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.

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.

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.