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

Social

Search

sociallyaware-abajournalweb100-1

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

rubin_aaron_blog_150x150.png

rubin_aaron_common_640x280.jpg

rubin_aaron_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

rubin_aaron_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

rubin_aaron_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

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

Aaron P. Rubin

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

gallick_lawrence_blog_150x150.png

gallick_lawrence_common_640x280.jpg

gallick_lawrence_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gallick_lawrence_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gallick_lawrence_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Lawrence Gallick

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

ramirez_anthony_blog_150x150.png

ramirez_anthony_common_640x280.jpg

ramirez_anthony_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

ramirez_anthony_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

ramirez_anthony_social_600x600.jpg

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

Anthony M. Ramirez

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

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

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header.jpg

Welcome to Socially Aware

240920-socially-aware-header

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

News and Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.

Federal Circuitry

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

MoFo Tech

Mofo Tech

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

Employment Law Commentary

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

Government Contracts Insight

Government Contracts Insights

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

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

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

Socially Aware

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Socially Aware Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

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

Subscribe

The Law and Business of Social Media

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Web Scraping

Advertising

Antitrust

Arbitration

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Autonomous Vehicles

Bankruptcy

Big Data

Blockchain

Class Actions

Cloud Computing

Compliance

Contracts

COPPA

Copyright

Crowdsourcing

Cyberbullying

Cybersecurity

Data Security

Defamation

Digital Content

Disappearing Content

Discovery

DMCA

E-Commerce

E-Discovery

E-Personation

Electronic Contracts

Employment Law

Endorsement Guides

Ephemeral Messaging

Ethics

European Union

Event

Fair Use

FDA Regulations

Financial Institutions

First Amendment

Fraud

Free Speech

GDPR

Hacking

Influencer Marketing

Infographic

Internet of Things

Investment Management Law

JOBS Act

Labor Law

Litigation

Live streaming

Marketing

Mobile

Online Contracts

Online Endorsements

Online Promotions

Online Reviews

Patent

Privacy

Product Liability

Protected Speech

Right of Publicity

Right To Be Forgotten

Section 230 Safe Harbor

Securities Law

Social Media Policy

Statistics

Status Updates

Stored Communications Act

Supreme Court

Terms of Use

Trademark

UK High Court

User-Generated Content

Wearable Computers

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

More

Lawrence W. Gallick

Social Links: If the Suit Fits

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

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

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

Social Links: Going Back to Cali

LinkedIN

A few months ago, we <a href="/topics/state-lawmakers-introduce-laws-governing-teen-use-of-social-media" target="_self">highlighted</a> the many pending and enacted state-level social media laws targeting minors’ use of social media. Since then, political and industry groups have begun to push back, calling into question whether these types of social media laws will ultimately be successfully implemented. Most recently, pending or enacted laws in Mississippi, New York, and California are facing overlapping challenges.Mississippi. A federal district court judge <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLTUxMjEtZGVlOS1hM2JkLWZkYjc3OGE4MDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6InllRlhUR0g5M1htWXlyc3Zrc1k5YlE9PURoVjZoUVBQZ2s4bGFuQ1dLREVpbGc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE5OTE5MzIzMDk1Iiwic2lnIjoid0hmdXg4cllXTzU3MGtERlJmNGRpNjJQVWUwPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=top%20stories%20digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">blocked</a> Mississippi’s attorney general from enforcing <a href="https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2024/html/HB/1100-1199/HB1126PS.htm" target="_blank">H.B. 1126</a> (the Walker Montgomery Protecting Children Online Act) on July 1, 2024, the day it was set to go into effect. The law would require social media platforms both to obtain parental consent for minors to use the platforms and to verify user ages. The internet trade association NetChoice sued the state on June 7, 2024, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. The court found that the state attorney general failed to show that alternatives to the law are insufficient for the state’s objective of protecting children, as mandated under the required strict scrutiny standard, and upheld a preliminary injunction of the law. Most recently, the court <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLWJjOTctZGMxMy1hMzkwLWJlOTdlNjNhMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6IkhFRDhlcEFJLzdvM2wrWU5HeDN5SlE9PUJONmNRSWxZandBaktLZlNXV0p2RXc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzIxMjE2MTI1MjQ1Iiwic2lnIjoiakpEb3hpYjlVSDMra1MrekhnQ2lnU2s0Mkc4PSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">denied</a> the attorney general’s motion to allow the law to go into effect pending appeal. As we previously reported, NetChoice has already prevailed in similar cases involving state social media laws in Ohio, California, and Arkansas.New York. In June, New York enacted <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S7694/amendment/A" target="_blank">S.B. 7694A</a> (the SAFE For Kids Act), which requires age verification by social media platforms to determine whether users need to seek parental consent to use such platforms. The state attorney general is tasked with determining the rules for verifying ages and identities of legal guardians. However, she faces significant opposition from tech industry groups, as well as practical hurdles in determining an adequate age verification process to require from platforms. Strict standards that require personal information could face privacy issues, while less stringent measures could allow easy circumvention. Age verification is also <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMThmLWNhMjQtZGIyOS1hYmFmLWRiNzQzOTRjMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6Ikh2QitXbk1SYzluVmhqRVZqUEgwRGc9PUxqSGQ5WXFPcW0va1VPQ1NEZ2hycWc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE3MTUzMTM1MTY2Iiwic2lnIjoiVHB6M29aTnJweWJ2eEpzMm0ra2FIUWVoWThrPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">controversial</a> because of its potential to limit access to platforms by vulnerable groups and immigrants without lawful status. The law has <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMThmLWUwZDgtZGExOC1hYjlmLWZkZmM5OTZmMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6ImFxdjNQaUI5eGZGY0orU0JwV3RHYUE9PWRhR2tub3hFc0ptTmRGMzhTSm15Unc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE3NTg0OTkwNTEzIiwic2lnIjoiR1duT3lOMHJUU1Y4S1RXN1BtbWMzZmZiOWZzPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">already faced significant lobbying opposition</a>, leading lawmakers to update the initial bill to (i) require the attorney general rather than platforms to make rules on age verification, and (ii) remove the private right of action in the initial bill in favor of limiting enforcement to the attorney general.California. California’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB976" target="_blank">SB-976</a> (the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act) is <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTkwLTViYjItZDNjYi1hOWZiLWRiZjI5OGVjMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJURU5XIiwidXVpZCI6ImpwTk9oYjJPQjhvN0xPMWd1cW5sNnc9PUtlV2VzdDFaWHE3WmdQdlRnNFRtQXc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzE5OTE5MzIzMDk3Iiwic2lnIjoicyt6VjRtalJQZmVlLzVXVVRZL1llWW5Ka0JjPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=read-text&region=top%20stories%20digest&channel=tech-and-telecom-law" target="_blank">facing opposition</a> from tech industry lobbying groups. The law allows parents to control notifications and whether children can access an algorithmic feed as opposed to a chronological feed, and requires rules for age verification. Opponents argue that LGBTQ+ teenagers would be restricted from connecting with others in their community if parental consent is required. Critics also argue that the law is invasive, citing potential infringement on free speech protections and privacy concerns related to age verification. State lawmakers have already updated the law to attempt to remedy some of these concerns.Despite the roadblocks faced by states in pushing forward these laws, movement in this area persists and social media laws focused on minors continue to move through the lawmaking process. We will continue to monitor new laws in this area and the increasing efforts to oppose them.

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

harris_lindsay_blog_150x150.png

harris_lindsay_common_640x280.jpg

harris_lindsay_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

harris_lindsay_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

harris_lindsay_social_600x600.jpg

Associate

Lindsay is an associate in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison Foerster.

Lindsay B. Harris

Lindsay Harris

A few months ago, we highlighted the many pending and enacted state-level social media laws targeting minors’ use of social media. Since then, political and industry groups have begun to push back, calling into question whether these types of social media laws will ultimately be successfully implemented.

State Social Media Laws Targeted at Teens Face Opposition

A court in the Southern District of Ohio has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Social Media Parental Notification Act, an Ohio law that would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 16. NetChoice LLC, an industry group whose membership includes a number of large social media companies, challenged the legislation on behalf of its members and their users.The Act would impose age verification measures on social media platforms and require parental consent for users under the age of 16. The Ohio law applies specifically to platforms that target children or are likely to be accessed by children, which is determined based on the following factors:(1) Subject matter;(2) Language;(3) Design elements;(4) Visual content;(5) Use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives;(6) Music or other audio content;(7) Age of models;(8) Presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children;(9) Advertisements;(10) Empirical evidence regarding audience composition; and(11) Evidence regarding the intended audience.Additionally, the Act makes exceptions for product review sites and “established and widely recognized” news sites with commenting functionality. Penalties for non-compliance include fines of (i) up to $1000 per day for the first 60 days of noncompliance; (ii) up to an additional $5000 per day for days 61–90; and (iii) up to an additional $10,000 per day for days 91 and beyond. While aimed at protecting minors online, the legislation raises serious concerns about free speech, vagueness, and compliance burdens on digital platforms.NetChoice, a trade association representing online businesses, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, arguing that the Act violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of both NetChoice’s members and their users. NetChoice contended that the law unduly restricts freedom of expression and the right to access information on the internet. Moreover, NetChoice argued that the law is vague and would cause some companies to needlessly spend large amounts of money to comply with a law which may not even apply to them.The court first determined that NetChoice had standing to bring claims on behalf of both itself and its members, based on economic harms to its members as well as constitutional harms, such as the chilling effect on free speech if the court did not hear NetChoice’s claims. Next, the court scrutinized the Act through the lens of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, considering its implications for free speech and the potential harm it posed to social media platforms and their users.1. Strict Scrutiny and Content Based Restrictions: The court determined that the Act was subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review, because it is “content based.” Strict scrutiny requires the government to show that a law uses a narrowly tailored approach to serve a compelling government interest. The Attorney General argued that, by applying to sites that “target children” or are “reasonably anticipated to be accessed by children,” the Ohio law was simply tailoring its application to platforms that pose a risk to minors’ privacy, health, and safety rather than targeting any particular content. The court held, however, that provisions of the law that applied to sites with certain features were inherently content based, since they conveyed a message about the community that the site intended to curate and foster. Moreover, the court pointed to the exceptions for “established” news sites and product review sites as obviously content based (as an example, the court asked why the law didn’t also include exceptions for book and film review sites). Therefore, the court determined that the Act selectively regulates speech and is subject to strict scrutiny review.2. Vagueness and Overbreadth: The court found the Act’s vagueness and broad application potentially chilled free speech, with unclear compliance requirements for platforms. For example, the Attorney General argued that the Ohio law is concerned with protecting minors from entering into terms of service that permit use of their personal data. The court noted, however, that the law is both overbroad because it completely blocks minors from these sites absent parental consent, and also underinclusive because it allows that “a child can still agree to a contract with the New York Times without their parent’s consent, but not with Facebook.” The Attorney General also recited a litany of potential psychological and real-world harms to children from use of certain social media sites, to which the court replied that the law “is a breathtakingly blunt instrument for reducing social media’s harm to children.” With respect to vagueness issues under the Fourteenth Amendment, the court pointed to the law’s “eyebrow-raising exception” for “established” and “widely recognized” media outlets and concluded that “[s]uch capacious and subjective language practically invites arbitrary application of the law.”3. Impact on Minors’ Rights: Highlighting the 2011 Supreme Court case, Brown v. Ent. Merchants Ass’n, which invalidated a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, the court noted that the Ohio law does not enforce parental authority, as the Attorney General argued, but rather imposes governmental authority, subject to a parental veto. The court also made the converse point, that online platforms have a right to disseminate protected speech to both minors and adults.4. Balance of Equities and the Public Interest: After concluding that NetChoice had shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits and likelihood of irreparable harm, the court considered the final two preliminary injunction factors, whether the injunction would harm others and whether the public interest would be served by the injunction, noting that these two factors “merge when the government is a party.” While the Attorney General contended that the public interest would be served by allowing the law to go into effect and protect minors, the court was convinced by NetChoice’s argument that “the State has no interest in enforcing laws that are unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the court granted the preliminary injunction.This case is one of a number of recent and pending cases pitting legislative attempts to regulate social media platforms against the free speech rights and other constitutional rights of the platforms and their users. We will be following the case as it progresses, and will report back on any further developments.

Court Prohibits Ohio’s AG From Enforcing Social Media Parental Notification Act

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

Court Prohibits Ohio’s AG From Enforcing Social Media Parental Notification Act

A court in the Southern District of Ohio has issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Social Media Parental Notification Act, an Ohio law that would require social media platforms to obtain parental consent for users under 16.

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

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

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

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

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

Singapore has enacted a law granting government ministers the power to require social media platforms to completely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/02/chilling-singapores-fake-news-law-comes-into-effect" target="_blank" rel="noopener">remove or place warnings alongside posts the authorities designate as false</a>.Unlike the compensation earned by child stars who perform on television, in films, or on other traditional media in California, the income generated by children who perform on social media—“kidfluencers”—<a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-child-social-media-stars-need-a-coogan-law-protect-parents-1230968" target="_blank" rel="noopener">still isn’t protected under California law</a>.The Federal Trade Commission is suing Match Group, the owner of dating sites including Match.com, Tinder, OkCupid and Plenty of Fish, for allegedly tricking hundreds of thousands of Match.com users into subscribing by <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/ftc-sues-owner-online-dating-service-matchcom-using-fake-love" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disingenuously implying that their profiles were getting a lot of attention</a> from other users.Speaking of dating sites, OKCupid is auditing photos posted by its users and <a href="https://NYPOST.COM/2019/09/18/PLENTY-OF-FISH-AND-OTHER-APPS-ARE-GOING-FILTER-FREE/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">banning the ones that employ filters</a>.Instagram and Facebook are testing the practice of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/technology/facebook-hidden-likes.html?action=click&amp;module=Well&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;section=Technology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">making the “likes” on a person’s posts invisible to other users</a>. Some marketers say that eliminating engagement metrics such as “likes” will have a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/technology/facebook-hidden-likes.html?action=click&amp;module=Well&amp;pgtype=Homepage&amp;section=Technology" target="_blank" rel="noopener">significant effect on the influencer marketing industry</a>.<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-instagram-youtube-killing-like-subscribers-2019-9?r=US&IR=T?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube is modifying its popularity metrics too</a>, citing a concern for its users’ mental health.Also motivated by concern for their users’ wellbeing, Instagram and Facebook have adopted <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/18/20872711/instagram-weight-loss-cosmetic-procedures-restrictions-policy-wellness-influencer-marketing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a new policy</a> regarding posts promoting weight loss products and certain types of cosmetic surgery.Based in China, the social media network TikTok is incredibly popular, having been downloaded more than 104 million times in the United States since its U.S. debut in 2017. Although the network has sparked controversy in several ways—including its parent company’s $1 billion spend on ads to achieve TikTok’s meteoric rise—the revolutionary artificial intelligence that the network employs to gather data about its users <a href="https://medium.com/fast-company/is-tiktok-a-time-bomb-cad748509941" target="_blank" rel="noopener">might be the biggest cause for concern</a>, according to Hootsuite CEO Ryan Holmes.Librarians are not happy with LinkedIn. <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/28/linkedin-change-to-learning-tools-registration-upsets-librarians.html">Here’s why</a>.Is antagonizing your brand’s competition on social media a sound marketing strategy? It <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/business/popeyes-chicken-sandwich-twitter.html?fallback=0&recId=1Q42uFs1kQYfT2EET72OfUbWHsN&locked=0&geoContinent=NA&geoRegion=NJ&recAlloc=story&geoCountry=US&blockId=home-featured&imp_id=493912177&action=click&module=editorsPicks&pgtype=Article&region=Footer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worked for Popeye’s</a> last summer.

A dating platform’s alleged fraud; a decline in the popularity of popularity metrics; TikTok’s unique AI

Singapore has enacted a law granting government ministers the power to require social media platforms to completely remove or place warnings alongside posts the

A dating platform’s alleged fraud; a decline in the popularity of popularity metrics; TikTok’s unique AI

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

oneill_julie_blog_150x150.png

oneill_julie_common_640x280.jpg

oneill_julie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

Julie O'Neill

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