Are UDiligence and Varsity Monitor advising NCAA schools to violate the Stored Communications Act?

Over the past couple of years, companies with names like UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have been created to monitor the digital activity of student-athletes. At first glance it may seem like a good idea to require students to provide access to password protected social media content. However, once you understand what this means from a legal and financial perspective you may realize that this is a Pandora's Box that should not be opened.

UDiligence and Varsity Monitor appear to prey on the fears of college athletic departments even though the NCAA recently ruled that schools do not have a duty to monitor password protected social media content. Instead of helping NCAA athletic departments, these services may be exacerbating the situation because it appears they may be encouraging colleges to create new legal duties and violate the constitutional rights of their students along with multiple federal and state laws.

Within the past couple of weeks, both UDiligence and Varsity Monitor have taken down their client lists from their websites. Have the schools pressured them to do so? Or, did both of these companies take down their client lists because the media has started to ask in-depth questions about their services?

Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, 2009 WL 3128420 (D.N.J. 2009), is a case that appears analogous to the situation where schools are "requesting" that their student-athletes provide access to their password protected digital/social media accounts. In Pietrylo, an employee "did not feel free" to deny her boss access to a password protected MySpace account. The jury found that the employer violated the Stored Communications Act and the case was upheld on appeal. Therefore, since students "may not feel free" to deny their athletic departments and/or third parties access to their password protected social media accounts these services may be advising schools to violate the Stored Communications Act.

Since requesting employees to provide access to their password protected social media accounts has been found to violate the Stored Communications Act, it may also violate the Stored Communications Act for NCAA schools to "request" access to their students' password protected social media accounts. Requiring public school students to download applications and/or Facebook Friend university employees or agents may also violate the 1st and 4th Amendments along with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and multiple other federal and state laws.

The bottom line is that schools that engage UDiligence or Varsity Monitor may be paying $10,000 plus dollars per year for a service that may be creating more problems than it solves.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Signals It Will Protect Students' Social Media Privacy Rights

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Fourth Amendment still matters in the Social Media Age. In U.S. v. Jones, the court voted 9-0 that a warrant was required to place a GPS tracker onto a car.

This case has wide ranging ramifications in the Social Media Age. If the installation of a GPS tracking device onto a car constitutes a search then the required installation of social media monitoring software onto a student's personal electronic device by a state school also constitutes a search. In addition, the requirement by public schools that their students provide them access to all of their personal electronic content is also a search.

As I have stated over and over again, schools must be very careful when trying to regulate or access a student's personal electronic content. Requiring students to Facebook Friend school administrators, and/or download social media monitoring software onto personal electronic devices and/or requiring students to turn over their social media user names and passwords may create major legal liabilities for academic institutions. Last week, the Supreme Court let stand a couple cases that protected student social media free speech and now this week the court unanimously ruled that there still is an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age.

As I previously stated on January 18, 2012,

"Unlike China that has a Microblog Identification Program that requires its citizens to register their online user names so the government may track their online posts, the United States strongly believes in freedom of speech. Therefore, schools must be careful when trying to regulate student social media speech.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Student-Athlete Suspended From NCAA FCS Playoffs For a Re-Tweet

The NCAA does not have an official social media policy for its members. Despite the lack of a social media policy, the NCAA suspended Lehigh University's Ryan Spadola who was the football team's top wide receiver from a playoff game for retweeting an alleged inappropriate message. This suspension may have harmed Lehigh's chances of winning the NCAA Football Championship Subdivision since Lehigh lost the game that Spadola was banned from.

Playing collegiate sports is privilege and not a right. Ryan Spadola apologized for the tweet and appeared contrite over his actions. However, the NCAA still made an example out of him. This teachable moment has turned into a situation that may have major legal ramifications in the future for similar situations. What if instead of retweeting an alleged racial slur Spadola provided his opinion about the President of the United States and the NCAA disagreed with his Tweet? Would Spadola have been banned from the playoffs?

The NCAA must tread very carefully in the social media space because its actions may open itself and/or its members to massive legal liability that may not be anticipated. Those who advocate that student-athletes be mandated to turn over their private social media user names and passwords and/or allow schools access to students' private electronic content, and/or install spying software onto students' personal electronic devices may be uninformed of the law and the public policy implications. Ohio's Supreme Court ruled almost 2 years ago that while under Ohio's jurisdiction a warrantless search of electronic devices is barred in most situations. The New York Times subsequently wrote an editorial that stated that this should be the law throughout the country.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.