Social Media Monitoring Companies May Be Creating Millions Of Dollars in Legal Liability for NCAA Athletic Departments

State legislatures around the country are banning public and private schools from being able to utilize social media monitoring companies to track the personal digital accounts of their athletic department personnel and student-athletes.  At least 11 states  (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington), have enacted laws that ban schools from being able to verify the social media user names and/or passwords of their coaches and/or student-athletes.  Several other states have passed legislation that is waiting final approval by their state's governor.

At least 36 states along with Congress have introduced bills to protect schools and students from companies that are selling legal liability time bombs to NCAA schools.  Some of these companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring services and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Common sense and due diligence prove otherwise.

Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, JumpForward, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that schools in at least 11 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of either their coaches and/or their student-athletes because of new laws.  Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or lose millions of dollars in federal funding.

According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address.  According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise their services.  JumpForward has advertised that they utilize the usernames and passwords of student-athletes for their social media monitoring service.

The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies.  NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled.  It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work  student-athletes need to verify their social media username(s).  Arkansas, California, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have already generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.

Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions.  For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation.  Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professionals from around the country believe may pose tremendous legal and financial risks to not only NCAA athletic departments, but also athletic directors and their employees?  

If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation.  For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience.  Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Also, why do some of Mr. DeShazo's listed company creation and/or employment dates not match with filings with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?

In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography.  In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background.  After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.   

Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb.  If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars.  For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.  Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?  

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

New Mexico Bans NCAA Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Firms

New Mexico recently joined Delaware, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Arkansas, and Utah in protecting their schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers from the potential costs and legal liability issues associated with social media monitoring students.  Under New Mexico SB 422, it is unlawful "to demand access in any manner to a student's, applicant's or potential applicant's account or profile on a social networking web site."

The enactment of SB 422 will greatly benefit schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers because collectively post-secondary schools in New Mexico may save millions of dollars in potential compliance costs and tens or hundreds of  millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media related lawsuits.  SB 422 along with similar laws around the country appear to negatively affect the following companies that offer social media monitoring services:  UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Fieldhouse Media, and Jump Forward.

It appears that the only way for the above mentioned social media monitoring services to properly function is if a student either downloads an application onto his personal account(s), provides a username(s) and/or password(s) to his personal account(s), or if a student authenticates his social media account(s).  These services may claim that all they need to properly work is a student's name or alias to search for a public social media account.  However, performing an Internet search and guessing that an account belongs to a particular student just because it is on the Internet may put you in the same position as one of the people portrayed in this hilarious State Farm Commercial.  According to CNN, as of last August, Facebook may have at least 83 million fake accounts and according to PRWeek, Twitter may have as many as 20 million fake accounts.

Any company that approaches schools to sell social media monitoring services to track students' personal digital accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb.  If a school is monitoring the personal social media content of their students and misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars.  For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter.  Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track their students personal digital accounts?      

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

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Utah Bans Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Firms

Utah recently became the latest state to enact legislation that bans schools from deploying social media monitoring firms that require students verify their social media user names and/or passwords. Utah joins Delaware, California, Michigan, and New Jersey in protecting their schools, students, and taxpayers from social media snake oil salesmen who are selling legal liability time bombs. 

The Utah legislation appears to have been prompted because of a Time Magazine article that discussed the student-athlete social media policy of one Utah school.  This academic institution appeared to require student-athletes sign a social media policy that stated, "To the extent that any federal, state, or local law prohibits the Athletic Department from accessing my social networking accounts, I hereby waive any and all such rights and protections."  According to constitutional law expert Professor Phil Closius, this student-athlete social media policy was "clearly suspect".  Under Utah's new law (H.B. 100), this policy is not just clearly suspect but against the law.

What does Utah's new law along with similar laws across the country mean for schools?  In short, academic institutions need to re-examine their student-athlete social media policies and education programs to ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws.  Athletic departments need to understand that social media is not just a public relations issue but a serious legal matter that requires the counsel of social media law experts who understand college athletics and NCAA compliance.  Drafting and implementing improper student-athlete social media policies may create millions of dollars in legal liability. 

Consultants who sell "student-athlete social media monitoring services" to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs.  Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services.  For example, how does someone transition from being a health care recruiter to a social media student-athlete compliance and education consultant overnight? 

The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content.  These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.

In order for social media monitoring services to properly function students must at least verify their social media user names.  Absent student verification these services are unable properly work.  Furthermore, athletic departments should not be fooled into believing these services are compliant with all state and/or federal laws.  In general, these companies also claim their services are educational tools while others claim they want to protect the online reputation of schools and/or students.  Has anyone asked those who are approaching schools for their teaching credentials?

It appears that the founders of these companies have no verifiable experience that would lend any credibility to their claims.  Consultants who are marketing student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments do not understand social media, NCAA compliance, public policy, or the law; and they apparently care more about making a sale than protecting schools and student-athletes.     

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

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Arkansas Bans NCAA Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Companies

Arkansas has became the latest state to enact legislation that bans schools from deploying social media monitoring firms to track their students' personal digital accounts.  Arkansas joins Delaware, California, Michigan, New Jersey and Utah in protecting their schools, students, and taxpayers from fear and misinformation.

Consultants who sell student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs.  Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services.

One consultant quoted me (who appears to have no verifiable experience in college athletics, social media, law, or compliance before he started selling his services to NCAA schools) in a press release touting his social media monitoring service last year.  Quoting me to market a service that may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA schools is very troubling. Lawyers and risk professionals who understand this issue would never endorse a service that may increase a school's legal liability and/or may advise an academic institution to violate state and/or federal law.

The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content.  These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.

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

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.

Social Media Monitoring NCAA Student-Athletes May Create Legal Liability in Excess of $100 Million Dollars

In the past 6 months, California, Michigan, Delaware, and New Jersey have enacted laws banning school athletic departments from requesting or requiring their student-athletes verify their social media/digital media usernames/passwords and/or install cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts or devices.  Many other states along with Congress have introduced legislation to ban these practices to protect schools from legal liability and to protect the personal privacy of students.   

Unfortunately, some companies/"social media experts" are approaching NCAA schools and intentionally misleading athletic departments about their experience, their understanding of NCAA compliance, and their knowledge of state and federal law.  Some of these companies may claim that their "social media monitoring" services "respect privacy", or "promote compliance", or they "never ask for passwords" or that their services"facilitate education".  These claims are misleading and may create tremendous legal liability for NCAA athletic programs that engage any of these companies.

The legal liability of engaging a social media monitoring company to digitally track a program's student-athletes or employees may be tens of millions of dollars. Anyone who disagrees with this analysis needs to review the facts about the Penn State Jerry Sandusky scandal.  Emails from 10 plus years ago destroyed the careers of several well respected members of the Penn State administration/faculty and may cost the school more than $100 million dollars in fines/legal fees/judgements/settlements, etc.. 

Digital evidence (emails) was key in the Freeh Report which the NCAA appears to have relied on to levy a $60 million dollar fine against Penn State.  The total cost of this terrible scandal to Penn State may reach $150-$200 million dollars.  Absent the digital evidence, the Freeh Report may have reached a different conclusion, the NCAA may not have had the evidence to support a fine and other sanctions, and plaintiffs may have a hard time proving Penn State knew about Mr. Sandusky's behavior.  

Do schools and athletic department employees want to monitor and archive potential evidence that may be discoverable and utilized against them in lawsuits?  The bottom line is that NCAA athletic departments should not engage services that may harm their interests and put them in a position that may create tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability.  

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

Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved. 

10 tips to determine if a sports social media consultant is a fraud

In the past couple of years, multiple consulting companies have suddenly appeared on the scene to claim they are sports social media experts, gurus, leaders, trainers, etc... These firms are pitching colleges and universities to hire them to monitor their student-athletes' Tweets, Facebook posts, YouTube videos, and/or to "educate" student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... about social media matters.

To claim one is a sports social media consultant the barrier to entry is very low. From looking at the lack of credentials from most of those selling themselves as social media experts it appears that the only tools needed are: Internet and phone access, and a Slideshare account. With these three things you can create a free or low cost website and/or a free blog, open a free Twitter account, and create social media presentations based upon the work of others. Some of these "self anointed social media experts" may also buy a software package or create an application to track the online activities of student-athletes that may create tremendous legal problems for the schools that utilize these programs.

The Tweets, blog posts, and presentations of these self-called experts may appear to indicate that these consultants are the real McCoy. However, once due diligence is performed on these "social media experts" it becomes evident that almost none of them have any bona fide credentials or knowledge that demonstrates they should be advising NCAA schools, student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... on social media and/or any issues pertaining to college athletics.

To ensure that NCAA schools do not fall victim to these self-anointed experts who do not have the best interests of schools, athletic departments, and student-athletes in mind, below is a list of characteristics to help determine if a self described NCAA social media consultant, expert, guru, trainer, leader, etc... is a fraud:

1) The consultant advises schools to buy his social media monitoring software to track and/or archive student-athletes' password and/or non-password protected online activity.

2) The consultant advises schools to request or require students to register their social media user names and/or passwords with athletic departments and/or third parties.

3) The consultant advises schools to request or require that student-athletes Facebook Friend schools and/or third parties.

4) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media and/or sports experience before starting his sports social media consulting company.

5) The consultant incorrectly predicted how the NCAA's social media monitoring allegation against the University of North Carolina would be resolved.

6) The consultant follows more people on his professional Twitter account than are following him back.

7) The consultant's social media credentials appear too good to be true which may indicate social media credential fraud.

8) The consultant claims that schools that utilize his social media monitoring program will not be violating any current/future laws or creating the potential for tremendous legal liability.

9) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media experience prior to 2011.

10) The consultant has public Twitter conversations that may be better suited via direct message and/or another more discreet format.

If a social media consultant approaches an NCAA institution and has more than one of these characteristics it most likely indicates that the consultant is not the expert, leader, guru, etc... that he claims to be but a fraud whose advice may put the safety of a university and/or its students at risk and may create tremendous legal liability for universities, coaches, athletic department administrators, and/or student-athletes.

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.