NFL Draft Social Media Lessons For NCAA Schools & Student-Athletes

The 2016 NFL draft demonstrated why people need to become more educated about social media, digital privacy, reputation, and the law. Since starting this blog in 2009, I have been warning the public about the dangers associated with digital technologies and social media and how to protect yourself from becoming a star in a viral social media pr crisis.

Several minutes before the NFL draft started on Thursday, a video was posted on NFL prospect Laremy Tunsil's personal Twitter account that allegedly showed him wearing a gas mask and taking bong hits.  

While Mr. Tunsil is not the first college student who has admitted to trying drugs or drinking too much (i.e. President's Clinton, Bush, and Obama), he is the first to have had this information go viral right before he was expected to be drafted and earn millions of dollars.

This video allegedly cost Tunsil approximately $13 million dollars in salary and his agent $390,000 in fees.  It may have even destroyed Tunsil's marketability as a celebrity spokes person which could have earned him millions more and his agents hundreds of thousands of dollars in commission. This matter will go down as one of the most expensive digital mistake's on record.

This wasn't the only digital evidence of Mr. Tunsil's activities in college.  A short time after the bong video was posted, a text message exchange appeared on Mr. Tunsil's personal Instagram account that appears to demonstrate that his college program (University of Mississippi) was paying for some of his personal expenses which is an NCAA violation.

    

This post may lead to an NCAA investigation which could cost the University of Mississippi tens of millions of dollars.  Ole Miss may be forced to forfeit games Tunsil appeared in, lose scholarships, become ineligible for future bowl games, etc... Additionally, sponsorship revenue may decrease, and the university may be forced to spend millions in legal fees and compliance costs to investigate and defend their actions. Coaches and athletic administrators may also be fired because of this evidence.

Tunsil was obviously targeted because the hacker(s) acquired the digital evidence and struck at the most opportune time to inflict serious damage to his reputation.While it appears that multiple state and federal laws were violated, until the matter is fully investigated it is too early to determine what criminal and/or civil action may be taken.  

These types of issues will only increase in the future.  As I told The New York Times, "Its very challenging with these computer crimes because people can hide their tracks... Even if you find the person who hacked, can you even collect on the judgment?"

The bottom line is that education is the best way to protect against becoming a victim. When a crisis like this occurs, it is imperative to understand how to properly respond to ensure that your organization has its legal and pr ducks in a row to limit any damage to your reputation.  

Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved. 

Oregon Bans Schools From Engaging Social Media Monitoring Firms To Track Students and Coaches

Oregon has officially joined Delaware, California, New Jersey, Michigan, Arkansas, Utah, and New Mexico in protecting their schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers from the costs and legal liability issues associated with social media monitoring students and employees.  Under Oregon SB 344:

"A public or private educational institution may not: (a) Require, request, suggest or cause a student or prospective student to disclose or to provide access through the student's or prospective student's user name or password to a personal social media account. (b) Compel a student or prospective student, as a condition of participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or of acceptance, to add a coach, teacher, administrator or other employee or volunteer of the educational institution to the student's or prospective student's list of contacts associated with a social media website. (c) Take, or threaten to take, any action to discharge, discipline, prohibit from participation in curricular or extracurricular activities or otherwise penalize a student or potential student for refusal to disclose the information or take actions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection."

The enactment of SB 344 will greatly benefit schools, school employees, students, and taxpayers because collectively public and private educational institutions in Oregon 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 344 along with similar laws around the country have banned schools from being able to utilize the social media monitoring services of UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Fieldhouse Media, and Jump Forward to track the personal social media accounts of students and school employees.

It appears that the only way for the above mentioned social media monitoring services to properly track students or school employees is if a student or employee either downloads an application onto his personal digital account(s), or 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.

At least 36 states have introduced social media privacy legislation along with Congress.  It may only be a matter time before every state bans schools from utilizing the social media monitoring services of the above mentioned companies.

Copyright 2013 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.

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.