The Law and Business of Social Media
October 30, 2024 - Defamation, E-Commerce, FTC, IP, Online Reviews, Privacy, Section 230 Safe Harbor

Socially Aware: Fake Reviews, Real Rulings, and an Epic Fail

FAKE REVIEW RULES TAKE EFFECT

The Federal Trade Commission’s new rules banning phony online reviews are now in effect. These rules aim to curb false consumer testimonials, the buying of fake reviews from brokers, review suppression, falsifying social media influence, and misrepresentation of company ownership for review sites. As we reported last August, fake and bot-generated reviews have proliferated at an alarming rate, potentially leading to consumer cynicism, mistrust, and unfair competition. These new FTC rules have some teeth: non-compliance could result in a $51,744 fine for each violation. It remains to be seen how e-commerce behemoths that host tens of millions of online reviews will navigate compliance, but it’s probably a safe bet there will be some late nights for IT personnel in Seattle and Mountain View. FTC chair Lina Khan said, “Fake reviews not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors. [The rule will] protect Americans from getting cheated, put businesses that unlawfully game the system on notice, and promote markets that are fair, honest, and competitive.” It will be interesting to see what e-commerce and review sites look like in six months.

MASS. SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF MEDICAL DATA TRACKING

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that website tracking software does not run afoul of the 1968 Wiretap Act, and sites can continue tracking browser activity without the consent of the user. The 5–1 ruling maintains that two hospitals named in the action—Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and New England Baptist Hospital—were not breaking the law by collecting and sharing patient data with tracking sites. The plaintiff alleged that the collected data allowed tech companies to profit from private medical data without consent.

Writing for the majority, Judge Scott Kafker noted that the 1968 Wiretap Act does not apply to website operators who track data from those who visit, and the law’s legislative history does not lead to the conclusion that it was meant to apply so broadly as to potentially criminalize the interception of web browsing. He added, “If the legislature intends for the wiretap act’s criminal and civil penalties to prohibit the tracking of a person’s browsing of, and interaction with, published information on websites, it must say so expressly.”

In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Dalila Wendlandt argued that the Wiretap Act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance does apply to browser tracking because, despite the implied privacy of the hospitals’ online communications, third parties were allowed to track and record patients’ healthcare information. She wrote, “The court decides that the wiretap act provides no recourse despite its prohibition on surreptitious electronic surveillance by private parties. Lamentably, the court is right about one thing; the Legislature will need to correct today’s error.”

With hundreds of similar cases filed across the country, this ruling is unlikely to be the final word.

LAWSUIT AGAINST X THROWN OUT IN DRAMATIC FASHION

Former Twitter (now X) executive Mark Schobinger’s attempt to gain class status in a suit over unpaid bonuses failed in spectacular fashion in a San Francisco courtroom this month. In a scathing order, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that Schobinger “might fit nicely into this case as a defendant,” adding that the suit “reflects remarkable hubris.” The crux of Judge Chhabria’s order comes down to one simple thing—hypocrisy. It turns out that Schobinger himself was a leading advocate for not paying out the very bonuses he is now seeking when he was Twitter’s senior director of compensation. Discovery in the case revealed a litany of messages, emails, and alleged conversations in which Schobinger aggressively lobbied against the bonus payments. Schobinger’s attorney attempted a last-minute swap to bring in a new, untainted plaintiff, but Judge Chhabria stuck to the dance-with-who-brung-ya protocol, saying: “The fact that Schobinger’s lawyer thought it was a good idea to file a motion for class certification in the face of this evidence (as opposed to dropping the case or seeking to substitute another plaintiff immediately upon discovering it) shows that she is totally unqualified to serve as class counsel.” No word yet on whether any gavels were broken.

ALEX JONES SET TO LOSE IP RIGHTS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS

Conspiracy peddler Alex Jones’s social media accounts and IP rights are likely to be sold to the highest bidder in an effort to pay down the nearly $1.5 billion in defamation judgments levied against him for repeatedly calling the tragic 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting a hoax. Jones’s assets are currently controlled by a court-appointed trustee after he filed for bankruptcy shortly following the judgment. Many of his tangible assets (including his Infowars studio) are already slated to be auctioned off, but it’s possible the IP assets and social media accounts will prove more valuable at auction. Jones and his legal team maintain that his personal social media accounts are not subject to liquidation and cannot be disentangled from his name, likeness, or image. As one of the least sympathetic defendants in recent memory, Jones faces serious headwinds in his attempt to retain assets.

TIKTOK SUFFERS ANOTHER COURT LOSS

Social media juggernaut TikTok’s bid for an en banc panel rehearing has been shot down by the Third Circuit. The action stems from an August decision in which the court ruled TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, were not protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the tragic death of a 10-year-old child. TikTok argued that the panel’s August decision went against 30 years of precedent involving Section 230. The court disagreed, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s Moody v. Netchoice LLC decision in finding that the app’s algorithm qualifies as “expressive content.” The ruling revives a lawsuit by the deceased child’s mother against TikTok, which had been dismissed in January by the U.S. District Court on Section 230 grounds. This ruling has wide implications for social media companies and is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. We’ll keep a close eye on this one.