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 an attempt to shut down free speech online, Turkey enacted a law that requires social media platforms with more than a million daily users in Turkey to open an office there or assign a representative who is legally accountable to Turkish authorities. Among other things, the law also requires companies to respond within two days to complaints about posts that “violate personal and privacy rights.” <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/27/its-a-war-on-words-turks-fear-new-law-to-muzzle-social-media-giants" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn what social media companies risk</a> if they don’t comply.Significantly deviating from his former choices for FCC Commissioner, President Trump nominated Nathan Simington to replace current Republican Commissioner Mike O’Reilly. Unlike previous nominees, who were not heavily involved in technology policy, Simington “played a significant role in drafting” an order instructing the FCC to limit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s protections for technology companies, according to The Verge. Find out <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438820/fcc-donald-trump-nominate-nathan-simington-commissioner-social-media-section-230-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">why Trump revoked O’Reilly’s nomination for a third term</a>.Spending on advertising in general plummeted in Q2 of 2020 compared to the same quarter last year, with newspaper ad spend dropping by nearly 50% and radio ad spend dropping by about 42%. On the other hand, the dip in social media ad spend was far less significant. Analysts attribute advertisers’ continued interest in social media to COVID-19, saying that social media use skyrocketed during quarantine. <a href="https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/356423/q2-ad-spending-analysis-reveals-major-share-increa.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline&utm_campaign=119982&hashid=icw4eEcCBUZXM8pArHBIb_YN6sc" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Find out how little social media’s advertising revenue dropped</a> in Q2 2020.Some of YouTube’s top earners are children. France just passed a law to limit the hours they work and place their earnings in a bank account until they turn 16. You won’t believe <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54447491" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the staggering amounts of cash some of these kids rake in</a>.Harvard Law School has a new social media policy precluding students from posting statements made in class together with enough information to make the speaker identifiable by someone who was not present in class. <a href="https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/harvard-law-introduces-social-media-policy-about-classroom-statements" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn the school’s reason</a> for implementing this new policy.A private investigator in Sacramento, California—where a new law classifies COVID-19 as an “injury” under workers’ compensation when certain circumstances apply—is <a href="https://gooddaysacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/09/22/employers-private-investigators-employees-covid-19-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">using people’s social media posts as evidence</a> that they didn’t contract COVID-19 at work.“<a href="https://mashable.com/article/doomswiping-doomscrolling-dating-apps/?utm_source=webpush&utm_medium=notification" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Doomswiping</a>” is the latest dating-app trend.

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

Turkey’s new social media law; social media ad spend; Harvard Law School’s social media policy

In an attempt to shut down free speech online, Turkey enacted a law that requires social media platforms with more than a million daily users in Turkey to open 

Turkey’s new social media law; social media ad spend; Harvard Law School’s social media policy

New York courts are increasingly ordering the production of social media posts in discovery, including personal messages and pictures, if they shed light on pending litigation. Nonetheless, courts remain cognizant of privacy concerns, requiring parties seeking social media discovery to avoid broad requests akin to fishing expeditions.In early 2018, in Forman v. Henkin, the New York State Court of Appeals laid out a two-part test to determine if someone’s social media should be produced: “first consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed . . . to assess whether relevant material is likely to be found on the Facebook account. Second, balanc[e] the potential utility of the information sought against any specific ‘privacy’ or other concerns raised by the account holder.”The Court of Appeals left it to lower New York courts to struggle over the level of protection social media should be afforded in discovery. Since this decision, New York courts have begun to flesh out how to apply the Forman test.In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2018/2018-ny-slip-op-28241.html">Renaissance Equity Holdings LLC v. Webber</a>, former Bad Girls Club cast member Mercedes Webber, or “Benze Lohan,” was embroiled in a succession suit. Ms. Webber wanted to continue to live in her mother’s rent controlled apartment after the death of her mother. To prevail, Ms. Webber had to show that she had lived at the apartment for a least two years prior to her mother’s death.To determine Ms. Webber’s primary residence, the property company asked her to produce all of her “posts whether in her legal name, Benze Lohan, or any other aliases . . . to social media, including but not limited to Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.”Applying the Forman test, the court found that this request was overbroad for two reasons. First, it did not define a specific timeframe for the post, and, second, it did not list the specific information “sought within these posts on the narrow issue of primary residence.” The court ultimately ordered that Ms. Webber produce all social media posts from the two years prior to her mother’s death that list a location, a comment made by Ms. Webber about a location and any posts in which Ms. Webber mentioned the word home or a synonym for it. The court allowed Ms. Webber to preserve her privacy by directing her to produce redacted posts in most instances. She only had to produce unredacted posts for those in which she used the word home or a similar term.In Israeli v. Rappaport, Deborah Israeli sued her surgeon, David Rappaport, for malpractice after he performed breast implant surgery on Ms. Israeli that resulted in nerve damage and other injuries. She sued claiming that she could no longer lift more than 10-15 pounds and that she had limited range of motion and other lasting permanent injuries. Her husband, Avi Israeli, added a loss of services claim in which he asserted that he had lost Ms. Israeli’s care, affection and companionship. Dr. Rappaport requested access to Ms. Israeli’s “social networking information/photos” from her LinkedIn, Instagram, MySpace, Facebook and Twitter. Dr. Rappaport ultimately narrowed the request to all photographs, videos, posts and private messages between Mr. and Ms. Israeli from one year before the surgery to the present so that he could see if Ms. Israeli’s injuries were permanent and if there really was loss of services to her husband. The court applied the Forman test and further limited the scope of what needed to be produced to videos, pictures and other posts that showed Ms. Israeli’s physical activities particularly as they related to her alleged injuries and interactions between the couple. It also ordered that any pictures, videos, posts or messages that were shared privately between the Israelis or posts the showed romantic encounters or nudity should be produced to the court for in camera inspection to preserve the couple’s privacy.Recently, in Spoljaric v. Savarese, the court considered social media discovery requests in a car accident case. Mr. Spoljaric claimed injuries suffered in the accident impaired his quality of life and ability to enjoy leisure time activities. Ms. Savarese, who was alleged to have caused the accident, sought to disprove Mr. Spoljaric’s claims with some novel discovery requests. First, Ms. Savarese sought all data collected by Mr. Spoljaric’s Fitbit device to show his continued post-accident activity.  Second, she also sought information from Mr. Spoljaric’s accounts with Bumble and Okcupid, popular dating sites. Third, she sought all photographs posted by Mr. Spoljaric to Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. The court rejected the request for the Fitbit data.  While Mr. Spoljaric had lost fifty pounds since the accident, the court noted that the loss of weight was more likely due to diet than exercise. The court also rejected the request for the dating site information. Applying the Forman test, the court found that forcing Mr. Spoljaric to produce information from dating sites would involve too much of an invasion of his personal privacy. The court, however, directed Mr. Spoljaric to provide copies of photographs posted to his Facebook, Instagram and Twitter accounts depicting him in social, recreational or physical activities after the date of the accident.Limiting the requests in both time and subject matter to avoid the appearance of a fishing expedition remains critical. Compare two recent personal injury cases. In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-33581-u.html">Valentine v. Collins Brothers Moving Corp.</a>, Arthur Valentine was injured in a car accident and sued Collins Brothers Moving Corporation. The court rejected Collins Brothers Moving Corporation’s request to access Mr. Valentine’s social media accounts or direct him to download and disclose the contents of these accounts and to provide duly-executed unrestricted authorizations for all of his social media accounts. Applying the Forman test, the court rejected these blanket demands, which would yield every photograph or communication Mr. Valentine had on any topic prior to and since the car accident.In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-33581-u.html">Vasquez-Santos v. Mathew</a>, the court considered a much narrower request in a similar accident case. In this case, Genaro Vasquez-Santos, a former semi pro basketball player, complained that he could no longer play ball. The court permitted social media discovery that was appropriately limited in time, i.e., only those items posted or sent after the accident, and in subject matter, i.e., those items discussing or showing Mr. Vasquez-Santos engaging in basketball or other similar physical activities.Other post-Forman social media cases highlight the need to limit requests in time and scope. In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-first-department/2018/6388n-306670-14.html">Doe v. Bronx Preparatory Charter School</a>, the court rejected Bronx Preparatory Charter School’s demand for access to social media accounts of a student for five years prior to her being attacked on campus, noting that the student had provided access to her social media accounts for the two months leading up to the incident. In <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2019/2019-ny-slip-op-31535-u.html">Vivona v. Bridgeview Associates LLC</a>, the court considered a case in which James Vivona suffered a head injury when he tripped on a misleveled elevator at Bridgeview Associate’s building. Mr. Vivona claimed to have suffered impaired cognitive functions. Bridgeview Associates found public Facebook photos showing Mr. Vivona playing hockey and sporting a black eye. Bridgeview Associates argued that Mr. Vivona’s impaired cognitive functions could have been caused by the head injuries he suffered while playing hockey and that his social media could uncover more evidence relevant to the actual cause of his cognitive injuries. The court allowed discovery of Mr. Vivona’s social media, but limited it to photographs or other content referencing him engaged in athletic activities.Prior to the Court of Appeals decision in Forman, courts may have felt more uneasy authorizing discovery of social media posts because they had perceived them to be more personal and private than other types of documents. However, as these cases show, post-Forman, New York courts are increasingly willing to allow discovery of personal pictures and private messages if they are reasonably likely to shed light on an aspect of the litigation.Parties seeking such discovery, however, should not go overboard. They need to give thought to what is actually relevant to the dispute. When making the requests, they need to be specific in both time and subject matter. Cast too wide a net, and courts will still push back.

L.W. v. Snap Inc.,  675 F. Supp. 3d 1087 

Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea , 2021 WL 3038402 

In re Maxus Energy Corp.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC

NFL Enterprises LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite LLC

Change Healthcare Operations, LLC v WebMD Health Corp. 2017 WL 6610411  

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc.

Komag, Inc. v. Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.

Asante Techs. Inc. v. PMC–Sierra, Inc.

Biovail Corp. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt. 2009 WL 2844404 

Multi–Faceted Investigation of University Grants

Confidential International Arbitrations

lawrence_j_blog_150x150.png

lawrence_j_common_640x280.jpg

lawrence_j_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

lawrence_j_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

lawrence_j_social_600x600.jpg

Alex advises on all aspects of complex commercial litigation in federal and state trial and appellate courts and in arbitration. He has represented U.S. and international clients in actions involving 

J. Lawrence

J. Alexander Lawrence

02_21_sociallyaware_600px_v2-300x300.jpg

Are Facebook Posts Discoverable? Application of the Forman Test in N.Y.

Are Facebook Posts Discoverable? Application of the Forman Test in N.Y.

New York courts are increasingly ordering the production of social media posts in discovery, including personal messages and pictures, if they shed light on pen

A random Twitter account tags a Japanese company and badmouths it in a series of tweets. Because the tweets are tagged, a search of the company’s name on Twitter will display the tweets with the negative comments among the search results. Upset over the tweets, the Japanese company wants to sue the tweeter in Japan. But how can it? The tweeter has not used his real name.This is where discovery under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1782" target="_blank" rel="noopener">28 U.S.C. § 1782</a> can help. Section 1782 provides a vehicle for companies or individuals seeking U.S. discovery in aid of foreign litigation—even if the litigation is merely contemplated and not yet commenced. Specifically, Section 1782 provides that a federal district court may grant an applicant the authority to issue subpoenas in the United States to obtain documents or testimony, including documents or testimony seeking to unmask an anonymous Internet poster to pursue defamation claims abroad.To pursue Section 1782 discovery, an applicant needs to establish:<ul><li>that the requested discovery is for use in an actual or contemplated proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal;</li><li>that the applicant is an “interested person” in that proceeding; and</li><li>that the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the court where the applicant is making the application.</li></ul>If the applicant satisfies all of these factors, a district court has the discretion to grant or deny the application after considering the following factors, which the U.S. Supreme Court established in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/intel-corp-v-advanced-micro-devices-inc-4?page=267&sort=relevance&q=542%20U.S.%20241&p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=&type=case" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc.</a>:<ul><li>whether the discovery sought is within the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach and, thus, accessible without Section 1782 aid;</li><li>the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal court judicial assistance;</li><li>whether the applicant’s request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States; and</li><li>whether the request is unduly intrusive or burdensome.</li></ul>For an applicant to obtain discovery under Section 1782, it does not need to meet all four factors. Also, no one factor is dispositive.Recently, judges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California—which has jurisdiction over Twitter because that tech company is headquartered in San Francisco—dealt with two cases in which Japanese parties sought to unmask malicious tweeters. The cases are <a href="https://casetext.com/case/in-re-ex-parte-application-of-yasuda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In re Yuichiro Yasuda</a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2019mc80139/342836/21/0.pdf?ts=1574760665" target="_blank" rel="noopener">In re PGS Home Co.</a> In both cases, Twitter resisted discovery and moved to quash or modify subpoenas, citing, among other things, the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In both cases, the courts found that the applicants had met the three statutory factors. Thus, the judges had the discretion to allow discovery to proceed. Each case boiled down to an analysis of the fourth Intel factor: whether the discovery requests were unduly intrusive or burdensome. On that question, the judges reached different conclusions.In both cases, the judges noted <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/182446/in-re-anonymous-online-speakers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">U.S. courts’ general recognition</a> of the importance of anonymous speech, noting that “the ability to speak anonymously on the Internet promotes the robust exchange of ideas and allows individuals to express themselves freely without ‘fear of economic or official retaliation . . . [or] concern about social ostracism.’”Both judges noted that, in the context of Section 1782 discovery requests, courts have held that the First Amendment protects an anonymous speaker from being unmasked unless the applicant:<ul><li>identifies the missing defendant with sufficient specificity such that the court can determine that it is a real person subject to a lawsuit;</li><li>identifies all previous steps taken to locate and identify the elusive defendant;</li><li>demonstrates that the action against defendant can withstand a motion to dismiss; and</li><li>proves that the discovery is likely to lead to the identification of the defendant such that service of process would be possible.</li></ul>In In re Yuichiro Yasuda, the court found that the applicant satisfied all four requirements for good cause to permit Section 1782 discovery to unmask an anonymous tweeter. The court’s inquiry ended there. The judge denied Twitter’s motion to quash.However, a month later, in In re PGS Home Co., the court granted Twitter’s motion to quash because it found the applicant’s allegations would not survive a motion to dismiss. The court also found that unmasking the speaker would have a potential chilling effect on First Amendment liberties that would outweigh the harm the applicant would suffer from withholding the requested discovery.In Yasuda, the anonymous tweeter posted statements claiming a Japanese physician had sexual relations with a female patient who was in high school, which led to the patient’s attempted suicide. This was all tweeted on the page of a well-known radio DJ with over 10,000 followers. Thus, the judge did not have to dig deeply into Japanese law to conclude that, if false, the claim was likely actionable.In PGS, the anonymous tweeter claimed a Japanese construction company asked to be paid for work it did not perform and treated customers like complainers. Each of these comments came with a hashtag identifying the company. The court did not feel that was enough evidence to conclude the applicant’s claims could survive a motion to dismiss. Oddly, the judge, without explanation, appears to have evaluated whether the claim would survive a motion to dismiss a defamation claim under California law, rather than Japanese law.Although Twitter raised a potential chilling effect under the First Amendment in both cases, only the PGS court went on to address the issue. To weigh the potential chilling effect, courts in the district apply a two-part test:<ul><li>whether there is a “real evidentiary basis” for believing that the anonymous speaker has engaged in wrongful conduct that caused real harm to the party seeking discovery; and</li><li>if the threshold requirement outlined above is met, weighing the harm resulting from an order requiring disclosure compared to the harm resulting from an order denying the request.</li></ul>In PGS, the court concluded that the applicant failed to show a “real evidentiary basis” that the tweets caused real harm. The court found the statements and accusations to be nothing more than a simple “rant” by a dissatisfied customer. The court held that even if the tweets did cause real harm, the harm is outweighed by the First Amendment concerns.Interestingly, neither court addressed the nationality of the anonymous tweeters. In both of these cases, the statements were made in Japanese and targeted a Japanese individual or company. It seems quite likely that the anonymous posters are Japanese nationals living in Japan. <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.336935/gov.uscourts.cand.336935.18.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">One court has recently held</a> that that the First Amendment protects the anonymous speech of foreign nationals on the basis that free speech protects the audience as well as the speaker, but there is scant case law on this question. Also, <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/05/reddit-commenters-fight-anonynmity-win-free-speech-and-fair-use" target="_blank" rel="noopener">that case involved an anonymous Reddit poster</a> who directed his criticism of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to a U.S. audience. Section 1782 applicants may still argue that First Amendment protections for anonymous speech should not apply to an individual who presumably lives in Japan and posted comments in Japanese that are alleged to have defamed a Japanese company under Japanese law. In other words, other than the use of Twitter’s platform, everything else, including the audience, has no connection with the United States.Because of the high concentration of social media and other Internet companies in the Bay Area, one can assume that these will not be the last cases filed in the Northern District of California using Section 1782 to unmask anonymous Internet posters. We will see how the law develops in this area.

gettyimages-1182386433_small-300x300.jpg

Foreign Companies Can Use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Unmask Anonymous Internet Posters

Foreign Companies Can Use 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to Unmask Anonymous Internet Posters