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

In the prior two installments of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and filtering of content created by a third party, we looked at the <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/part-1-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight">origins of Section 230</a> and <a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/part-2-a-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight-">the early cases</a> that established the broad scope of the safe harbor.In this third installment, we examine a trend in the cases that started in about 2015, in which the broad interpretation of Section 230 that characterized the early cases started to meet with some resistance and plaintiffs found ways to plead around the safe harbor. If you missed our prior installments, we suggest that you go back and read those before moving on to this third installment (here are <a href="/topics/part-1-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">Part 1</a>, <a href="/topics/part-2-a-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight-" target="_self">Part 2(A)</a>, and <a href="/topics/part-2-b-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">Part 2(B)</a>).Before we discuss the cases referenced above, recall that a defendant receives immunity under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" target="_blank">Section 230(c)(1)</a> only if:<ol><li>it is a provider or user of an interactive computer service (“Prong One”);</li><li>whom the plaintiff seeks to treat as a publisher or speaker of information (“Prong Two”); and</li><li>that information was provided by another information content provider (“Prong Three”).</li></ol>See <a href="https://casetext.com/case/barnes-v-yahoo-inc-3" target="_blank">Barnes v. Yahoo! (9th Cir. 2009)</a> for this three-prong articulation.This opens three potential lines of attack for a plaintiff seeking to overcome a defendant’s Section 230 defense:<ul><li>Attack Prong One. Defendant’s liability is not related to being a provider or user of an interactive computer service.</li><li>Attack Prong Two. Defendant’s liability is not based on being a publisher or speaker of information.</li><li>Attack Prong Three. The information at issue was not provided by another information content provider.</li></ul>We will now look at a series of cases in which plaintiffs successfully attacked Prong One, Prong Two, or Prong Three.Attack Prong One. Defendant’s liability is not related to being a provider or user of an interactive computer service. Prong One is not usually at issue in cases where a platform (e.g., a social media site) is the defendant. Platforms are almost always deemed to be providers of interactive computer services. But courts sometimes struggle with immunity for users (as opposed to providers) of interactive computer services. This typically arises in cases where an individual forwards or shares defamatory content originally created by someone else. As we saw in cases such as <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/batzel-v-smith.pdf" target="_blank">Batzel v. Smith</a> and <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/barrett-v-rosenthal.pdf" target="_blank">Barrett v. Rosenthal</a>, discussed in <a href="/topics/part-2-a-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight-" target="_self">Part 2</a>, courts have often extended the Section 230 immunity to users in accordance with the plain language of the statute. But not always. And sometimes, when they rejected the applicability of Section 230 in these situations, courts did so either by ignoring that users are also protected under Section 230 or by finding that the defendant was not acting as a user with respect to the objectionable conduct.<a href="https://casetext.com/case/maxfield-v-maxfield-7" target="_blank">Maxfield v. Maxfield</a>, a Connecticut case from 2015, is an example of this. In Maxfield, the plaintiff sued his ex-wife for defamation, claiming that she forwarded screenshots of defamatory tweets about him to his current wife. The ex-wife defended on Section 230 grounds, based on the fact that she forwarded third-party tweets but did not write the tweets herself. The court, however, found that she was not covered by Section 230 immunity because she “merely transmitted” the defamatory messages. The opinion states: “Ms. Maxfield does not operate a website and plainly is not ‘a provider of an interactive computer service.’ While she might, on occasion, be considered a ‘user of an interactive computer service,’ she did not do so in the behavior alleged in the complaint.” Therefore, the court rejected the defendant’s Section 230 defense.Attack Prong Two. Defendant’s liability is not based on being a publisher or speaker of information.Attacking Prong 2 by arguing that the defendant’s liability is not based on acting as a publisher or speaker has often met with success. As we discussed in <a href="/topics/part-2-b-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">Part 2</a>, <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/barnes-v-yahoo.pdf" target="_blank">Barnes v. Yahoo!</a>, was an early example of this. In that case from 2009, the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 did not immunize Yahoo from the plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim because the claim was not based Yahoo’s activities as a publisher or speaker but rather from Yahoo’s promise to remove the third-party content at issue. Such cases were relatively rare, however, for about the first decade of Section 230’s existence.That started to change with cases such as <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/31/12-56638.pdf" target="_blank">Doe v. Internet Brands</a>, a Ninth Circuit case from 2016 in which a Jane Doe plaintiff sued Internet Brands, the parent company of Model Mayhem, alleging that the site’s operators were negligent in failing to notify its users of the risk that rapists were using the website to find victims. Consequently, Doe argued, she was drugged and raped by two assailants who had used the website to lure her to a fake audition.The plaintiff argued that Section 230 did not apply because a “failure to warn” claim did not depend on Model Mayhem being the publisher or speaker of content provided by another person. The Ninth Circuit bought the plaintiff’s argument and overturned the district court’s earlier dismissal of the case, which had been based on Section 230 immunity.In his opinion, Judge Clifton explained that Jane Doe did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a publisher or speaker of content posted by a user on the website, or for its failure to remove content posted on the website. Instead, she sought to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about information it obtained from an outside source about how third parties targeted victims through the website. This duty to warn would “not require Internet Brands to remove any user content or otherwise affect how it publishes or monitors such content.” Since the claim did not treat Internet Brands as a publisher or speaker, the court ruled that Section 230 did not apply.A similar argument worked—to an extent—in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/darnaa-llc-v-google-inc-1" target="_blank">Darnaa v. Google</a>, a Northern District of California case from 2016 that involved YouTube’s removal of the plaintiff’s music video based on YouTube’s belief that the plaintiff had artificially inflated view counts. The plaintiff sued for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, interference with prospective economic advantage, and defamation. She sought damages and an injunction to prevent YouTube from removing the video or changing the video’s URL.The district court held that Section 230(c)(1) preempted the plaintiff’s interference claim, but not her good faith and fair dealing claim. The court explained that the latter claim sought to hold YouTube liable for breach of its good faith contractual obligation to the plaintiff, rather than in its capacity as a publisher; as such, Section 230 did not shield YouTube against this claim.In yet another case from 2016, the Northern District of California court in <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=historical" target="_blank">Airbnb v. City and County of San Francisco</a> denied Airbnb’s request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a San Francisco ordinance that makes it a misdemeanor to provide booking services for unregistered rental units. Airbnb argued that such an ordinance would conflict with Section 230, which contains an express preemption clause stating that no liability may be imposed under any state or local law that is inconsistent with Section 230. But the court held that the ordinance did not treat Airbnb as the publisher or speaker of Airbnb’s rental listings because the ordinance applies only to providing and collecting fees for booking services in connection with an unregistered unit, and does not regulate what can and cannot be published. Therefore, the court denied the request for preliminary injunction.Attack Prong Three. The information at issue was not provided by another information content provider.As we noted in <a href="/topics/part-2-b-section-230-27-years-old-and-still-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">Part 2</a> in connection with the <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1466388.html" target="_blank">Roommates.com</a> case, Section 230(c)(1) immunity only applies if the relevant information was “provided by another information content provider.” If the defendant itself created the relevant content, in whole or in part, then it cannot avail itself of the safe harbor. In the time period we are looking at here, plaintiffs increasingly met with success in attacking this Prong Three element of Section 230.In <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2161&context=historical" target="_blank">Diamond Ranch Academy v. Filer</a>, a 2016 district court case from Utah, the plaintiff, who ran a residential youth treatment facility, sued the defendant, who ran a website where those who had attended plaintiff’s facility could share their experiences, for defamation. The defendant asserted a Section 230 defense, arguing that she had merely summarized “many of the core complaints about [the plaintiff’s facility] in a format that [was] more digestible than reading through many separate survivors’ testimonies,” and, in doing so, was exercising her prerogative as a publisher (after all, publishers often edit materials before publishing them). The court disagreed. The court pointed out that the defendant’s posts “do not lead a person to believe that she is quoting a third party. Rather, [she] has adopted the statements of others and used them to create her comments on the website.” The court also noted that some of the third-party statements did “not retain their original form.” With respect to the summaries of third-party statements, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to immunity under Section 230 because she was the author.In the 2016 case <a href="http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D11-14/C:15-3049:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1862727:S:0" target="_blank">Huon v. Denton</a>, the Seventh Circuit Court refused to immunize the defendant from liability for an allegedly defamatory comment posted on its website. The case involved a comment to a story published on Jezebel, a property owned by Gawker, that called the plaintiff a “rapist.” The court held that the plaintiff’s claim survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss on Section 230 grounds because the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that Gawker employees anonymously authored comments to increase traffic to the website (even though there was no allegation that Gawker employees had written the specific allegedly defamatory comment at issue).In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/samsel-v-desoto-cnty-sch-dist" target="_blank">Samsel v. DeSoto County School District</a>, a 2017 case from the Northern District of Mississippi, the superintendent of a school district forwarded to 48 principals in his district an email that he had received from the chair of the school board. The chair of the school board had received the original email from a math teacher. The email from the math teacher contained allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff, a football coach. When forwarding the email, the superintendent included a cover note asking the recipients to “[p]lease share this email with your staff from the Chairman of our School Board. As Superintendent I agree with [the chair of the school board] 100 percent! Tell your staff they have permission to respond at will.” The plaintiff sued the superintendent for defamation and the superintendent attempted to invoke Section 230(c)(1).The district court acknowledged that persuasive authority from other courts suggested that the default rule was that “one who forwards an email written by another which contains defamatory statements enjoys immunity under [Section 230],” but it distinguished the current case on the grounds that the superintendent added defamatory content (i.e., the cover note). According to the court, the superintendent’s position gave him access to information that could confirm or deny the truth of the math teacher’s statements, so his expression of “100 percent” support of the chair’s email “essentially endorsed and confirmed the veracity of the accusations, in the eyes of the reader.” Therefore, the court held, “a jury could reasonably find that [the superintendent] . . . essentially became a publisher of defamatory material himself, within the meaning of [Section 230].”***Please look out for installment number four of this six-part series, where we continue to trace the history of Section 230.

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

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

Lawrence Gallick is of counsel in the firm’s Austin office and a member of the Technology Transactions Group.

In the prior two installments of our six-part series examining Section 230, the section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that immunizes online service providers from liability stemming from the publication and filtering of content created by a third party, we looked at the origins of Section 230 and the early cases that established the broad scope of the safe harbor.

Part 3 – Section 230: 27 Years Old and Still in the Spotlight

In a significant move toward enhancing transparency and trust in digital content, Meta <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/labeling-ai-generated-images-on-facebook-instagram-and-threads/" target="_blank" dir="ltr">has announced</a> plans to introduce labeling for AI-generated images across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs, highlighted the initiative as part of Meta’s commitment to lead with transparency in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into content creation, distinguishing between human-generated and AI-generated materials <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227091070/deepfakes-taylor-swift-images-regulation" target="_blank">has become more challenging</a>. Meta’s response involves collaboration with industry partners to establish common technical standards for identifying AI content, enabling users to recognize when images are “Imagined with AI.” This move is crucial as it extends beyond content created using Meta’s proprietary tools to also encompass content created using external AI technologies.Meta has already been labeling photorealistic images produced by its Meta AI feature. The new initiative will see these labels applied more broadly, marking a significant step toward more comprehensive transparency. The process involves detecting indicators of AI generation and applying visible labels across all supported languages on the platforms. The initiative is timely, coinciding with several important global elections, and aims to educate users about the origins of the content they consume.In addition to labeling, Meta is also working on AI content detection. The company is developing tools capable of identifying invisible markers such as IPTC metadata and invisible watermarks at scale. This approach not only aids in the robust identification of AI-generated content, but also assists other platforms in recognizing these markers, fostering a unified industry standard. Meta is uniquely situated to tackle these issues as it is both a developer of tools that produce generative AI content and the operator of the platforms on which much of that content is shared.However, Meta acknowledges the challenges ahead. The ability to label AI-generated audio and video content is still developing, prompting interim measures such as requiring users to disclose when sharing AI-generated videos or audios. Additionally, Meta is exploring technological solutions to prevent the removal of invisible watermarks, enhancing the integrity of AI-generated content.As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, efforts to detect and label such content will be crucial to empower users to make informed decisions about the content they engage with and, more broadly, to prevent the spread of misinformation on social media platforms.

In a significant move toward enhancing transparency and trust in digital content, Meta has announced plans to introduce labeling for AI-generated images across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Nick Clegg, President of Global Affairs, highlighted the initiative as part of Meta’s commitment to lead with transparency in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

Meta Announces AI Content Identification for Facebook, Instagram, and Threads

Here at Socially Aware, we <a href="/topics/social-links-social-media-account-ownership-once-again-in-the-spotlight" target="_self">have been discussing</a> issues around ownership of social media accounts since the beginning of social media. Just last July, we reported on how a bankruptcy court in Florida forced the founder and former CEO of Bang Energy to delete disparaging comments from his Instagram account and ultimately <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-ban-crt-s-d-flo-for-lau-div/2289548.html" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the company owned the Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter) accounts at issue. Prior to the Bang case, a number of other cases addressed these issues, with varying results, which is unsurprising given the varying facts around creation and use of social media accounts by businesses and business professionals. See some of our other <a href="/topics/which-side-are-you-on-employers-and-employees-battle-over-ownership-of-social-media-accounts" target="_self">coverage of social media ownership litigation</a>.Today, we are looking at a recent Second Circuit case, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/21-2535/21-2535-2024-01-17.html" target="_blank" dir="ltr">JLM Couture, Inc. v. Hayley Paige Gutman</a>, where a fashion designer and her former employer wrestled over ownership of Instagram and Pinterest accounts that the fashion designer created and used for both business and personal brand purposes.BackgroundIn July 2011, JLM Couture, Inc. engaged Hayley Paige Gutman to design a line of bridal wear. The employment contract included several restrictions on Gutman, including that: (a) Gutman would not use her name in commerce once JLM registered it as a trademark; (b) certain broad categories of Gutman’s work would be JLM’s property as works for hire; and (c) she would abide by certain noncompete, nonsolicit, and nondisclosure obligations during the term of the contract and for five years thereafter. JLM and Gutman agreed to extend the contract through August 1, 2022 but, following further negotiations in 2019, failed to agree on any further extensions. Following the breakdown in negotiations, Gutman changed the passwords to her Instagram and Pinterest accounts, refused to give JLM access to the accounts, and notified JLM that she would no longer post JLM-related content to the accounts. JLM then sued Gutman for, among other things, breach of contract, conversion, and trespass to chattels based on Gutman’s taking control of the accounts.Gutman personally created both accounts in 2011 and 2012, using her own name as a handle and with her personal contact information. JLM did not require Gutman to open the accounts, although JLM argued that she had created them within the scope of her employment. The district court agreed that Gutman created the accounts to showcase JLM’s products, which she featured in her earliest posts, interspersed with posts of a more personal nature. Over time, the accounts became more JLM-focused, featuring product pictures and JLM event information. In addition, the accounts’ messaging features were used to respond to sales inquiries. Notably, other JLM employees had access to manage the accounts.Prior to this appeal, the case had already gone through a series of decisions and appeals, resulting in a preliminary injunction that, among other things, gave JLM control of the accounts and enjoined Gutman from competing with JLM until the end of the contract term in 2022. When Gutman posted teasers to the Instagram account about her new bridal brand, the district court held her in contempt, ordered her not to post any “similar content,” and assessed a $5,000/day penalty while she remained out of compliance. In this appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed that contempt order.Second Circuit DecisionGutman argued, and the Second Circuit agreed, that the district court was in error to give JLM control of the accounts. The district court had used a six-factor test to determine the proper owner of a social media account, as follows:<ol><li dir="ltr">whether the account handle reflects the business or entity name;</li><li dir="ltr">how the account describes itself;</li><li dir="ltr">whether the account was promoted on the entity’s 	advertisements or publicity materials;</li><li dir="ltr">whether the account includes links to other internet platforms of the entity;</li><li dir="ltr">for what purpose the account was used, including whether it was tied to promotional or mission-oriented activities of the entity; and</li><li dir="ltr">whether employees or members of the entity had access to the account and participated in its management.</li></ol>Based on this analysis, the district court determined that JLM had a “clear likelihood” of success on demonstrating that it owned the accounts or, even if Gutman had title to the accounts, that JLM had a “vastly superior” right to control the accounts.The Second Circuit concluded that the district court’s use of the six-factor test was an error. Despite social media being a relatively new technology in the eyes of the law, the Second Circuit determined that there was no reason here to deviate from traditional principles of property law. The Second Circuit noted that the district court’s failure to start its analysis by looking at who owned the accounts at their creation was one problematic result of this error. The court went all the way back to a case that most law students read in their first-year property law class, <a href="https://history.nycourts.gov/case/pierson-v-post/" target="_blank" dir="ltr">Pierson v. Post</a> (a case from 1805 deciding the ownership of a fox), among other venerable precedents, to spell out the principle that the proper ownership analysis consists of determining (a) who owned the property originally; and (b) whether those rights were later transferred to someone else.The Second Circuit then went on to hold that Gutman clearly owned the accounts at their creation if she originally created them using her personal information and for her personal use (a factual issue for the district court to decide on remand). If Gutman did own the accounts at their creation, the next question is whether JLM later acquired the accounts by operation of the contract. The Second Circuit makes clear that this question does not turn on whether Gutman assigned specific content to JLM under the contract, or whether others were permitted to assist in managing the accounts. In a rebuke to the district court, the Second Circuit said:Determining ownership by reference to such principles would promote transfer by surprise and complicate contractual arrangements under which an account owner might agree to advertise another’s goods on his or her platform.The contract allocated ownership of the following materials to JLM as works for hire: “designs, drawings, notes, patterns, sketches, prototypes, samples, improvements to existing works, and any other works conceived of or developed by [Gutman] in connection with her employment with [JLM] involving bridal clothing, bridal accessories and related bridal or wedding items.” (Emphasis added.) The district court interpreted the accounts to be “other works” under this language, and therefore held that Gutman had transferred ownership of the accounts to JLM.The Second Circuit rejected the district court’s analysis based on ejusdem generis, a general principle of contract construction that requires that general terms at the end of a list include only objects similar to the specific items in the list. The Second Circuit noted that the listed items were all creative materials that Gutman might produce in her work as a designer, consisting primarily of copyrightable subject matter. A social media account, in contrast, does not share any of those attributes. Therefore, the Second Circuit instructed the district court to reassess the ownership question using the proper ownership test and the foregoing principles, with the strong inference that it might then conclude that Gutman is the legal owner of the accounts.ConclusionIn Gutman, the Second Circuit endorsed a test of social media account ownership that is perhaps not as simple as it seems. In broad terms, the Gutman analysis requires us to look at who owned the account when it was created, and then see if it was later transferred or assigned to someone else. Given the court’s reference to determination of initial ownership by the circumstances of its creation, including whether it was created for personal use, this analysis is inherently fact-driven and will likely not have a clean answer in a world where influencers tend to leverage their personal lives for business gains.Notably, the Second Circuit’s approach implicitly accepts that a social media account is property in the first instance, a proposition that prior courts have not always been sure about, even though they generally accept the principle as a matter of convenience. For example, in <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-ban-crt-s-d-flo-for-lau-div/2289548.html">In re: Vital Pharmaceutical</a> (the Florida bankruptcy case mentioned above), the bankruptcy court noted:<blockquote dir="ltr">Describing a user’s interest in a social media account is difficult. With respect to some sites, such as TikTok and Twitter, a social media user’s right to use the platform is defined as a “license.” But, in some cases, such as Instagram, that right is not defined at all. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to “ownership of the rights to social media accounts” to encompass whatever rights a user has—whether it be a license or otherwise—to access and use a social media account.</blockquote>Despite these issues, Gutman may enable other courts to streamline their analysis of these issues. While it is not necessarily easy to determine whether an account was owned by an employee or a company at creation, knowing that a court will ultimately rule on ownership of the account according to traditional principles of property law should enable both employees and companies to enter into employment contracts that make ownership of social media accounts more predictable, by, for example, expressly assigning social media accounts used for any company business to the company (note that it would be fairly simple for a company to include language in its employment contract eliminating the ejusdem generis issue described above), implementing strict procedures for creation of such social media accounts, and/or requiring the employee to promise to use company-related social media accounts only in certain ways.

Here at Socially Aware, we have been discussing issues around ownership of social media accounts since the beginning of social media. 

Owned: Second Circuit Holds That Traditional Principles of Property Law Apply to Social Media Accounts

In this age of social media and texting, we use a plethora of shorthand visual and typographic icons to express a range of responses or reactions to posts or texts: a heart to indicate love, a laughing face or an “LOL” to indicate humor, a “: )” to indicate general pleasure.But be careful the next time you use the thumbs-up emoji, especially in a business context. It could be interpreted as the equivalent of a signature and indicate to the recipient that you agree to a contractual exchange.In July 2023, a Canadian court in Saskatchewan ruled as such, in South West Terminal Ltd. v Achter Land, 2023 SKKB 116 (CanLII). The case involved a text exchange between a farmer, Chris Achter, who was to sell 87 metric tons of flax to a buyer, Kent Mickleborough.Mickleborough signed the contract and texted a photo of it to Achter with the accompanying text “Please confirm flax contract.” Achter responded with a thumbs-up emoji, which to Mickleborough indicated that Achter was agreeing to the contract.Justice T.J. Keene of the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan ruled that Achter breached what Keene deemed as a valid contract when Achter failed to deliver the flax to Mickleborough.Keene wrote in his ruling that “This court readily acknowledges that a 👍 emoji is a nontraditional means to ‘sign’ a document but nevertheless under these circumstances this was a valid way to convey the two purposes of a ‘signature’ — to identify the signator [and] to convey Achter’s acceptance of the flax contract.” Justice Keene ordered Mr. Achter to pay damages of CA$82,200 (approximately US$61,000).As The New York Times reported, “In coming to his decision, Justice Keene cited the dictionary.com definition of the thumbs-up emoji: ‘used to express assent, approval or encouragement in digital communications, especially in Western cultures.’”In the United States, there have been a few cases to date that interpret the thumbs-up emoji, as Eric Goldman writes in his Technology & Marketing Law Blog about this Canadian case. One is Lightstone v. Zinnex, involving the sale of personal protective equipment during the pandemic, and Bardales v. Lamothe, involving the estranged parents of a child and decisions about where the child should live. (On his blog, Goldman lists 37 U.S. court opinions that reference the thumbs-up emoji.)Here at Socially Aware we’ll be keeping a close eye on the legal developments surrounding the implications of icons, emojis, and other design and display-related expressions that may have legal consequences.

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).

In this age of social media and texting, we use a plethora of shorthand visual and typographic icons to express a range of responses or reactions to posts or texts: a heart to indicate love, a laughing face or an “LOL” to indicate humor, a “: )” to indicate general pleasure.

Be Careful What You Click for: A Canadian Court Rules that a Thumbs-Up Emoji Indicates a Binding Contractual Agreement

Social media continues to dominate the headlines this spring, with several high-profile events capturing the media’s, regulators’, and lawmakers’ attention.Jack Owoc, founder and former CEO of Bang Energy (“Bang,” a performance energy beverage), claimed that he retained the rights to control Bang’s social media accounts, namely Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. Owoc claimed that these accounts were intertwined with his own personal brand and therefore belonged to him.The courts and Vital Pharmaceuticals (“Vital”), Bang’s manufacturer, saw things differently. In March, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin for the Southern District of Florida blocked Owoc from the accounts; in April, Owoc was forced to delete disparaging comments he made on his Instagram handle @BangEnergy.CEO about advisers who were trying to sell the bankrupt energy drink maker. (Vital, Bang’s parent company, filed for bankruptcy in October 2020.) In March 2023, Vital removed Owoc as CEO, replacing him with John C. DiDonato.Social media account ownership was a hot topic about a decade ago, with several high-profile cases such as <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv03474/243145/28/0.pdf" target="_blank">PhoneDog v. Kravitz</a>, <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2011cv05013/382292/30/" target="_blank">Ardis Health, LLC et al. v. Nankivell</a>, <a href="https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1153&context=historical" target="_blank">Eagle v. Morgan</a>, and Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group LTD,which we discussed here in the 2013 article <a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ownership-of-business-related-social-med-52890">“</a><a href="https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ownership-of-business-related-social-med-52890" target="_blank">Ownership of Business-Related Social Media Accounts</a>.” We provided additional coverage of similar work-related social media account ownership issues in our 2012 post, “<a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/which-side-are-you-on-employers-and-employees-battle-over-ownership-of-social-media-accounts" target="_blank">Which Side Are You On? Employers and Employees Battle Over Ownership of Social Media Accounts</a>.”In addition, we’ve had our eye on other aspects of the social media fabric for more than a decade. In two 2014 posts (“<a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/whats-in-a-like_01" target="_blank">What’s in a Like</a>” and “<a href="https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/topics/she-liked-it-she-really-really-liked-it-federal-district-court-holds-facebook-fan-page-manager-doesnt-own-likes" target="_blank">She Liked It. She Really, Really Liked It: Federal District Court Holds Facebook Fan Page Manager Doesn’t Own ‘Likes’</a>”), we discuss the value of social media “likes” as assets, including likes as protected speech, as property, and as concerted activity. We reviewed cases such as <a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf" target="_blank">Bland v. Roberts</a> and <a href="https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Florida_Southern_District_Court/0--13-cv-61582/Mattocks_v._Black_Entertainment_Television_LLC/101/" target="_blank">Mattocks v. Black Entertainment Television</a> that respectively raised issues of likes as protected speech and likes as property.The recent events of the Bang matter have reignited the conversation around social media account ownership and control. In addition, when a company and its owner/founder are closely aligned, if not synonymous, as was the case with Owoc and Bang, it raises additional questions where the line between a company and a person’s brand identity rests.

Social Links: Social Media Account Ownership Once Again in the Spotlight

Social Links: Social Media Account Ownership Once Again in the Spotlight

Social media continues to dominate the headlines this spring, with several high-profile events capturing the media’s, regulators’, and lawmakers’ attention.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to take aim at social media platforms that collect and use personal information that build algorithms to target individuals across a variety of dimensions when users engage with those platforms, most prominently in the form of advertising and other promotional campaigns from the political, entertainment, and commercial realms.The Banning Surveillance Advertising Act, introduced in January by <a href="https://eshoo.house.gov/media/press-releases/eshoo-schakowsky-booker-introduce-bill-ban-surveillance-advertising" target="_blank">Democratic Representatives Anna Eshoo (California) and Jan Schakowsky (Illinois), and Democratic Senator Cory Booker (New Jersey)</a>, seeks to rein in advertisers, ad networks, and other entities from using personal information received from third parties to target advertisements. As <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/370406/new-bill-would-outlaw-most-forms-of-behavioral-tar.html" target="_blank">Media Post</a> reports, “The bill says personal information includes data that is ‘reasonably linkable’ to an individual or device—including inferred data, browsing activity and unique identifiers.”What makes this bill different from previous privacy bills is its departure from requiring a user’s consent or allowing a user to opt out of behavioral targeting. The bill would still permit contextual advertising, which generally refers to advertisements based on the information that a particular screen is displaying or for which the individual searched. But it would prohibit using information collected for contextual advertising purposes for further targeting in other forums or contexts. The bill also would not restrict certain types of location-based targeted advertising. In addition, the bill would ban targeting on either actual or perceived information about a user’s race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, or other protected statuses.The technology and advertising sectors have been swift with their commentary on the bill. Read more from the following:<ul><li><a href="https://www.emarketer.com/content/why-marketers-should-take-banning-surveillance-advertising-act-seriously" target="_blank">eMarketer</a></li><li><a href="https://techcrunch.com/2022/01/18/banning-surveillance-advertising-act/" target="_blank">Tech Crunch</a></li><li><a href="https://www.adexchanger.com/privacy/even-if-targeted-online-advertising-isnt-banned-take-note-of-which-way-the-wind-is-blowing/" target="_blank">Ad Exchanger</a></li></ul><h3>Like COVID variants, misinformation in social media surges</h3>Recent studies have shown a steep rise in misinformation being spread by online gangs and other groups responsible for coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB). These movements continue to spread conspiracy theories and anti-vaccination rhetoric, and often use bullying tactics to harass and intimidate influencers, health officials, and journalists who oppose their alt-views. Many believe that these actors are causing more harm than government-backed groups, given their ability to infiltrate social media platforms, and the difficulty in regulating their informal tactics.Meta, Facebook’s parent company, <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/12/metas-adversarial-threat-report/" target="_blank">recently banned adversarial pages</a> that were associated with a European anti-vaccination movement called “Viral Vendetta,” or “V_V,” as <a href="https://public-assets.graphika.com/reports/graphika_report_viral_vendetta.pdf" target="_blank">this Graphika report</a> explains.As <a href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-login-0bb473c3-938b-4771-bd0b-bbac04a795a4.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslogin&stream=top" target="_blank">Axios recently reported</a>, “Loosely organized activist movements can be more dangerous than bot-driven campaigns that are often backed by state or government actors, because they link real-world people who can encourage each other to take more drastic actions, according to Bryce Webster-Jacobsen, director of intelligence operations at GroupSense, a threat intelligence firm.”According to Meta, the company now has taken swift action against two tactics that these alt-actors employ:<ul><li>Brigading: We will remove any adversarial networks we find where people work together to mass comment, mass post or engage in other types of repetitive mass behaviors to harass others or silence them.</li><li>Mass Reporting: We will remove any adversarial networks we find where people work together to mass-report an account or content to get it incorrectly taken down from our platform.</li></ul><h3>Increasing number of U.S. adults favor regulation of social media</h3>A <a href="https://assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2021/10/18135638/2110047_crosstabs_MC_TECH_FACEBOOK_Adults_v1_CC.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axioslogin&stream=top" target="_blank">recent study from Morning Consult</a> reported that 56% of U.S. adults are in favor of governmental regulation of social media companies. That study also cited that approximately three in five U.S. adults don’t believe that social media platforms go far enough to keep their users safe.The year 2021 witnessed a sharp increase in governmental and general societal scrutiny of social media platforms and the roles they play—or don’t play—in a variety of societal, governmental, and political arenas.But how to fix the myriad of issues that policymakers and the public raise about social media remains elusive, given the massive role that it plays in society.As Ashley Johnson, a senior policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation noted in a report that accompanied the Morning Consult survey, “I think if there is legislation, it's going to be very broad, in order to try to compromise and break this really large gap between the two parties.”

Social Links: Behavioral targeting under scrutiny from lawmakers

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to take aim at social media platforms that collect and use personal information that build algorithms to target individuals a

Social Links: Behavioral targeting under scrutiny from lawmakers

In late October, Facebook announced that it would <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/facebook-company-is-now-meta/">change its name to Meta</a>, signaling a shift of the social media giant’s focus toward the <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.investopedia.com/metaverse-definition-5206578">metaverse</a>, a virtual space where social media, gaming, augmented reality, virtual reality, and cryptocurrencies converge and allow people to interact virtually with one another. It’s a relatively new concept in technology with <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2021/05/02/defining-the-metaverse-today/?sh=883764764485">many different definitions and interpretations</a>. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://about.facebook.com/meta">made the announcement at the company’s annual Connect conference</a> that brings together virtual and augmented reality developers, content creators, marketers, and other technologists to explore the industry’s growth and expansion.In addition to the name change, <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/11/update-on-use-of-face-recognition/">Facebook also announced</a> in early November that it would be shutting down its face recognition system that close to a third of all Facebook users use. This change in technology policy represents a seismic shift for the company and for the larger social media landscape, reflecting ongoing conversations in the industry about data privacy and access to personal information.Just in time for the holiday shopping season: Pinterest launches its own shopping networkIn late October, image sharing social media giant <a href="https://newsroom.pinterest.com/en/post/introducing-pinterest-tv">Pinterest announced</a> the launch of Pinterest TV, a digital destination where users and subscribers can interact with Pinterest creators selling their goods and creations. The channel features original episodes from “Pinners” in livestream sessions that are recorded and can be accessed after broadcast in an on-demand archive.COVID-19 fueled a meteoric increase in both online and live streaming shopping activities delivered from traditional television channels such as QVC and Home Shopping Network as well as internet companies such as YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and Amazon. <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.axios.com/live-video-shopping-format-fire-fd6b2b15-0e0e-46ea-9dce-64a167a277e8.html">Axios reported in September</a> that the live video shopping format is poised for exponential growth, while Coresight Research, a retail and tech analysis firm, predicted that livestream e-commerce could see growth to $25 billion in sales within the next two years.Social media companies prevail in Communications Decency Act’s intellectual property exception; Third Circuit cites internet publisher immunityKaren Hepp, a well-known Philadelphia television journalist, was photographed in 2017 by a New York City convenience store camera without her knowledge or consent. That photograph later found its way in a variety of online advertisements ranging from dating services to erectile dysfunction products.Hepp sued Facebook, Reddit, and Imgur in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She claimed that each platform violated Pennsylvania’s statutory and common law right of publicity laws. <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://today.westlaw.com/Document/Iaf5326271d1d11ecbea4f0dc9fb69570/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true">The Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals recently dismissed the case</a>, citing that each of these companies were protected and had immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 0f 1996 (CDA). Read the full opinion of <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/20-2725/20-2725-2021-09-23.html">Hepp v. Facebook, No. 20-2725 (3d Cir. 2021).</a>Algorithms under fire: proposed bill could alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency ActHouse Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, Democratic Representative from New Jersey, is sponsoring the Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act (JAMA), a bill that would modify Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which protects websites from liability over content posted by their users. The bill seeks to amend and strip away immunity from online platforms if they “knowingly or recklessly uses a personalized algorithm to recommend content that materially contributes to physical or severe emotional injury” <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-login-55b536ad-4a7b-4557-a4d7-d3d1dde8be18.html">according to Axios</a>. The bill does not apply to platforms with fewer than five million unique monthly visitors or users.Some <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.engadget.com/house-bill-justice-against-malicious-algorithms-act-162915185.html">analysts don’t think the bill will get past the House of Representatives</a>, but even with its introduction, it sends a strong message for social media platforms to introduce more stringent policies away from self-regulation of content.LinkedIn’s presence in China to change under censorship concernsLinkedIn, the professional networking giant, recently announced that it will <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://blog.linkedin.com/2021/october/14/china-sunset-of-localized-version-of-linkedin-and-launch-of-new-injobs-app">retire its Chinese version and replace it with a new job board called “InJobs”</a> to connect China-based professionals with employers. LinkedIn acknowledges that operating in China presents challenges in compliance with the country’s requirements.LinkedIn recently came under fire for recently <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.axios.com/linkedin-blocks-us-journalists-profiles-in-china-22fcefd4-5bc1-490b-a448-b4f9b05e9566.html">blocking U.S. journalists’ profiles in China</a>. One such journalist, Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, <a rel="noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.axios.com/linkedin-unanswered-questions-china-censorship-56b75495-230c-4dc2-9a29-6a35e2f8cec0.html">pressed the platform about its censorship activities in China.</a>This unfolding story raises ongoing questions about Western technology companies and the roles they play in China, especially in their interplay with the Chinese government and its strict censorship laws and regulations.

sociallyaware-ecommerce.jpg

Facebook rebrands as “Meta;” disables facial recognition capabilities

Facebook rebrands as “Meta;” disables facial recognition capabilities

sociallyaware-ecommerce