CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Facebook and Twitter: More Transparency for Political Ads

Posted on: June 4th, 2018

By: Amy Bender

In the wake of the alleged Russian interference with the U.S. presidential election through targeted Facebook ads, both Facebook and Twitter now have imposed conditions for political campaign advertisements. Since there currently are no legal requirements for posting political content on private social media platforms, the platforms have the freedom – and, some say, the responsibility – to create their own policies in order to regulate the content delivered to their users. Facebook and Instagram (which Facebook owns) now require that political ads be labeled with information such as who funded the ad, the campaign budget, the number of viewers, and their demographics. The information also will be stored in a searchable archive. Twitter will require advertisers of political campaigns for federal elections to identify themselves and prove they are located in the U.S. Further, it will not allow foreign nationals to target political ads to U.S. residents. Both platforms have cited increased transparency as the basis for these changes. Facebook also has been under scrutiny since the Cambridge Analytica/user data breach incident, as we reported here.

It remains to be seen if these measures will help regulate political content and if more social media platforms will follow suit.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Amy Bender at [email protected].

Countries Around the World Are Investigating Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica Event

Posted on: April 26th, 2018

By: Allen E. Sattler

On March 18, 2018, news broke of the Cambridge Analytica event where the data of an estimated 87 million Facebook users was disclosed to the UK-based political consulting firm.  The breach of user data resulted in several U.S. investigations, including by Congress and by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”).  Facebook entered into a consent decree with the FTC in 2011, where Facebook agreed to never make deceptive claims concerning users’ privacy and to obtain users’ informed consent before changing the way in which it shares their data.  The FTC is investigating whether Facebook violated the terms of this agreement which carries a possible $40,000 per-violation fine.

On April 10 and 11, Mark Zuckerberg appeared before Congress where he testified that Facebook failed to protect its users’ data and that Facebook “didn’t take a broad enough view” of its responsibility in ensuring the privacy of its users following its initial discovery of the Cambridge Analytica event.  He also accepted personal responsibility for the matter as the company’s founder and CEO.

What might have been lost in the flurry of domestic activity is the amount of scrutiny Facebook is receiving by nations around the globe.  This breach involved users from many countries, with over 1 million affected users in each of four different countries.

The European Union launched an investigation into Facebook on March 19, and the United Kingdom and Australia quickly followed.  Under Australian privacy laws, the government has the authority to issue fines against Facebook of up to $1.6 million if it determines that Facebook violated those laws.

Countries of southeast Asia soon followed with investigations of their own.  Indonesia, which is home to over 115 million Facebook users, 1 million of whom were affected by this breach, launched an investigation on April 6.  Under Indonesian law, the government can assess fines against Facebook representatives personally of up to $870,000.  Singapore has opened an investigation as well, where it has already questioned Facebook executives located in their country.

The Philippines announced its investigation into Facebook on April 13.  The county was rated as the biggest user of social media several years running.  Research indicates that Filipinos spend almost four hours per day on various social media platforms.   This breach affected nearly 1.2 million Filipinos, and news reports indicate that Cambridge Analytica might have helped President Rodrigo Duterte in his successful 2016 campaign.  The event therefore has enormous significance to Filipinos.

On Friday, April 20th, Germany became the latest country to open an official investigation into the Facebook.  Germany’s data privacy regulator said fines could be levied against Facebook in the amount of 300,000 euros ($366,000).

Facebook had revenues of more than $40 billion last year, so the fines that each country might assess against the company seem relatively insignificant.  The investigations launched against Facebook can nevertheless have a big impact on the company and on the entire industry.  This event has garnered the attention of countries around the world, and it has already led to a greater awareness of privacy concerns that exist on social media platforms.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Allen Sattler at [email protected].

 

Antisocial Media: Court Critical of Cop Capturing Curious Citizen’s Cellphone

Posted on: April 23rd, 2018

By: E. Charles Reed, Jr.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a police officer violates clearly established law by seizing a bystander’s cellphone at an accident scene in the absence of exigent circumstances.

With the rise of social media and the availability of devices with cameras, newsworthy events and potential evidence of criminal or civil liability can be captured by citizens with fortuitous timing and cellphones. While the methodology of capturing potential evidence has changed, constitutional principles associated with law enforcement’s gathering of that evidence has not. One law enforcement official recently learned this lesson the hard way in Crocker v. Beatty, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8290 (Apr. 2, 2018).

In May 2012, Deputy Steven Beatty arrived at an accident scene involving an overturned SUV.  By the time Beatty had arrived, several bystanders, including a citizen named James Crocker, had taken photographs and video of the scene with their cell phones. Crocker captured images of empty beer bottles, the overturned vehicle and emergency personnel, but no images of the persons involved in the accident. Beatty approached Crocker, took his cellphone and instructed him to leave the area and wait for instructions about when his phone would be returned. Crocker refused to leave and offered to delete the footage in return for his phone. Instead, Beatty placed Crocker under arrest for resisting an officer without violence.

On appeal at the summary judgment stage, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s denial of qualified immunity for Beatty. First, the court rejected the argument that Beatty’s seizure was justified by exigent circumstances because Crocker was a non-suspect bystander with no motive to delete any photographs. The fact that Crocker’s cellphone could later be lost did not create an exigency.

More importantly, the Court held that the right to be free from warrantless seizures of personal property was established with “obvious clarity” in May 2012 such that Beatty should have known his conduct violated federal law. “Our case law has sent a consistent message, predating 2012, about the warrantless seizure of personal property and how exigent circumstances may arise. The technology of the iPhone simply does not change our analysis. To hold otherwise would deal a devastating blow to the Fourth Amendment in the face of sweeping technological advancement. These advancements do not create ambiguities in Fourth Amendment law; the principles remain as always. Because of this, Beatty is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

The Court did not address, and may not have been presented with, the policy implications for agencies responding to mass-casualty or critical incidents in metropolitan centers – where hundreds of witnesses may be present, each with different video clips taken at different times and from different angles.  However, the takeaway from this case is while technology may push products further and further into the future, the prudent law enforcement officer will apply the legal authority of the past to minimize being held liable for his or her actions.

Charles Reed is member of Freeman, Mathis, & Gary’s Government Section and regularly defends government employees in in civil rights cases.  He can be reached at [email protected] or by phone at 678-399-6351.

Are Your Facebook Job Postings Violating the ADEA

Posted on: February 8th, 2018

By: Brenton S. Bean

So say putative class action plaintiffs in the Northern District of California.  See Communications Workers of America et al v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et al, Case No. 5:17-cv-7232 (N.D. Ca), filed Dec. 20, 2017.  Plaintiffs assert that Facebook has become the modern employment agency, providing not only a platform, but also data and strategies to help employers find candidates.  The lawsuit alleges that Facebook allows, and in some instances requires, a target audience be defined, which includes age restrictions.  In addition, Facebook uses its own massive database and algorithms to determine which users will see the ads, often on the basis of age.  This practice of “microtargeting” advertisements for employment discriminates against older workers, plaintiffs say.

Shortly before the lawsuit was filed, the New York Times ran an article regarding Facebook advertising and age discrimination.  Facebook and other social media sites have recently become more popular means by which employers advertise for job openings.  The Times story indicates many companies use Facebook’s ability to target its users by demographics, such as age, and therefore have discriminated against job applicants by restricting the scope of their Facebook ads to younger Facebook users.  Interestingly, that use of an age restriction is not always limited to cases where the advertiser requests such a restriction.  Facebook also takes the parameters identified by the employer and uses its own statistical methodologies to target the ad.  That means age restrictions may have been used in advertisements without the advertiser’s knowledge, according to the claim.

The scope of the case is potentially enormous.  First, the putative class size is immense.  The class as defined includes all Facebook users nationwide who are age 40 and older, who are interested in receiving employment-related advertisements or recruiting from employers via Facebook, and who were excluded from receiving an ad because of their age.  Second, the complaint names not only four defendant employers, but also a defendant class of employers and employment agencies.  Plaintiffs alleged there may be a thousand or more members of the defendant class, which could include every employer that has used age-limited Facebook ads.  In addition to the federal ADEA claim (which is expected to be amended once the charge process runs its course), plaintiffs have asserted claims under state law for discriminatory advertising and disparate impact recruiting and hiring.

While the named defendants are primarily large companies, the putative defendant class may also include many smaller employers.  Whether potentially implicated or not, companies are advised to review their job placement advertising.  At this juncture, it is too early to assess the class’s chances or the merits, either under the ADEA or the articulated state law claims.  We will monitor this matter closely.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brenton Bean at [email protected].

Employee Fired for Tweeting Complaint About Sex Jokes

Posted on: March 26th, 2013

By: David Cole

This USA Today article is another example of how social media is presenting new legal issues in the workplace. According to the story, the tech company SendGrid fired a female employee named Adria Richards because she tweeted complaints about a group of men sitting behind her at a conference making sex jokes.  You can read Ms. Richards’s play-by-play tweets about the jokes (complete with pictures of the alleged jokers) by clicking here.  According to the story, SendGrid says it terminated Ms. Richards, because it “doesn’t support how she reported the conduct.”  This raises a number of interesting issues, but at the very least it is a good reminder of the new challenges employers face because of social media.  Time will tell, but what do you think – fair decision or cautionary tale?