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

LinkedIN

A federal district court judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/google-beats-song-lyric-scraping-lawsuit-1306788" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dismissed the complaint in a case filed by Genius</a>, a platform that lets users share and annotate lyrics, holding that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by copyright law. The suit alleged that Google had stolen from Genius transcriptions of song lyrics, and included those song lyrics in Google’s website boxes when Google users search for a song. Such actions, Genius alleged, amounted to “unfair and anticompetitive practices.” Genius did not allege copyright infringement, however, because the relevant songwriters and publishers, not Genius, own the copyright in the song lyrics at issue.In an effort to help bloggers and other online writers who create and publish more short-form content than they have time to register with the Copyright Office, the office has established a <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/shortonline-literaryworks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">new copyright registration option</a> that affords a simplified way to obtain copyright protection for blog entries, social media posts, web articles, and even comments to social media posts if they meet certain criteria. Those criteria include the requirement that each of the works separately contains between 50 and 17,500 words. Also, all the works in a single application must have been created by the same individual, or have been created jointly by the same group of individuals. All of the works also must first have been published as part of a website or online platform, such as a blog, online magazine, or social networking site.In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s request for comments on potential changes to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">§230</a> of the Communications Decency Act, AT&T—which now owns Time Warner—is <a href="https://www.axios.com/att-will-ask-fcc-to-narrow-section-230-protections-98f86b39-2efe-409f-9d0f-08b7bbfaa389.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">telling the FCC to shrink the protections that §230 affords</a> technology companies from liability for content posted by third parties.In a criminal case in which an alleged murderer sought to exonerate himself by seeking the gun-shot-wound victim’s Facebook messages, the California Supreme Court refused to answer the Constitutional question of <a href="https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/08/13/california-supreme-court-punts-on-constitutionality-of-subpoenaing-social-media-platforms-user-communications/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">whether a social media platform’s refusal to turn over messages violates the alleged criminal’s right to a fair trial</a>. The court’s reasoning: In this particular case, the validity of the underlying subpoena was questionable.YouTube has <a href="https://mashable.com/article/youtube-partner-steven-crowder-demonetization/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">re-enabled monetization</a> of the account of ultra-conservative commentator <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIveFvW-ARp_B_RckhweNJw" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Steven Crowder</a>, who—among other things—for years targeted former Vox writer and current YouTuber <a href="https://www.youtube.com/c/CarlosMazaTube/featured" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carlos Maza</a>, making insulting comments about Maza’s ethnicity and sexuality. The Washington Post reports that several of the platform’s moderators said that “their recommendations to strip advertising from videos that violate the site’s rules were frequently overruled by higher-ups within YouTube when the videos involved higher profile content creators who draw more advertising.”The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a cyberstalking injunction against Florida lawyer Ashley Ann Krapacs. The injunction was imposed on Krapacs for publishing disparaging posts on social media about another lawyer, Nisha Bacchus, including the posts Krapacs published during a four-hour period in one day while Bacchus “untagged herself in real time,” according to Law.com. Read the brief <a href="https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/08/12/victory-for-broward-lawyer-who-feuded-with-another-attorney-on-social-media-no-cyberstalking-injunction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explanation of the court’s reasoning</a>.

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

New copyright registration option for bloggers; AT&T’s opinion on CDA §230; questions about YouTube’s anti-hate rules

A federal district court judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., dismissed the complaint in a case filed by Genius, a platform that lets users share and annotate lyrics, holdi

New copyright registration option for bloggers; AT&T’s opinion on CDA §230; questions about YouTube’s anti-hate rules

In a purported attempt to safeguard free speech, President Trump has issued an order “Preventing Online Censorship,” that would eliminate the protections afforded by <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2019/07/17/federal-circuit-holds-that-section-230-locks-out-locksmiths/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">one of our favorite topics</a> here at Socially Aware, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act, which generally protects online platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. President Trump issued the order after <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-online-censorship-executive-order-free-speech-first-amendment-2020-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Twitter tagged some of his tweets as misleading</a> and linked the tweets to text contradicting their substance. Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden is also in favor of abolishing the law, but for very different reasons. <a href="https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2020/06/14/trumps-social-media-order-puts-a-target-on-communications-decency-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Find out what they are</a>.There’s more than one way to strip a law of its teeth. In what Politico describes as “the latest GOP-led plan to target Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act, Senator Josh Hawley is proposing legislation that would make websites eligible for the Section 230 protections only if they stop the sale of ads that target users based on behavioral data.And a Circuit Court in Virginia dismissed a suit that Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican, brought against Twitter for defamation stemming from two parody accounts—@DevinNunesMom, and <a href="https://twitter.com/devincow">@DevinCow</a>—that posted unflattering things about Rep. Nunes during President Trump’s impeachment hearings last year. The court held that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Section 230</a> of the Communications Decency Act insulated Twitter from liability.After the first Supreme Court oral argument held over the phone, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a majority opinion that Booking.com is entitled to a trademark, and that “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/booking-trademark-supreme-court/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">adding ‘.com’ to a generic word can make the entire combination eligible for trademark protection</a>.”Twitter’s new “request verification” option will allow run-of-the-mill users to acquire the blue checkmark next to their names that the platform formerly reserved for public figures. Read about how else <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/08/twitter-to-launch-a-revamped-verification-system-with-publicly-documented-guidelines/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Twitter plans to improve its verification system</a>.Tik My Day, <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/tik-tok-marketing-agency-tik-my-day-launches-632334" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a marketing agency that Tik Tok launched in Australia</a>, says it can provide all the services necessary for a branded Tik Tok campaign within 24 hours.Users of the dating app OkCupid can now add a <a href="https://theblog.okcupid.com/black-lives-matter-2d40ac10d1c0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#BlackLivesMatter</a> badge to their profiles. The social media firm also donated $1 million in advertising to Black American civil rights organizations, and added several social-justice-related questions to their matching process. How did the app’s users answer? <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottlewinski/2020/06/13/social-media-dating-app-okcupid-launches-blacklivesmatter-badge/#1689f9042e6a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read the statistics</a>.

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.











Anthony Ramirez

Debate over §230 of the CDA rages on; Twitter defeats defamation suit; Booking.com held valid trademark

In a purported attempt to safeguard free speech, President Trump has issued an order “Preventing Online Censorship,” that would eliminate the protections afford

Debate over §230 of the CDA rages on; Twitter defeats defamation suit; Booking.com held valid trademark

A new report from the U.S. Copyright Office suggests that Congress should fine-tune the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to, among other things, alter the takedown system that platforms must adhere to in order to be eligible for the safe harbor the DMCA affords to online platforms when third parties post infringing content. <a href="https://gizmodo.com/u-s-copyright-office-says-its-time-to-update-the-dmca-1843608938" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read about the Copyright Office’s issues</a> with the current takedown system.Malwarebytes, an online filtering company, has <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/351493/anti-malware-company-wants-supreme-court-to-interv.html">asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari</a> in a case brought by one of Malwarebytes’ competitors, Enigma Software, alleging that—when Malwarebytes flagged one of Enigma’s most popular offerings as a potential threat—Malwarebytes, among other things, committed a deceptive business practice. The Ninth Circuit <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2020/04/07/computer-service-providers-face-implied-limits-on-cda-immunity/#more-9504">refused to dismiss the case</a>, holding that Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act did not insulate Malwarebytes from liability.A <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/tech/french-hate-speech-social-media-law/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">new law in France</a> would impose fines of up to $1.36 million on technology platforms that fail to take down terrorist and child pornography content within one hour of that content being flagged, or fail to remove hateful comments that concern topics including gender or disability within 24 hours of being flagged.Members of the Florida Bar who <a href="https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/05/12/the-florida-bar-is-taking-a-hard-look-at-lawyers-social-media-content/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">deliver targeted ads through social media</a> must comply with that state bar’s more restrictive direct solicitation rules rather than its general advertising rules.A law firm fired one of its Dallas-based employees after learning <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/law-firm-worker-fired-after-posting-threat-against-face-mask-requirements/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">he had posted to his personal social media account</a> a rant about businesses requesting him to wear a mask to thwart the possibility of spreading or catching the COVID-19 virus. The rant included a threat to “show [his] Glock 21” handgun shooting range results to “the lame security guard outside of a ghetto store.”The New Jersey Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) decided that John Robertelli, a Rivkin Radler lawyer, violated the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct when—in order to gather evidence while acting as counsel for defendants in a personal injury case—Robertelli surreptitiously accessed the private Facebook account of the plaintiff, whom Robertelli knew was represented by opposing counsel. The DRB also recommended that the New Jersey Supreme Court adopt a policy on using social media for discovery purposes. <a href="https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2020/05/13/lawyer-faces-admonition-over-facebook-friending-to-gather-information-on-litigant/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read the guidelines the DRB suggested</a>.Big changes are afoot at Facebook, which has recently introduced <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/19/facebook-shops/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Shops</a>, allowing users to purchase products directly from businesses’ Facebook pages, and announced the addition of new features to Workplace, the company’s “<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/21/facebooks-workplace-now-with-5m-paying-users-adds-drop-in-video-rooms-and-more/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">enterprise-focused chat and video platform</a>.”

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: A report suggesting DMCA changes; a new social-media-use regulation for Fla. Bar members; big changes at Facebook

A new report from the U.S. Copyright Office suggests that Congress should fine-tune the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to, among other things, alter th

Social Links: A report suggesting DMCA changes; a new social-media-use regulation for Fla. Bar members; big changes at Facebook

China’s “internet police,” who coordinate online censorship, have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/business/china-coronavirus-internet-police.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">become especially busy</a> since the coronavirus outbreak.Inspired by homicides that were precipitated by social media posts created by one group of teenagers to incite another, a Florida bill would allow law enforcement to charge juveniles with a misdemeanor for posting photos of themselves with firearms online.In an effort to control the proliferation of “<a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/12/uk-names-its-pick-for-social-media-harms-watchdog/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a broad range of online harms</a>”—from cyberbullying to child exploitation—the UK government has chosen the communications watchdog Ofcom as its first pick for enforcing its plan requiring platforms to take “reasonable” measures to protect their users from those harms.Two-and-a-half years after the EU initiated an optional code of conduct on online hate speech, the percentage of flagged content that gets reviewed within 24 hours by the platforms that have opted in <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/the-eus-approach-to-tackling-hate-speech-might-actually-be-working/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">has risen considerably</a>.Unlike the rest of the European Union, which has adopted an opt-in code of conduct to address the online hate-speech problem, Germany is proposing legislation that would impose hefty fines on social media platforms that fail to report illegal content such as posts that are related to terrorism or qualify as racial incitement. <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/germany-wants-social-media-companies-to-proactively-report-illegal-content-to-police/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Read how much they risk having to pay</a>.As the demand for “aspirational” influencers gives way to a desire for “authenticity,” <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/influencers-coronavirus-arielle-charnas-escape-new-york">influencers who chronicled their COVID-19 coping efforts drew ire</a> for privileged behaviors including fleeing town to sit out the quarantine in vacation towns where they risk spreading the virus.

Social Links: Online censorship in China; Florida legislation to thwart gang activity online; influencers criticized for breaking quarantine rules

China’s “internet police,” who coordinate online censorship, have become especially busy since the coronavirus outbreak. Inspired by homicides that were precipi

Social Links: Online censorship in China; Florida legislation to thwart gang activity online; influencers criticized for breaking quarantine rules

The high-end skincare brand Sunday Riley has settled lawsuits filed by the Federal Trade Commission claiming that the brand’s founder encouraged employees of her eponymous company to set up accounts “under different identities” on the cosmetics retail site Sephora.com and leave positive reviews for Sunday Riley’s products. The FTC filed the complaints after the agency conducted an investigation that was prompted by a whistle blower’s post on REDDIT last year. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/sunday-riley-fake-reviews.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Read about the settlement’s lenient terms</a>, which two of the FTC’s five commissioners don’t believe are severe enough to deter other companies from attempting to post fraudulent reviews online.Last month four senators—three Democrats and one Republican—<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/10/22/the-access-act-promises-to-benefit-consumers/#2222238429e4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced a bipartisan bill</a> to require communications platforms to provide their users with a means of exporting the data that their users have accumulated on the platforms, such as friends lists. The <a href="https://www.axios.com/senators-target-social-media-giants-with-data-portability-bill-222fc800-28ae-4917-8c06-ed55d809ff4a.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rationale</a> behind the legislation: making it easier for smaller platforms to compete with the likes of social media giants like Facebook and YouTube. Legislation like this is intended to benefit consumers and would require “<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/10/22/the-access-act-promises-to-benefit-consumers/#3b66fe13429e" target="_blank" rel="noopener">operability standards to be revised</a>” as interfaces evolve, writes Forbes columnist Robert Seamans. The real challenge, he argues, would be determining the types of data covered by the legislation.<a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2019/more-control-over-your-conversations-globally.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter announced</a> it will extend to all of its users around the world the “Hide Replies” feature that it first <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/17/twitter-officially-launches-its-hide-replies-feature-initially-to-users-in-canada/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tested in Canada in July</a> and then <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/twitter-launches-its-controversial-hide-replies-feature-in-the-u-s-and-japan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rolled out in the United States and Japan in September</a>. The feature allows users to “hide” any replies to their tweets. However, other Twitter users may view and respond to hidden replies by clicking a grey icon that appears on the tweets. <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2019/more-control-over-your-conversations-globally.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter’s blog reports</a> that the platform’s test runs of the Hide Replies feature revealed that “27% of people who had their Tweets hidden said they would reconsider how they interact with others in the future,” and Twitter posters who hid replies “may want to take further action after [they] hide a reply, so now [Twitter will] check to see if you want to also block the replier.” This isn’t the first <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2017/02/24/social-links-google-maps-gets-social-twitter-puts-trolls-in-time-out-todays-teens-take-to-chat-rooms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">action that Twitter has taken to control trolls</a>, and the <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2019/more-control-over-your-conversations-globally.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">platform’s blog promises</a> that it won’t be the last.Influencer culture has infiltrated the world of cybersecurity, with the Twitter accounts of several popular experts in that increasingly prominent field running ads for Lenovo’s “ThinkShield” line of products and services. VizSense, an influencer marker, reached out to the influencers, who included journalists, a former intelligence operative, and experts in areas like artificial intelligence, each with more than 10,000 Twitter followers apiece. <a href="https://www.axios.com/influencer-marketing-comes-to-cybersecurity-1a89489e-657b-4bc8-a42b-d1b9000ae2c0.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Find out why the campaign sparked controversy in the cybersecurity community</a>.Speaking of influencers, guess what <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-05/becoming-an-influencer-embraced-by-86-of-young-americans" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bloomberg reports</a> is now the number one career aspiration of the “overwhelming majority” of young Americans? Sigh.

Social Links: FTC fights fraudulent online product reviews; Twitter takes another swipe at trolls; Influencers affect everything from cybersecurity to career choices

The high-end skincare brand Sunday Riley has settled lawsuits filed by the Federal Trade Commission claiming that the brand’s founder encouraged employees of he

Social Links: FTC fights fraudulent online product reviews; Twitter takes another swipe at trolls; Influencers affect everything from cybersecurity to career choices

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.

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