Law Blog

o hai. i can haz injunction?

Alright, I’ll stop now. If you haven’t already closed your browser in disgust (and I don’t blame you if you have), you may be wondering what this is about. According to the ABA Journal, the highest court in the UK has allowed an anonymous blogger to be notified of an injunction through a Twitter message.

The blogger in question was impersonating a well-known English lawyer, Donal Blaney, who also happens to be a frequent conservative commentator. In his blog, the anonymous blogger apparently held himself out to be Blaney, and wrote articles under his name, promulgating caricatured political positions.

Because the identity of the anonymous blogger could not be readily ascertained, and Twitter was the easiest way to contact him, the court granted Blaney’s request to serve the injunction via Twitter. The Twitter message sent to the blogger contains a link to a copy of the injunction, and orders him to immediately cease impersonating Blaney, and to reveal his identity.

This follows on the heels of a ruling by an Australian Court, a defendant was served with notice of a default judgment through Facebook.

Apparently, courts in Australia are well known for their tech savvy, already allowing service of process via email and text messages, so such a move is to be expected. The question, then, is when should we expect such forward-thinking actions from American courts? If I had to guess, I’d say we have a while to wait, considering that some of them haven’t yet mastered advanced staple technology.

In all seriousness, this does raise some interesting questions about how service of legal documents should be handled in the digital age. The courts of most U.S. states, and the federal government, call for service to be delivered personally, in a hard copy. This is certainly the preferable method, as it all but eliminates any uncertainty as to whether or not service was actually received. However, it’s not always possible, for a variety of reasons. In such cases, “substituted service” – leaving the documents with another member of the person’s household, or at their place of business, is acceptable, as is service by mail.

Really, though, given the fact that most people in the developed world use email, and many also use social networking sites, wouldn’t allowing service by electronic means make sense, at least if other methods of service fail? After all, you can now check your email on almost any device that has a screen, and most people check their email on a daily basis. It would be pretty hard for someone to claim with a straight face that they haven’t received service, if they could receive it via email.

Of course this raises issues, as well. Once it becomes accepted that you can receive notice of a lawsuit via email, it won’t be long before the scammers realize that they can separate fools from their money by emailing them fake summons, and telling them that this pesky lawsuit can go away for a reasonable fee.

So, there are a few kinks to work out of the system, but in cases such as this, when the defendant is clearly a real person, with ready means of contact, but cannot be identified for whatever reason, it seems that justice could be served much more efficiently if this method of service were allowed.

It’s been said before, but it bears repeating ad infinitum: if you wouldn’t say it in real life, don’t say it on the Internet.

The popular assumption among the general public seems to be that some special body of law applies on the internet that doesn’t apply in real life. This assumption, as some people have learned the hard way, is incorrect. While there has been much debate over the particulars of how certain areas of the law should apply online, there’s never been any serious debate as to whether it applies.

Enter Amanda Bonnen. She is being sued by Horizon Group Management on a theory of libel for a “tweet” in which she made an offhand complaint about mold in her apartment. According to the complaint, the statement about mold in the apartment is, of course, completely false, and caused irreparable damage to Horizon’s reputation.

This may or may not be true, and that’s not what makes this case interesting. What does make it interesting is how this statement was made, followed by the lawsuit, and the public reaction to it.

It is entirely possible that Ms. Bonnen’s statement was false, and that it did, in fact, cause some damage to Horizon’s reputation. In that case, the lawsuit has merit, and Horizon should, as a legal matter, prevail.

But if they were acting to vindicate their reputation, they could not have gone about it in a worse way. A search on Twitter’s website for “Horizon Group” reveals that almost everyone who has heard about this matter is not very sympathetic with their cause. Besides some childish insults flung at the company (my personal favorite describing Horizon employees engaged in unsavory acts with barnyard animals), and some creative spellings of the word “frivolous,” one can see that many people now assume that Horizon has moldy apartments, whether that assumption is true or not.

So, what have we learned from all of this? Well, everyone involved should have learned some valuable lessons. First off, Ms. Bonnen has learned that if you wouldn’t say something in person, you shouldn’t say it online (as it turns out, there are a lot of people on the Internet who might read what you’ve written). Horizon has learned that filing a lawsuit is not automatically the best way to deal with a problem.

First, what is social medial marketing? Essentially, social media is a blend of social outreach and internet technology, achieved principally through blogs, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and Linkedin.  While these Internet tools allow people to connect to other people of all age groups, they have also become the new “feeding ground” for employers seeking to learn more about a potential employee than they can discover through a resume. In fact, according to employeescreenIQ, 56% of what is written on a resume is padded.  (Company Unveils List of 2009 Background Screening Checks)

In 2006, CareerBuilder.com reported results of a survey that they conducted of over 1,000 hiring managers.  Results indicated that 12% of these managers used social media websites to verify information about a job candidate, with 63% not hiring a candidate based upon the information that they found. (Background Check News)

Today, as quoted from one blog, almost 40% of employers have used Facebook and other social media sites to obtain information about job candidates, and greater than 80% of employers found negative information about the potential employee that may have lead to the candidate not being extended a job offer.  (Employment Background Checks) 

Clearly, taking control of one’s public persona is critical for anyone in the job market.  However, employers could also subject themselves to litigation for negligent hiring practices through the use of social media when making employment decisions.  So, far, no one has made this challenge but expect this to come.

Social media marketing is not only being used by prospective employers but a new crime is on the rise – social media identity theft.  St. Louis Cardinals MLB team manager Tony La Russa was a recent victim.  An identify thief created a Twitter account using Tony’s name and image, posting defamatory remarks on the account.  La Russa sued Twitter and the case is currently pending in court.  La Russa wasn’t alone; impersonators hacked into President Obama’s Twitter account, as well as the Twitter accounts of Britney Spears and Bill O’Reilly at Fox News.  (Twitter, Social Media Indentity Theft & Personal Background Checks)

Prosecutors are also using social media to their advantage.  A 22-year old woman charged with a fatal DUI, faced a 5 year sentence after photos of her on her MySpace page after the accident depicted her with tequila, shot glasses and a T-shirt labeled, “Jail Bird?” came up at trial despite the warnings of her defense attorney.  (Unrepentant on Facebook? Expect jail time)  And, a YouTube video was elevated to fame in 2008 when Ms. Trisha Walsh Smith made a video about her acrimonious divorce from Phillip Smith, a Broadway giant.  Smith complained about her prenuptial agreement and made disparaging remarks about her then current husband.  The New York County judge granted the husband a divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.  (Inside the YouTube Divorce)

If these stories don’t cause you to rethink what you may have posted on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, maybe they should give you pause for thought.  Depending upon what you have posted, you could lose a job opportunity or worse.  Count on LegalMatch to continue to monitor these trends; we expect more litigation to revolve around the use of social media.  But, don’t say we didn’t warn you.  Be careful what you write!