I have the utmost respect for the United States Intelligence Community, U.S. Special Forces and the brave men and women of the U.S. Military for all of their hard work that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. bin Laden's ideology and orders led to the death of thousands of innocent lives around the world. Countless resources, whether economic, political, emotional, or human were utilized to respond to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3000 people.
According to NBC news, the compound where bin Laden was staying had 12-16 foot walls and a tremendous amount of security. Interestingly, the structure did not have Internet access or telephones. bin Laden was found due to good old fashion human intelligence. Therefore, Social Media can't take credit for killing bin Laden.
bin Laden was killed in a firefight with U.S. Special Forces. The death of bin Laden will not end the fight against terrorism. To paraphrase a quote from Winston Churchill when he was referring to the British victory over the German Afrika Corps at the Second Battle of El Alamein, the killing of bin Laden "is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps, the end of the beginning" of the War on Terror.
The U.S. operation that killed bin Laden demonstrates that whenever the United States puts its mind to something it can accomplish it. There is nothing our country can't do. Whether its liberating Europe, putting the first man on the moon, or making the world a safer and better place to live, the United States is a beacon of hope for all around the globe.
One day, the United States may not have the largest economy in the world; however, as long as the United States still has the largest heart and remains a place where the best and the brightest from all over the world come to live, work, and raise their families, we will still be the greatest country in the world.
God Bless America!
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Tweet deletion may lead to tampering with evidence charges
May deleting a Tweet and/or sending out false and misleading social media posts result in tampering with evidence charges? In the case against Dharun Rhavi regarding his alleged role in roommate Tyler Clementi's apparent suicide, evidence tampering charges are based upon allegedly deleting a Tweet and creating false and/or misleading social media posts.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers University and it is believed he committed suicide last year by jumping off the George Washington Bridge. It is thought that Clementi was so distraught after he found out that Ravi had webcasted a sexual encounter that Clementi had with another man Clementi decided to take his own life.
After law enforcement started to investigate the circumstances surrounding Clementi's death, it is alleged that Ravi tampered with evidence by deleting one or more of his Tweets and making false and/or misleading social media posts in an effort to cover up the allegations that he may have invaded Clementi's privacy.
Deleting Tweets and/or trying to cover up one's online activity is futile. Whether its the Library of Congress preserving public Tweets or Google indexing an old cached version of a website or a post, once something is put online it can never be permanently removed from the Internet.
I believe evidence tampering charges based on social media usage will increase in the future as more people utilize social media and social media becomes a larger part of the judicial process. I have no idea if Ravi was deleting his Tweets to intentionally tamper with evidence of if he was just a scared college freshman who was afraid of the media scrutiny that was surrounding his roommate's death.
This is another example of how one's online activities are just as important, if not more so, than everything done off-line. Unfortunately, it appears that a few clicks of a mouse along with some ill-advised Tweets and other social media posts may have contributed to the suicide of young person.
In the Internet Age, a hidden web cam in the movie American Pie was a funny joke. In the Social Media Age, a hidden web cam is no laughing matter because billions of people may view what is streamed online and this may have unintended consequences.
This tragic case should be a wake up call to restart a national conversation on personal privacy. I believe social media education should be taught starting in elementary school. The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) only protects children under the age of 13 so our children should be provided the tools necessary to successfully navigate the Social Media Age before they reach 13 years of age. If the lessons learned from this tragedy are not discussed with our children Tyler Clementi will have died in vain.
To learn how to protect your privacy and your children in the Social Media Age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
How to keep your social media profile embarrassment free
Protecting your social media profile is extremely important because employers and clients are Googling people to investigate prospective candidates and business partners on the Internet. Therefore, be careful what and where you post online.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In a recent blog post, I discussed Social Media Credential Fraud. Right after my post, a legal marketer and non-practicing lawyer by the name of Larry Bodine appeared to defend the practice and made some unprofessional and unprovoked comments directed towards me on this blog. I have never met Mr. Bodine nor have I ever written about him.
Mr. Bodine used the word "crank" when describing me and stated, "you don't know anything about social media marketing." He has a First Amendment right to state his opinion; and I welcome him to visit my blog and post his comments. Mr. Bodine may refer to me as a "crank" or any other names his heart desires. There is an old legal saying I remember from law school: "If you can't argue the facts, argue the law, if you can't argue the law argue the facts, and if you can't argue either the facts or the law, attack opposing counsel."
I could have easily deleted Mr. Bodine's comments but I chose not to do so. Instead, I responded to his comments and I offered to meet him for a cup of coffee. In addition, I asked him to answer a few questions. Unfortunately, Mr. Bodine chose not to respond to my questions.
The moral of the story is that you must always consider how others may view your online comments. I do not blog to embarrass but to inform and add value to the conversation. I was hoping that because I discovered an unethical and troubling activity that has already negatively tarnished some members of the legal marketing community, Mr. Bodine would be interested in taking a leadership role to root out this practice. Instead of using my discovery as a learning and teaching moment, Mr. Bodine attacked the messenger.
What is worse? Making unprofessional and childish comments towards another lawyer on social media without any evidence to support them or appearing to defend and endorse an unethical and misleading social media marketing practice? It begs to wonder what does Mr. Bodine really know about social media and social media marketing?
To learn more about how the law may affect your social media usage and whether your social media marketing campaigns are FTC compliant you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Do Marketing Ethics and the FTC Advertising Regulations Matter in the Social Media Age?
P.T. Barnum is credited with the phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute." Social Media provides entrepreneurs so many new opportunities to expand their brand and footprint in many exciting and fun ways. However, social media also provides snake oil salesmen and others whose ethics are questionable the ability to defraud in ways not imagined until a few years ago.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations Part II
An idea attributed to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels goes something along the lines, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately, there are some people who practice this philosophy in the social media marketing world.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
ALM's Social Media Risks and Rewards Conference in San Francisco
ALM is hosting a conference focused on the legal risks inherent with Social Media. The conference will be held on April 12, 2011 at the Marines' Memorial Club & Hotel in San Francisco, CA. I have attended several of ALM's Social Media conferences and each time they have covered very timely topics and have had outstanding faculty.
Some of the topics that will be covered next week include: user generated content, brand protection, ethical issues, and privacy issues that social media users and content providers confront. To learn more about the conference here is the link.
[Full Disclosure-Shear on Social Media Law is part of ALM's Law.com Blog Network]
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Some of the topics that will be covered next week include: user generated content, brand protection, ethical issues, and privacy issues that social media users and content providers confront. To learn more about the conference here is the link.
[Full Disclosure-Shear on Social Media Law is part of ALM's Law.com Blog Network]
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations?
Will your social media expert's advice and/or actions violate the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Regulations? This is a question you may want to answer before you engage a social media guru for your company.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Maryland's Social Media User Name and Privacy Legislation
The premise behind Maryland's proposed User Name and Password Privacy Protection Bill (Senate Bill 971) is to protect the personal privacy of job applicants and employees in the State of Maryland. The bill was drafted because a Maryland Corrections Officer was asked (requested/demanded depending upon whose perspective you are coming from) to turn over his Facebook user name and password during an interview to go back to work after a personal leave of absence.
Maryland Senate Bill 971 was introduced and read for the first time on March 7, 2011, a little over 2 weeks after the incident that prompted the bill received widespread media attention. I believe that this bill will start a much needed conversation on privacy in the Social Media Age.
Maryland Senate Bill 971 was introduced and read for the first time on March 7, 2011, a little over 2 weeks after the incident that prompted the bill received widespread media attention. I believe that this bill will start a much needed conversation on privacy in the Social Media Age.
To learn how Maryland Senate Bill 971 or other social media legislation may affect your business you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Will Tweets Destroy the NFL and NFLPA CBA Negotiations?
The NFL's collective bargaining agreement is set to expire tonight at 11.59 p.m. There has already been two previous extensions and it is unknown whether another extension or a break-down in the negotiations will occur.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and are doing everything they can to win the hearts and minds of the fans of the NFL. However, one thing that is troubling is that last night both sides fanned the flames via Twitter. George Cohen, the federal mediator who is working with the NFL and NFLPA to resolve their differences had previously asked the parties to keep quiet about the negotiations. For most of the past two weeks both sides appeared to follow Cohen's request until last night.
One of my favorite negotiating books is called, "The Power of Nice" and it is written by highly respected Sports Agent/Attorney Ronald M. Shapiro. On page 39 of the book, Shapiro discusses how the confidentiality of the Camp David Peace process worked to benefit both Egypt and Israel in reaching a long-term peach agreement that has lasted for more than 30 years. Shapiro contrasted the Camp David negotiations with the failed mediation for the 1994-1995 Major League Baseball labor dispute. Shapiro states, "knowing that what was said would go no further-enabled discussions to take place that could never have occurred in a public forum." The baseball mediation blew up when neither side could trust each other to keep confidences.
Therefore, I recommend that both sides impose a Twitter Gag Order before the situation totally breaks down. Going back and forth on Twitter like school children is not professional. Some of the Tweets I have read may make great entertainment but the goal of a Tweet should be to bridge the communication gap and not burn a bridge.
To learn how to negotiate in the social media age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Both sides are entrenched in their positions and are doing everything they can to win the hearts and minds of the fans of the NFL. However, one thing that is troubling is that last night both sides fanned the flames via Twitter. George Cohen, the federal mediator who is working with the NFL and NFLPA to resolve their differences had previously asked the parties to keep quiet about the negotiations. For most of the past two weeks both sides appeared to follow Cohen's request until last night.
One of my favorite negotiating books is called, "The Power of Nice" and it is written by highly respected Sports Agent/Attorney Ronald M. Shapiro. On page 39 of the book, Shapiro discusses how the confidentiality of the Camp David Peace process worked to benefit both Egypt and Israel in reaching a long-term peach agreement that has lasted for more than 30 years. Shapiro contrasted the Camp David negotiations with the failed mediation for the 1994-1995 Major League Baseball labor dispute. Shapiro states, "knowing that what was said would go no further-enabled discussions to take place that could never have occurred in a public forum." The baseball mediation blew up when neither side could trust each other to keep confidences.
Therefore, I recommend that both sides impose a Twitter Gag Order before the situation totally breaks down. Going back and forth on Twitter like school children is not professional. Some of the Tweets I have read may make great entertainment but the goal of a Tweet should be to bridge the communication gap and not burn a bridge.
To learn how to negotiate in the social media age you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Florida Judge Orders Debt Collector Not To Use Social Media To Contact Debtor
Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird ordered Mark One Financial LLC not to utilize social media when trying to contact Melanie Beacham over an alleged debt of $362. Ms. Beacham sued the debt collector in 2010 for violating her privacy.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Debt collectors have been using social media to contact debtors for several years. However, only in the past year has this activity been deemed news worthy by the mainstream press.
The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) appears to be silent on if and how debt collectors may utilize social media to collect on unpaid debts. Under some state laws, debt collectors are not allowed to publicize one's debts. Generally, if you can't act in a certain manner in the real world that same behavior in the virtual world is not acceptable.
In Sohns v. Bramacint, (Civil No. 09-1225; October 1, 2010), a United States District Court of Minnesota case, a debt collector allegedly accessed a debtor's MySpace page to intimidate the debtor. The debtor alleged that the debt collector had violated the FDCPA and won summary judgment based on the totality of the methods the debt collector utilized.
These types of cases will only increase in the future as more debt collectors actively utilize social media in order to collect on unpaid debts. Therefore, I advise everyone to be very careful about what they post online. You never know who is following your Facebook and MySpace posts, your Tweets, your blog posts, and/or your LinkedIn Tripits.
To learn how to protect your online content from prying eyes you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Courtney Love Agrees to Pay $430,000 in Twitter Defamation Case
Courtney Love has agreed to pay Dawn Simorangkir $430,000 over allegations that Love tweeted false and defamtory statements about Simorangkir in 2009. Love was upset over a $4,000 clothing payment to Simorangkir and Tweeted about the disagreement in a series of Tweets that made headlines.
My hope is that this case will put people on notice to be careful about what is posted online because there may be legal consequences for your Tweets, Facebook and MySpace posts, and any other user generated content that is created.
To learn more about the legal and entertainment ramifications of your Tweets or other social media posts you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
My hope is that this case will put people on notice to be careful about what is posted online because there may be legal consequences for your Tweets, Facebook and MySpace posts, and any other user generated content that is created.
To learn more about the legal and entertainment ramifications of your Tweets or other social media posts you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Does Your Company Employ A Charlie Sheen?
Does your company employ a Charlie Sheen? A Charlie Sheen employee is one of your company's best rainmakers who generates huge profits along with huge amounts of publicity for your company via traditional means or social media. Some of the media may be positive but other press may be negative.
A Charlie Sheen may be considered a wild card (#winning, #Tigerblood) in that he may act in a manner that nobody may envision. Some of his actions may be self-destructive while others may be just bizarre. However much trouble a Charlie Sheen may cause, he adds huge revenues to your bottom line and creates much needed buzz for your company. Therefore, finding a way to get along with your company's Charlie Sheen to continue the win-win economic relationship may be in the best interests of all parties involved.
The real Charlie Sheen is an American Actor who has been in the public eye for more than 30 years. He is the son of famed actor Martin Sheen and his brother is Emilo Estevez. Some of Charlie Sheen's work includes major roles in the movies Platoon and Wall Street, and in the television sitcom Spin City. However, during his life, Charlie Sheen has had many ups and downs reportedly due to substance abuse. Since 2003, Charlie Sheen has been the main star of CBS' highly rated situation comedy Two and A Half Men. The sitcom has been ranked in the top 20 for each of its 7 seasons and it has been in syndication since 2007. The producer of Two and a Half Men is Chuck Lorre.
In the Social Media Age, differences between employees and their employers can easily go viral. In the Charlie Sheen vs. Chuck Lorre heavyweight fight some Hollywood insiders believe that Lorre exacerbated the situation by stating negative personal opinions about Sheen on vanity cards that are placed at the end of a television episode. In addition to putting his personal opinions on the vanity cards, Lorre also created a website: www.chucklorre.com that contains all of his vanity cards.
Last week, Two and a Half Men was canceled for the rest of this television season allegedly because of Sheen's rants against Lorre and CBS/Warner Bros. Over the past few days, Sheen has stated he may sue CBS/Warner Bros. for hundreds of millions of dollars. Sheen has hired one of Hollywood's top lawyers and appears willing to move forward with legal action. A letter on Radaronline.com may even be the actual correspondence that Sheen's lawyer sent to CBS/Warner Bros.
The bottom line is that employers should not create a hostile work environment for their employees. The generally accepted definition of a hostile work environment may soon include the creation of social media posts that denigrate employees. On March 1, 2011, Sheen created a Twitter account www.twitter.com/charliesheen and within 24 hours attracted more than a million followers. Therefore, regardless of whether you agree with Sheen's behavior, he still commands a huge audience and has great entertainment appeal. In addition, Sheen appears ready, willing, and able to return to work. Unless Sheen's employment contract contains a well-defined morals clause and Sheen has breached it or another contract clause, Sheen may be entitled to the rest of the money owed to him under his contract.
Social Media has changed conventional wisdom in business and law and every company must be aware of the legal issues inherent with social media usage. It is too early to tell if CBS/Warner Bros./Lorre will apologize to Sheen while licking his feet but it would not surprise me if we get at least one more season of Two and A Half Men with Charlie Sheen. As they say, "there's no business like show business."
To learn more about the legal, business, and entertainment ramifications of social media usage you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
A Charlie Sheen may be considered a wild card (#winning, #Tigerblood) in that he may act in a manner that nobody may envision. Some of his actions may be self-destructive while others may be just bizarre. However much trouble a Charlie Sheen may cause, he adds huge revenues to your bottom line and creates much needed buzz for your company. Therefore, finding a way to get along with your company's Charlie Sheen to continue the win-win economic relationship may be in the best interests of all parties involved.
The real Charlie Sheen is an American Actor who has been in the public eye for more than 30 years. He is the son of famed actor Martin Sheen and his brother is Emilo Estevez. Some of Charlie Sheen's work includes major roles in the movies Platoon and Wall Street, and in the television sitcom Spin City. However, during his life, Charlie Sheen has had many ups and downs reportedly due to substance abuse. Since 2003, Charlie Sheen has been the main star of CBS' highly rated situation comedy Two and A Half Men. The sitcom has been ranked in the top 20 for each of its 7 seasons and it has been in syndication since 2007. The producer of Two and a Half Men is Chuck Lorre.
In the Social Media Age, differences between employees and their employers can easily go viral. In the Charlie Sheen vs. Chuck Lorre heavyweight fight some Hollywood insiders believe that Lorre exacerbated the situation by stating negative personal opinions about Sheen on vanity cards that are placed at the end of a television episode. In addition to putting his personal opinions on the vanity cards, Lorre also created a website: www.chucklorre.com that contains all of his vanity cards.
Last week, Two and a Half Men was canceled for the rest of this television season allegedly because of Sheen's rants against Lorre and CBS/Warner Bros. Over the past few days, Sheen has stated he may sue CBS/Warner Bros. for hundreds of millions of dollars. Sheen has hired one of Hollywood's top lawyers and appears willing to move forward with legal action. A letter on Radaronline.com may even be the actual correspondence that Sheen's lawyer sent to CBS/Warner Bros.
The bottom line is that employers should not create a hostile work environment for their employees. The generally accepted definition of a hostile work environment may soon include the creation of social media posts that denigrate employees. On March 1, 2011, Sheen created a Twitter account www.twitter.com/charliesheen and within 24 hours attracted more than a million followers. Therefore, regardless of whether you agree with Sheen's behavior, he still commands a huge audience and has great entertainment appeal. In addition, Sheen appears ready, willing, and able to return to work. Unless Sheen's employment contract contains a well-defined morals clause and Sheen has breached it or another contract clause, Sheen may be entitled to the rest of the money owed to him under his contract.
Social Media has changed conventional wisdom in business and law and every company must be aware of the legal issues inherent with social media usage. It is too early to tell if CBS/Warner Bros./Lorre will apologize to Sheen while licking his feet but it would not surprise me if we get at least one more season of Two and A Half Men with Charlie Sheen. As they say, "there's no business like show business."
To learn more about the legal, business, and entertainment ramifications of social media usage you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Update On Maryland's Division of Corrections Demands Applicants Provide Facebook Usernames and Passwords During Interviews
Maryland's Division of Corrections (DOC) has suspended its policy that requested applicants "voluntarily" provide their Facebook user name and password as part of a background check. According to the Washington Post, the policy was approximately a year old.
For the overwhelming majority of jobs in the public and private sector employers should not request/demand an applicant's and/or employee's social media user names and/or passwords. Therefore, I would generally advise against management and/or a union asking their employees and/or applicants and/or members to provide their personal social media account user names and/or passwords.
To learn more about the legal ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
For the overwhelming majority of jobs in the public and private sector employers should not request/demand an applicant's and/or employee's social media user names and/or passwords. Therefore, I would generally advise against management and/or a union asking their employees and/or applicants and/or members to provide their personal social media account user names and/or passwords.
To learn more about the legal ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Maryland's Division of Corrections Demands Applicants Provide Facebook Usernames and Passwords During Interviews
Some employers and other institutions are quietly demanding that employees and applicants turn over their social media user names and passwords as part of the background check process. According to a story in The Atlantic, Maryland Division of Corrections (DOC) Officer Robert Collins alleged that the State of Maryland recently demanded that during a re-certification interview he was required to provide his employer his personal Facebook user name and password.
Mr. Collins turned over the requested information because he wanted to keep his job but then contacted the ACLU about his experience. According to the ACLU, there may be some issues under the Federal Stored Communications Act and Maryland state law that may have been violated with this demand. Whether demanding an employee or applicant to turn over his Facebook login information is legal is a question that may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress.
Under Section 4.8 of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Revision Date: October 4, 2010) it states, "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Turning over one's Facebook login information to an employer or any other third party may violate Facebook's Terms of Use. An employee and/or job applicant may be put in a Catch-22: turn over your Facebook access information or lose your job and/or you won't be offered a job. However, if you turn over your Facebook access information to a third party, Facebook may terminate your Facebook account. Interesting dilemma.
This is not the first time I have heard about this type of situation and I predict there will be a tremendous amount of litigation on this point in the future. In 2009, the City of Bozeman, Montana tried to force its job applicants to turn over their social media account(s) access information. After a national uproar this policy was discontinued. However, this background check approach is still being tried across the country.
While at a conference last year, one of the participants told me that during a college admissions interview of a neighbor's son, the applicant was requested to turn over his Facebook user name and password. The college applicant had no problem turning over his "official Facebook user name and password" because the high school student had two Facebook accounts.
This high school student's "official Facebook account" that was turned over to an admissions interviewer on the spot was sterile and was the one that his parents had friended him on to keep track of his online activity. The applicant's real Facebook account contained information that most likely would have kept the applicant from being accepted to his dream school or any other academic institution. These demands are generally targeted at student-athletes. Some student-athletes at major college sports powerhouses are being required to Facebook friend coaches and/or install spying software onto their personal social media accounts/computers.
Having more than one Facebook account is becoming more common and I encourage some of my clients to have multiple Facebook accounts in case they are ever "requested" to turn over their Facebook user name and password. I recommend that most employers in both the private and public sector review and update their personnel policies to ensure that they properly address social media usage. There is no one size fits all policy so employers may want to work with their employees, human resource departments, and their lawyers to draft appropriate social media policies.
New York City's Police Department has a different culture than Andy Griffith's Mayberry Police Department so I would not recommend Mayberry copying the NYPD's social media policy because what may be acceptable in NYC may not be so in Mayberry and vice versa. In addition, different departments within a government may have different social media policy needs. For example, The City of New York Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting may have different needs than NYPD's Counterterrorism Units.
Therefore, it is important that employers work with their employees to create fair and reasonable social media policies that protect an employee's right to privacy and balance that need with an employer's right to know. I predict that a case(s) regarding these issues will eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
To learn more about the legal, political, and business ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Mr. Collins turned over the requested information because he wanted to keep his job but then contacted the ACLU about his experience. According to the ACLU, there may be some issues under the Federal Stored Communications Act and Maryland state law that may have been violated with this demand. Whether demanding an employee or applicant to turn over his Facebook login information is legal is a question that may one day be decided by the courts and/or state legislatures and/or Congress.
Under Section 4.8 of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (Revision Date: October 4, 2010) it states, "You will not share your password, (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account." Turning over one's Facebook login information to an employer or any other third party may violate Facebook's Terms of Use. An employee and/or job applicant may be put in a Catch-22: turn over your Facebook access information or lose your job and/or you won't be offered a job. However, if you turn over your Facebook access information to a third party, Facebook may terminate your Facebook account. Interesting dilemma.
This is not the first time I have heard about this type of situation and I predict there will be a tremendous amount of litigation on this point in the future. In 2009, the City of Bozeman, Montana tried to force its job applicants to turn over their social media account(s) access information. After a national uproar this policy was discontinued. However, this background check approach is still being tried across the country.
While at a conference last year, one of the participants told me that during a college admissions interview of a neighbor's son, the applicant was requested to turn over his Facebook user name and password. The college applicant had no problem turning over his "official Facebook user name and password" because the high school student had two Facebook accounts.
This high school student's "official Facebook account" that was turned over to an admissions interviewer on the spot was sterile and was the one that his parents had friended him on to keep track of his online activity. The applicant's real Facebook account contained information that most likely would have kept the applicant from being accepted to his dream school or any other academic institution. These demands are generally targeted at student-athletes. Some student-athletes at major college sports powerhouses are being required to Facebook friend coaches and/or install spying software onto their personal social media accounts/computers.
Having more than one Facebook account is becoming more common and I encourage some of my clients to have multiple Facebook accounts in case they are ever "requested" to turn over their Facebook user name and password. I recommend that most employers in both the private and public sector review and update their personnel policies to ensure that they properly address social media usage. There is no one size fits all policy so employers may want to work with their employees, human resource departments, and their lawyers to draft appropriate social media policies.
New York City's Police Department has a different culture than Andy Griffith's Mayberry Police Department so I would not recommend Mayberry copying the NYPD's social media policy because what may be acceptable in NYC may not be so in Mayberry and vice versa. In addition, different departments within a government may have different social media policy needs. For example, The City of New York Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting may have different needs than NYPD's Counterterrorism Units.
Therefore, it is important that employers work with their employees to create fair and reasonable social media policies that protect an employee's right to privacy and balance that need with an employer's right to know. I predict that a case(s) regarding these issues will eventually reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
To learn more about the legal, political, and business ramifications of social media policies you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Legal Liabilities of Social Media Advertising Campaigns
There are many legal liability issues inherent with social media advertising campaigns. Some legal issues to be aware of include: copyright and trademark issues, privacy, FTC advertising guidelines and full disclosure violations, etc...
I recently attended a conference and one of the panels consisted of a group of marketing professionals. The marketers wanted to create an advertising campaign for a flat screen television company. The hypothetical promotion would encourage consumers to videotape themselves smashing their old tube television sets and then upload the video to a website. The flat screen television company would reward those who uploaded their television smashing videos with a new flat screen television. In addition, the consumer who had the "coolest" video would win $100,000.
At first glance, this hypothetical sounds like it would be a successful promotion. Who wouldn't want to watch a bunch of people smashing their television sets? This advertising campaign sounds like it may be inspired by a Gallagher (go to 7:00 in the clip) comedy routine and/or the Jackass television series/movie franchise.
Watching Gallagher smash watermelons and/or other fruits is still extremely funny. However, Gallagher is a "professional watermelon smasher" and comic and generally flying watermelon will not cause permanent damage to an audience member. In addition, audience members may be deemed to have assumed the risk of attending his show if they are hit with some flying watermelon or other related flying fruit. This type of scenario may be analogous to attending a baseball game and being hit with a foul ball.
Jackass was a television series (and later a movie franchise) on MTV that contained actors who performed interesting stunts. To reduce the possibility of lawsuits, MTV had disclaimers and warnings listed and mentioned before, during, and after each show. In addition, the television series did not encourage its viewers to perform the activities that were depicted.
In contrast to both Gallagher and Jackass, this hypothetical television advertising campaign encourages the destruction of a piece of electronic equipment that may contain dangerous chemicals and/or materials by consumers. This type of encouraged behavior may hurt consumers and/or others who are exposed to the encouraged activities.
Even though a company may put in place a waiver and/or other means to try limit their liability and/or to try to ensure that participants assume all risks associated with the advertising campaign, a lawyer for an injured participant may still file a lawsuit against the company and utilize a creative theory of liability. Therefore, before a company decides to do an advertising campaign with a social media component it should ask its legal department and/or outside legal counsel to fully review the proposal to ensure that it doesn't create any unforeseen potential legal liabilities.
To learn more about about the risks and unforeseen legal liabilities of your social media advertising campaigns you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I recently attended a conference and one of the panels consisted of a group of marketing professionals. The marketers wanted to create an advertising campaign for a flat screen television company. The hypothetical promotion would encourage consumers to videotape themselves smashing their old tube television sets and then upload the video to a website. The flat screen television company would reward those who uploaded their television smashing videos with a new flat screen television. In addition, the consumer who had the "coolest" video would win $100,000.
At first glance, this hypothetical sounds like it would be a successful promotion. Who wouldn't want to watch a bunch of people smashing their television sets? This advertising campaign sounds like it may be inspired by a Gallagher (go to 7:00 in the clip) comedy routine and/or the Jackass television series/movie franchise.
Watching Gallagher smash watermelons and/or other fruits is still extremely funny. However, Gallagher is a "professional watermelon smasher" and comic and generally flying watermelon will not cause permanent damage to an audience member. In addition, audience members may be deemed to have assumed the risk of attending his show if they are hit with some flying watermelon or other related flying fruit. This type of scenario may be analogous to attending a baseball game and being hit with a foul ball.
Jackass was a television series (and later a movie franchise) on MTV that contained actors who performed interesting stunts. To reduce the possibility of lawsuits, MTV had disclaimers and warnings listed and mentioned before, during, and after each show. In addition, the television series did not encourage its viewers to perform the activities that were depicted.
In contrast to both Gallagher and Jackass, this hypothetical television advertising campaign encourages the destruction of a piece of electronic equipment that may contain dangerous chemicals and/or materials by consumers. This type of encouraged behavior may hurt consumers and/or others who are exposed to the encouraged activities.
Even though a company may put in place a waiver and/or other means to try limit their liability and/or to try to ensure that participants assume all risks associated with the advertising campaign, a lawyer for an injured participant may still file a lawsuit against the company and utilize a creative theory of liability. Therefore, before a company decides to do an advertising campaign with a social media component it should ask its legal department and/or outside legal counsel to fully review the proposal to ensure that it doesn't create any unforeseen potential legal liabilities.
To learn more about about the risks and unforeseen legal liabilities of your social media advertising campaigns you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)