Washington State Bans NCAA Schools From Using Social Media Monitoring Services on Coaches

Washington State has banned employers from generally requiring employees to turn over their personal social media credentials.  Earlier this week, Washington Governor Inslee signed SB 521 that will protect Washington state employers from becoming required to hire social media monitoring companies to review the personal digital accounts of their employees.

This law may save Washington employers tens of millions of dollars in potential costs associated with social media monitoring the personal digital accounts of employees and it will protect the personal privacy of employees.  This includes the costs associated with hiring social media monitoring companies, increased cyber liability insurance costs, and legal fees and judgements inherent with negligent social media monitoring.  The law was enacted because some companies are contacting employers, in particular colleges, to sell them social media monitoring services that are legal liability time bombs.

If an employer is monitoring the personal digital accounts of their employees and misses an issue that may indicate an employee may be violating the law and the employer does not report this information to the proper authorities in a timely manner the employer may have tremendous legal liability.  A handful of emails from more than 10 years ago appears to be the main evidence that several high level administrators at Penn State knew that Jerry Sandusky was molesting young boys on its campus.  Absent the digital evidence, it would have been much more difficult to prove that some Penn State employees allegedly knew about Jerry Sandusky's illegal activities.  The email evidence so far appears to have cost Penn State almost $50 million dollars in fines, legal and investigatory fees, and other related costs.     

The only way for an employer to know whether a particular personal digital account belongs to an employee is if it verifies that the account belongs to the person whom it claims to represent.  In other words, for a social media monitoring service to properly work an employee must at a minimum authentic his personal social media user name.  In general, verifying a personal social media user name violates Washington's SB 521 along with laws in approximately ten other states.  Therefore, Washington employers, including schools may not utilize social media monitoring companies to track their employees' personal digital accounts.   

To learn how to properly handle social media issues in your company or school you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

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.

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. 

Michigan Bans NCAA Schools From Cyberstalking Student-Athletes

Michigan has joined the growing list of states that have banned schools from requiring their student-athletes to register and/or provide access to their personal email/social media credentials and content.  Michigan joins Delaware, California, and New Jersey in banning NCAA schools from requiring their students to verify their personal digital accounts in order to apply or attend school, keep their scholarships, or participate in intercollegiate athletics.

Michigan's legislation is the most comprehensive in the country because it also bans elementary, middle, and high schools from also requiring their students to turn over their personal digital account information.  In a nutshell, the new law generally bans all schools from requesting their students provide them access to their personal social media/digital media usernames, passwords and/or content.  This policy affirms that the state of Michigan will not allow its schools to act like China who is requiring its citizens to register their personal digital accounts so the government may "monitor" everything their citizens do online.

Michigan's legislation may save Michigan schools tens of millions of dollars per year that may have been utilized to contract with companies that offer cyberstalking services to track the digital activities of students, their families, and friends.  The companies that sell cyberstalking software to schools use terms like, "monitoring", "educating", and "leading" when describing their services, and/or companies.  In addition, if you perform due diligence on the founders of the companies that offer these so called "monitoring" or "educating" services you may notice they have no verifiable professional credentials that demonstrate that any sports (college, amateur, or professional) organization should engage them for social media or education related services.

Some of these companies are also stating that they support social media privacy legislation which if true means they support a ban on their cyberstalking services.  In order for any social media "monitoring" (cyberstalking) software to properly work it needs a student to verify his personal digital credentials.  Absent student verification these services will not work.
   
Any public school that engages a firm to "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may in the near future receive a letter from their state's attorney general, the U.S. Department Education, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, or a law firm regarding their practices.  Schools that  "monitor" (cyberstalk) their students online may soon encounter steep fines, lawsuits, or a loss of education funding that may amount to tens of millions of dollars.  

The bottom line is that public schools that engage self-described "social media experts"/"social media education & monitoring services"/"social media protectors of reputation" may create tremendous personal safety and privacy problems for their student-athletes, and massive legal liability issues for their institutions and taxpayers. 

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

(Full Disclosure:  I advised Michigan Rep. Arc Nesbitt's office on HB 5523)

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

China's Internet Policy Should Not Be Followed By NCAA Athletic Departments

China is a communist country and enacts laws that are designed to keep its political system intact.  Many countries enact legislation that is designed to keep the power status quo.

The United States' First Amendment provides its citizens the strongest freedom of speech protections available in the world.  It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Even though our First Amendment rights have some limitations, our ability to be able to be anonymous when speaking is well grounded in our history.  China recently enacted legislation that strips its citizens of these rights online.  While this law may be acceptable in China it has no place in the United States.

Unfortunately, some NCAA schools are following China's lead and believe it is legal to require its student-athletes to register their digital usernames and/or passwords and/or download cyberstalking software onto their personal accounts and electronic devices to keep their scholarships and/or participate in intercollegiate activities.

There is no valid reason for any public academic institution to require their students to provide their social media credentials to play intercollegiate sports.  These types of policies have no place in the United States.  At least 4 states have recently enacted legislation to ban this activity and Congress has introduced a ban on this practice.

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.

New York City Jury: YouTube Promise Costs Rapper $1 Million Dollars

Earlier this week, a musician testified in a New York court proceeding that he reneged on a promise he made to pay the person who found his missing laptop $1 million dollars. What makes this promise interesting is that the musician (Ryan Leslie) made the promise via a YouTube video.   The New York Post reported that Mr. Leslie tweeted his video to gain as much attention for his missing laptop as possible in the hopes that it would be returned.

Yesterday, Mr. Leslie was ordered to pay the $1 million dollar reward that he refused to honor.  The bottom line is that while utilizing social media if you are prepared to talk the talk you better also be willing to walk the walk or in this case pay the piper.  

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.  

U.S. Court: Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Violates the 1st and 4th Amendment

A U.S. District Court in Minnesota has stated that public schools that require access to their students' password protected digital content are violating their students' 1st and 4th Amendment rights. In R.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Minnewaska Area Dist. No 2149 2012 WL 3870868, a student was allegedly intimidated into turning over her Facebook username and password, and her personal email username and password so the school could view her password protected digital content for references to a hall monitor whom the student felt was treating her unfairly.

On June 22, 2011, I stated that if the NCAA requires its students to turn over their social media credentials, "The NCAA is going down a very slippery slope that has major First Amendment and privacy implications. I believe the NCAA should rethink its social media compliance allegations against UNC."

and

on September 27, 2011, I stated "I believe UNC's new social media policy may violate the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution" because UNC's policy requires their student-athletes to provide the school access to their password protected digital content.

Public schools that require any of their students to register their social media usernames, or to provide access to their password protected digital content via required Facebook Friending or the installation of a third-party software application for any reason are in clear violation of the 1st and 4th Amendment. Therefore, any school that utilizes a social media monitoring company to track their student-athletes online may want to change their policy immediately before their legal liability exponentially increases.

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.

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.

South Korea bans social media account registration

South Korea's highest court unanimously ruled that South Koreans are not required to register their user names or other online account information in order to make comments on the Internet. This reaffirms that South Korea will protect freedom of speech on social media and other online platforms.

When applying this law to universities in South Korea, it appears to mean that public school students are not required provide their schools their social media user names or other digital account information. In a democratic society, public schools may not require their students to register their Facebook accounts, Twitter handles, and/or other social media credentials in order to obtain or keep their scholarships. It is clearly unconstitutional for a U.S. public university to demand that their students register their digital or social media usernames or online persona with a university or a third party in order to keep their scholarship or participate in extracurricular activities. This protection extends to all students including student-athletes and other students on scholarship.

Unfortunately, there are multiple U.S. public colleges and universities that are following the advice of self-described social media consultants who are pitching schools on requiring their student-athletes to register their social media usernames with their schools and/or Facebook Friend a coach and/or download social media monitoring software so the school may identify the student's online persona and track their online behavior.

Any social media consultant that advocates schools utilize a social media monitoring service to track their student-athletes' online behavior is a snake oil salesman that should not be trusted because this advice may create tremendous legal liability for those universities and individuals who follow this advice.

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.

NCAA Penn State sanctions prove schools should not social media monitor their students or employees

The Penn State Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal is the worst scandal in the history of college athletics and has now drawn unprecedented NCAA sanctions. The sanctions were handed down by the NCAA because the evidence from the Freeh Report along with the criminal trial of former coach Jerry Sandusky indicated that "Penn State's leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, breaching both the NCAA Constitution and Division I rules."

On November 10, 2011, I stated that, "between legal fees, settlements, judgments, possible fines etc... it is possible that this scandal may cost Penn State $100 million dollars or more. This does not factor in the damage to its reputation along with the loss of future economic opportunities." It appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.

Digital evidence from more than ten years ago appears to have persuaded former FBI Director Louis Freeh that there was a systematic cover up regarding the Sandusky matter. The emails that the Freeh Report uncovered may have been the determining factor that led to the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State.

According to the NCAA's website, Penn State's sanctions include:
-$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program, to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2012 into an endowment for programs preventing child sexual abuse and/or assisting the victims of child sexual abuse.
-Four-year postseason ban. The NCAA imposes a four-year postseason ban on participation in postseason play in the sport of football, beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2015-2016 academic year.
-Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year.
-Five years of probation. The NCAA imposes this period of probation, which will include the appointment of an on-campus, independent Integrity Monitor and periodic reporting as detailed in the Corrective Component of this Consent Decree.
-Vacation of wins since 1998. The NCAA vacates all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011.
-Waiver of transfer rules and grant-in-aid retention. Any entering or returning football student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and will be eligible to immediately compete at the transfer institution, provided he is otherwise eligible.
-Individual penalties to be determined. The NCAA reserves the right to initiate a formal investigatory and disciplinary process and impose sanctions on individuals after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings related to any individual involved.

The Big Ten has also weighed in on the matter. According to The Patriot-News, Penn State will not be eligible to receive at least $13 million dollars in bowl revenue over the next four years. Therefore, Penn State will lose at least $73 million dollars in revenues related to the Sandusky matter before legal fees and expenses, civil settlements, judgements, etc... are factored into the entire cost of the situation.

This matter should be a warning to every NCAA institution. If a school employs a social media monitoring company to track its students and/or employees and it learns about a Tweet or post that may indicate illegal activity and the university does not immediately report it to the proper legal authorities it may be fined tens of millions of dollars by the NCAA.

The bottom line is that schools that listen to self-described experts/leaders/consultants, etc... who create fancy marketing materials and digital presentations that provide the false impression that they understand NCAA compliance, public policy, student education issues, and the law, may be in for a huge shock in the near future.

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.

Penn State Freeh Report on Sandusky proves NCAA schools should not social media monitor student athletes

"The Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of the Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky" was released today. The author of the report, Louis Freeh stated, "the most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized".

The report's findings are more troubling than imagined. The report and Louis Freeh's public statements after the report's release indicate that Penn State engaged in a massive cover up to protect its reputation. I believe the linchpin of these findings was the digital evidence. Since the investigators were unable to interview former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, former Vice President Gary Schultz, and former head coach Joe Paterno after emails indicating a cover up may have occurred a reasonable person may conclude a cover up happened.

Without the emails that indicated that all four men were aware of Sandusky's criminal activities in 2001, it would have been difficult to conclude that a cover up occurred. However, the digital evidene appears to indicate that a cover up went from the head coach through the athletic director to the president of Penn State.

This scandal demonstrates that schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to follow their student-athletes' or their employees' social media accounts. With access or knowledge comes responsibility. Companies with names like UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Jump Forward, etc... are trying to persuade schools that they need to monitor their student-athletes in the digital world in a manner that they don't do so in the real world. Some companies claim that because they only monitor public and not password protected student-athlete content their services are better for universities. Unfortunately, the people who run these social media monitoring companies don't understand social media, NCAA compliance, or the law.

Once a school has been put on notice that one of their student-athletes has committed a crime they must follow the Clery Act and report it. What happens if a school is social media monitoring a star student-athlete and becomes aware that the student has or may have committed a crime or an NCAA infraction before a big game? Will the school suspend the student for the game or allow the student to play?

The bottom line is that athletic directors who continue to listen to self-described social media consultants may be putting not only their programs, but also their schools, and themselves at risk for tremendous legal liability. Did Joe Paterno ever think that emails from 10+ years ago could destroy his reputation and create tremendous legal liability for Penn State and/or his family? Therefore, why would any coach or athletic director want to create more digital evidence that may be utilized against his program and/or himself in the future?

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.

Schools May Need a Search Warrant To Access Their Student-Athletes' Personal Password Protected Electronic Accounts

According to the Penn State Daily Collegian, Penn Sate Police seized illegal drugs and paraphernalia from the home of one of their football players. Police had entered the home of a current and former student-athlete to investigate a break-in. Upon realizing there may be illegal drugs, it appears the police obtained a search warrant.

Since in the real world a search warrant is generally required to obtain evidence in one's real home, a search warrant is also generally required in the digital world to search one's password protected digital home. In order for a public school to obtain access to the password protected personal social media and digital accounts (non-school issued) of their student-athletes they may need a court order.

A public school may not require a student to utilize the services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, or any other social media monitoring company in order to keep his or her scholarship and may not retaliate against a student for refusing to provide access absent a court order.

Therefore, if a student at a public school refuses to provide UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Centrix Social, other social media monitoring companies, or school employees their personal social media or personal digital account information and the school punishes the student in any manner for refusing to do so the student may have multiple causes of action against the school. The 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments along with the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud Abuse Act, and multiple state laws may be implicated in social media monitoring.

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.

Does the NCAA Understand the Legal Implications of Social Media Montoring?

Does the NCAA understand the legal implications of social media monitoring? The Associated Press reported that the University of North Carolina (UNC) has been accused of unethical conduct, and failure to monitor its players. In particular, the NCAA is accusing UNC with failure to monitor its student-athletes' social media activity.

On page 21 of the Notice of Allegations against UNC (Case No. M357, June 21, 2011) 9. b. it states, "[i]n February through June 2010, the institution [UNC] did not adequately and consistently monitor social networking activity that visibly illustrated potential amateurism violations within the football program, which delayed the institution's discovery and compounded the provision of impermissible benefits in Allegation Nos. 4-a, 4-c, 4-d and 4-e." In 9. g. the NCAA is requesting, "[c]opies of materials posted on Twitter by football student-athletes..." Furthermore, in 9. h. the NCAA is requesting "[a] statement summarizing information reported by ______(left blank) regarding the institution's efforts to monitor the social networking activity of football student-athletes.

As I previously stated on June 9, 2011, social media monitoring is a futile effort that wastes resources since crowdsouring is already performing this service for free. If the NCAA is now going to require its members to actively monitor its student-athletes' social media accounts this will open up a Pandora's box.

Will the NCAA soon require each of its member schools to have a "minder" follow their student-athletes to listen in on every conversation, phone call; and review every email, text message, electronic communication, etc... of their student-athletes? Will the NCAA soon require every student-athlete list all of their social media accounts to maintain eligibility? What if a student-athlete changes his screen name or deletes a social media account and opens a new one? Will the student-athlete be forced to notify their school's compliance office within 24 hours of the change? If a student-athlete forgets to report a social media account change to the compliance office will the student-athlete automatically become ineligible and/or the member school be found in violation of NCAA rules? If so, what will be the punishment?

Will there be strict liability for failure to report? What if a student-athlete forgets or refuses to list an account due to privacy and/or political speech issues? Will a student-athlete lose his scholarship due to a refusal to turn over his social media account information? What if a student-athletes' Facebook wall is private and/or his Tweets protected? What if someone hacks into a student athletes' account and creates posts that may be rules infractions? What if a student-athlete has a rogue account that is not reported to its compliance office? Will the NCAA require its members to track down every possible unreported student-athlete social media account and/or post?

Would the NCAA strip a national championship from a member school for failure to properly report all of their student-athletes' social media accounts and/or ban students from participating in collegiate sports for refusing to turn over their personal social media/electronic account information? The NCAA is going down a very slippery slope that has major First Amendment and privacy implications. I believe the NCAA should rethink its social media compliance allegations against UNC.

Social media usage by student-athletes cannot be eradicated. As the Congressman Anthony Weiner matter clearly demonstrates social media monitoring is futile and is a reactive and not a proactive approach.

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.