are both foreseeable and unforeseeable. Just as the DVD destroyed the market for VHS movie rentals, the huge rise in Internet-enabled TVs seems likely to have the same effect on DVD sales as downloadable video-on-demand becomes ubiquitous. Other outcomes of connecting physical objects in the IoT are harder to predict: not only will existing functionality of separate objects be strengthened by M2M, but new functionalities will be created.Government AttentionThe IoT looks set to be the focus of government attention. In a recent speech at Europe’s CeBIT tech conference, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the British government would be spending an additional £45 million in funding for research in areas linked to the IoT, which, following a series of other funding announcements in this area, takes the total pot to £73 million. Mr Cameron stated: “I see the internet of things as a huge transformative development – a way of boosting productivity, of keeping us healthier, making transport more efficient, reducing energy needs, tackling climate change” and Sir Mark Walport, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser, is now expected to carry out a review into how these new technologies can be best exploited.The EU has carried out extensive consultation on the development of the IoT, and the U.S. government, through the Federal Trade Commission, is also tracking the evolution of the market and technology in the sector.Challenges in ImplementationThe market for the IoT is still in its infancy and there are many challenges involved in deploying a solution. As with any eye-catching new technology, a lot of the hard work that goes into implementation often goes unnoticed.In the case of the IoT, organizations will have to overcome significant initial hurdles in order to ensure that the solutions adopted are legally appropriate. In many cases, these include a number of the issues that are traditionally seen to be “outsourcing” type problems—e.g., implementing a scheme of contractual relationships necessary to implement and support the technology; choosing whether to partner with a service provider in order to develop and implement a particular solution; and determining whether and how to use an external agency to harness the necessary computing power to implement fully the solution.One key internal issue that many organizations will also have to address is the question of who within the business is actually responsible for implementation of the IoT as a product solution. A lot of the tasks required for IoT implementation will fall within the traditional roles of a business’s ICT leaders, even though the solution itself may be customer-facing. As a result, technology leaders within businesses will need to be heavily involved in evaluating and developing solution requirements. This will continue the progression of the CIO role from overseeing internal enterprise architecture towards an outward-facing role.Implementation of the IoT will also involve many of the operations parts of a business and this will need to be split appropriately within the architecture that the business employs. The question will be what solutions can be implemented as part of an overall scheme that is flexible enough to work with the types of devices and operating systems that a business has to deploy. Many of the end-to-end solutions that IoT requires involve the following key functions:<ul><li>Device and infrastructure management platform. The IoT requires operators to be able to operate software on devices remotely, without taking the network of sensors out of service. Clearly, where this is performed remotely, security of the device and infrastructure management platform will be crucial.</li><li>Data Filtering. The IoT relies on sensors that produce vast amounts of data, but not all data will be relevant to any given application. Accordingly, a key challenge facing developers of IoT solutions is how to identify the thresholds and configurations to process only the data that is necessary for a specified purpose, and filter out the data that isn’t relevant.</li><li>Analytics Platform. This is necessary to manage the huge volume of streamed data collected from remote sensors and devices and manipulate it in real time. This may well be integrated with an organization’s approach to “big data” elsewhere in its business. But, whatever the platform (and whether internally provided or outsourced), it should be set up to work with data from different device types and locations and configure it in a way that is useable by the business.</li><li>Security. If the IoT has a weakness, it’s security. Dealing with issues of privacy and data security is essential. Precautions against misuse if data need to be baked into IoT solutions from the outset.</li><li>Integration. The efficiency and performance of any IoT solution will often depend on the connectors that enable applications to collect and analyse the data and engage in two way communication with the remote sensors where necessary.</li></ul>The fact that technology is rapidly evolving and the relevant industry players are still changing means that future flexibility is also something that businesses need to focus on. Most large technology businesses have an established approach to the market and, while the first wave of solutions may well be focused on a particular application, businesses should invest wisely to ensure that the same sensor network and data infrastructure can be deployed to take on multiple applications.The IoT has great potential to generate new sources of revenue, improve efficiencies and allow businesses to both increase profits and cut costs. While it is the Internet-enabled products that catch the eye, it is longer term investment in the underlying technology infrastructure itself that is now required and which will ultimately pay dividends. The easy, media-friendly pin-up for the IoT may be the Internet-enabled refrigerator, but the reality is that the average consumer will replace his or her fridge no more than once per decade—and, most likely, not for improved functionality, just to keep the milk cold.IoT BeneficiariesApart from humble consumers who might soon start to see practical changes to their daily lives as a result of the IoT, a range of companies in different sectors have already targeted the IoT as a driver of future sales.If the trajectory of the IoT proceeds in the same way as other disruptive technology developments, the initial winners seem likely to be providers of infrastructure and data centre capacity, as well as microchip designers. Existing businesses with a strong data security element ought to have a key role in the IoT.Companies that tailor their products to harness IoT capabilities and build in the key elements identified above will be the initial front-runners: so, for example, semiconductors need to continue to evolve in terms of size and power draw as well as enabling functionality to improve connectivity between sensor devices and the cloud, and the continued addition of new devices; infrastructure providers need to integrate their products for maximum flexibility while still ensuring significant levels of data security.Consumer product manufacturers are perhaps the most obvious potential beneficiaries of the IoT as long as they can devise and roll-out IoT-enabled products whose functionality consumers want to pay for. But if history teaches us anything, it may be that, just as software giants became more valuable than the hardware sellers that capitalized on the first wave of the computing revolution decades ago (Microsoft vs. IBM, anyone?), the long-term winners are less likely to be today’s major consumer product brands and more likely to be the companies that master and monetize the data to create entirely new markets.Indeed, Google’s $3.2 billion purchase of connected thermostat producer Nest in January 2014 shows that the real market for IoT may take shape in ways that we cannot yet anticipate. That acquisition was less about a cool thermostat and more about disrupting the entire energy supply industry. If the Google and Nest combination can develop a product that proactively saves its users money on their home energy bills by juggling user and utility interaction and harnessing usage data, that puts Google in a strong position to continue its disintermediation efforts into a whole new sector.Legal and Regulatory ProblemsThe opportunities of the IoT are great, but so are the challenges. The combination of technologies and data multiply the potential legal and regulatory issues.In a follow-up post, we will assess the legal and regulatory factors that will affect the development and growth of IoT technology and help to shape the markets that such technology will create.

The Internet of Things Part 1: Brave New World

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the network of everyday physical objects that surround us and are increasingly being embedded with technology to enable those ob

The Internet of Things Part 1: Brave New World

On March 27, 2014, the highest court in the European Union—the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU)—<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d66b28097e9d2c44d0ada7e2ae3f514902.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OaN8Te0?text=&docid=149924&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=181631">decided</a> that copyright owners have the right to seek injunctions against Internet service providers (ISPs) requiring the ISPs to block access to pirate websites illegally streaming or making copyright material available for download.The case arose out of a dispute in Austria between two movie companies and an Austrian ISP, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH. The movie companies were concerned about access to an illegal streaming site, Kino.to, which was making copies of films such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1167599/">Vicky the Viking</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149362/">The White Ribbon</a> available to its subscribers. The Austrian Supreme Court had asked the CJEU whether the movie companies were entitled under European law to seek an injunction against the ISP, not just against the illegal streaming site.EU law allows holders of intellectual property rights to seek an injunction against any “intermediary” that provides services to third parties and, in doing so, helps them to infringe copyrighted works. The Austrian Supreme Court asked the CJEU for a ruling on whether ISPs in this position were considered to be an intermediary for the purposes of the European legislation.The CJEU answered in the affirmative, finding that “a person who makes protected subject matter available to the public on a website without the agreement of the right holder is using the services of the business which provides internet access to persons accessing that subject matter.” So, in effect, an ISP such as UPC Telekabel that allows its customers to access protected subject matter made available to the public on the Internet by a third party is an intermediary whose services are used to infringe copyright.The ISP had argued that it could not be held responsible for the material on the streaming site because it had no business relationship or cooperation with the operators of the unauthorized streaming site and because there was no proof that any of the ISP’s subscribers had actually used Kino.to to access pirated films.The CJEU had little sympathy for the ISP. It noted that EU copyright law does not require there to be a specific relationship between the person infringing copyright and the intermediary against whom an injunction might be sought, nor is it necessary to prove that end users have actually used the site at issue.To some extent, the decision is not surprising—but it is important that it comes from Europe’s highest court. Previously, in a case in 2011 in the UK, the Motion Picture Association of America and various film studios sought an injunction against BT, a UK ISP, seeking to block access to a website that facilitated the sharing of materials infringing their copyrights.In that case, the infringing website, www.newzbin.co.uk, had originally been shut down following legal action but then immediately reappeared outside the UK and therefore not within the UK court’s jurisdiction. As a result, the claimants stepped up a level and applied for an injunction against BT as the ISP. BT argued that it did not have actual knowledge of the infringements, that it was a mere conduit and that an ISP was not obligated to monitor activity over its service.In that case, the judge did not feel the need to refer the case to the CJEU and proceeded to grant the injunction. He held that BT had actual knowledge that some form of copyright infringement was happening in the sense that BT was aware that the service was being used to infringe—but it was not necessary to show actual knowledge of any specific instances of infringement.The Telekabel case goes further and is more broadly-based than the BT case—which will be of considerable comfort to copyright holders. The film industry has been seeking to enforce copyright rights against illegal streaming sites for some time, and the CJEU’s decision in this case is of significant importance in underlining that a key weapon in that fight—the ability to seek injunctions against the ISPs that facilitate access to online streaming sites—is valid.Other copyright owners may be sharpening their swords for battle in the European courts.

istock_000026322569illustra-1024x512.jpg

The Umpire Strikes Back: European Court Rules That ISPs Can Be Forced to Block Pirate Websites

The Umpire Strikes Back: European Court Rules That ISPs Can Be Forced to Block Pirate Websites

On March 27, 2014, the highest court in the European Union—the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU)—decided that copyright owners have the right to se

Courts across the United States have now made clear that discovery of social media is fair game. At the same time, courts have consistently found that litigants will not be permitted to engage in social media fishing expeditions; rather, litigants will be required to show that the sites likely contain relevant material. We explore below various approaches taken by courts to address social media-related discovery challenges.Some courts have simply quashed a litigant’s request for social media-related discovery for failure to show relevance to the dispute. In Kennedy v. Contract Pharmacal Corp., the plaintiff sought a variety of gender discrimination-based damages. The defendants sought to compel broad discovery from the plaintiff’s social media sites. For instance, the defendants broadly requested “[a]ll documents concerning, relating to, reflecting and/or regarding Plaintiff’s utilization of social networking sites.” Denying a motion to compel discovery, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that “[t]here is no specificity to the requests and no effort to limit these requests to any relevant acts alleged in this action.”In Ford v. United States, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland <a href="http://static.ow.ly/docs/Angela%20Ford%20v.%20US%20(D.%20Md.%20July%2025,%202013)_1oFr.pdf">rejected</a> the government’s request for broad social media-related discovery. The government had sought “any documents[,] postings, pictures, messages[,] or entries of any kind on social media within the covered period relating to [c]laims by Plaintiffs or their [e]xperts.” The court denied the motion to compel, holding that the government’s request was not narrowly tailored and “does not describe the categories of material sought; rather, it relies on Plaintiffs to determine what might be relevant.”Other courts, when quashing requests for social media-related discovery, have held that the litigants may renew a failed request, if circumstances change. For example, in Root v. Balfour, from Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal, a mother had sued the City of Cape Coral, a construction contractor and a subcontractor for damages suffered by her son who was struck by an oncoming vehicle. The lower court had ordered the mother to produce various types of Facebook postings from both before and after the accident, including any information about counseling or psychological care she obtained; her relationships with her son and other children; and her relationships with other family members, boyfriends and significant others.The appellate court quashed the order, finding that the requested discovery did not survive a relevance inquiry and that even the magistrate acknowledged that “95 percent, or 99 percent of this may not be relevant.” The appellate court, however, held that if further developments in the litigation indicated that such information may be discoverable, the trial court might have to review information in camera and fashion appropriate limits regarding the discovery.Other courts, while not quashing social media-related discovery requests entirely, have severely narrowed the requests before compelling production. For instance, in Mailhoit v. Home Depot, from the Central District of California, the defendant had demanded a wide array of social media-related discovery. These demands included (1) any profiles, postings or messages from social media sites relating to any mental state of the plaintiff; (2) third-party communications to the plaintiff that place her own communications in context; (3) any pictures of the plaintiff; and (4) social networking communications between the plaintiff and current or former Home Depot employees or that in any way refer or pertain to her employment at Home Depot or the lawsuit. The court <a href="http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/top_stories/docs/Mailhoit.pdf">found</a> the last category to be relevant and quashed the rest on the grounds they were not reasonably particular requests and therefore not likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.In certain cases, courts have required the requesting litigant to show some information in the public social media profile that undermines the plaintiff’s claim. In Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, from the Middle District of Tennessee, the plaintiff sued for race-based employment discrimination, and the defendant requested, among other materials, full access to the plaintiff’s Facebook page. The court found that the required showing had not been made. It concluded that the defendant “lack[ed] any evidentiary showing that Plaintiff’s public Facebook profile contains information that will reasonably lead to discovery of admissible evidence.”We note, however, that at least one court has criticized the approach of looking to the public social media for indications of relevancy of the private portions of the site. In Giachetto v. Patchogue Medford Union Free School District, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York observed that “[t]his approach can lead to results that are both too broad and too narrow” and went on to analyze category-by-category what the defendant had demanded to determine the scope of the relevant social media information in what the court called a “traditional relevance analysis.”Social media discovery has also sometimes involved the court itself reviewing documents in camera to determine relevancy. For example, in EEOC v. Honeybaked Ham, involving a hostile work environment class-action lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16560158531628156071&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">ordered</a> that each class member’s social media content be produced for review by the court in camera to determine what was legally relevant.Similarly, in Offenback v. Bowman, from the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff conceded that a limited amount of information in his Facebook account was subject to discovery, but the defendants argued for a much broader scope of discovery from the plaintiff. The court reviewed the information in camera and, siding with the plaintiff, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12227325324526031875&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">determined</a> that only a limited amount of information from the Facebook account had to be produced to the defendants.  Social media discovery issues will inevitably arise with even greater frequency in federal and state courts. As the courts struggle through the implications of such discovery issues, litigants should be aware that while social media is generally discoverable, courts are demanding more specificity in requests for social media information as they evaluate relevance.