Florida Legislator Looks to Restrict Employer Access to Employee Social Media Accounts

Florida, a state that is generally considered to be friendly to employers will be taking steps to protect employee and prospective employee privacy if a South Florida State Senator has his way.

Florida State Senator, Jeff Clemens of Lake Worth, wants Florida to join the growing list of states that restrict employer access to employee or prospective employee social media accounts.  The proposed bill defines a social media account as “an interactive account or profile that an individual establishes and uses through an electronic application, service, or platform used to generate or store content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, instant messages, audio recordings, or e-mail that is not available to the general public.”  The bill would restrict employers from doing the following:

(a) Requesting or requiring that an employee or prospective employee disclose a username, password, or other means of access to a social media account through an electronic communications device;

(b) Requesting or requiring an employee or prospective employee take action that allows the employer to gain access to the employee’s or prospective employee’s social media account if the account’s contents are not available to the general public;

(c)  Retaliating against an employee for refusing to give the employer access to the social media account; and

(d)  Failing or refusing to hire a prospective employee as a result of a prospective employee’s refusal to allow the employer access to the prospective employee’s social media account.

Thirty-six states have already taken similar action with 11 already enacting statutes including California, Michigan, Maryland and Colorado. Some, including New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, have questioned the broad scope of such laws. Nevertheless, Governor Christie did recently sign such legislation into law, which takes effect December 1^st of this year.  See States Continue to Enact Privacy Laws Protecting Employees from Employers.

The proposed Florida bill would enable an employee or prospective employee to bring a civil action against the employer within two years after the violation and also provides for the seeking of injunctive relief.  If the Florida bill is passed in its current form it would take effect on October 1^st of next year.

Equifax, Transunion, Experian and FACEBOOK!!??

Might lenders start reviewing your social media activities to determine your creditworthiness?

Erika Eichelberger wrote a sobering piece in Mother Jones last month addressing that very issue.  Actually, Eichelberger points out that some lenders are already engaging in the practice and that it could only be a matter of time before mainstream lenders begin doing the same.

Eichelberger reports that lenders who use information found on social media sites argue “that they are able to serve borrowers that traditional banks deem risky because they are able to evaluate credit risk based on more subtle social media-based indicators.”  These indicators include the number of friends applicants have, how often they interact ad even the quality and quantity of one’s LinkedIn contacts “for clues to how quickly laid-off borrowers will be rehired.”

The practice which is currently being used primarily by lenders providing loans to low-income borrowers raises issues of both credibility and fairness.  Does the information available on social media sites really provide valuable information when assessing a potential borrower and is it being applied in a fair and non-discriminatory manner?  The two key laws applicable in this area are The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).  The FCRA provides citizens with certain rights related to the use and disclosure of their personal information by credit reporting agencies.  The ECOA seeks to provide equal opportunity to customers of banks, credit card companies, loan and finance companies and others.  It prohibits discrimination against applicants based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status and age. Eichelberger notes that critics of the practice question whether the information provided is truly indicative of the likelihood of repayment on the part of a prospective borrower.  Quoting Ashkan Soltani, an independent expert on consumer privacy and behavioral economics, “For you and I to call each other friends in the real world, we’d have to hang out a lot’…’I might follow you on Facebook because you post funny cat pictures.”  In addition, Eichelberger writes that experts say these lenders may be “discriminating against applicants who essentially appear socially undesirable’…’But discrimination law does not yet cover people who are unpopular.” 

NY Attorney General Takes Steps to Combat Fake Social Media Reviews

Gartner predicts that by 2014 between 10% and 15% of social media reviews will be fake. This information was provided by the New York Attorney General’s office, which announced an agreement recently with 19 companies to stop them from writing fake online reviews.

 

New York Attorney General, Eric T. Schneiderman, stated that the companies would be required to pay penalties ranging from $2,500.00 to just under $100,000.00.  Many of the companies had apparently created fake online profiles on various consumer review websites, such as Yelp, Google Local and CitySearch, and outsourced the review writing to freelancers in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Eastern Europe.  The announcement said that the false reviews violated multiple state laws against false advertising and that the companies had engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices.

The announcement revealed that under the guise of a yogurt store, the AG’s office had contacted “leading SEO companies” in New York to request assistance in combating poor reviews on the consumer sites.  Some of the SEO companies responded by offering to write positive reviews on the company’s behalf, which they said fell under their reputation management services.  It was further revealed that several of  the SEO firms had been using advanced IP spoofing techniques to hide their identities and, moreover, were setting up hundred of fake profiles.

The practice of writing fake reviews that a reasonable consumer would believe has been prepared by a neutral third-party is referred to as “astroturfing.”  Interestingly, the AG’s announcement cited a 2011 Harvard Business School study that estimated a one-star rating improvement could translate to an increase of 5% to 9% in revenues for a restaurant. 

You can read the AG’s entire announcement here.

On Second Thought…Delete My Post!

Imagine having the right to demand that websites you have posted on take down the content or information that you later regret having posted.  California is on its way to enacting such a law, albeit for the benefit of minors only.

 

California filed what is referred to as an “eraser” law with its Secretary of State on September 23^rd.  If Governor Jerry Brown does not veto the bill, which he apparently has taken no position on, it will go into effect as of January 1, 2015.  The New York Times quoted James Steyer, the chief executive of Common Sense Media, an advocacy group that supported the bill, as stating, “Kids and teenagers often self-reveal before they self-reflect…It’s a very important milestone.”

The bill, Chapter 21 of Division 8 of California’s Business and Professional Code would require “the operator of an Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application to permit a minor, who is a registered user of the operator’s Internet Web site, online service, online application, or mobile application, to remove, or to request and obtain removal of, content or information posted on the operator’s Internet Web site, service, or application by the minor, unless the content or information was posted by a 3rd party, any other provision of state or federal law requires the operator or 3rd party to maintain the content or information, or the operator anonymizes the content or information.”  Moreover, the bill would require the site to notify the minor that the minor has such a right.

Concerns about the legislation, identified in Somini Segupta’s piece in the New York Times, include the fact that companies will be able to collect more information on minors as they would need to identify their age and presence in California and, further, that the passage of similar laws in other states could create a hodgepodge of varied laws with varied requirements throughout the nation.  This latter concern, however, is seemingly endemic of the U.S.’s approach to privacy protection in general, which tends to be ad hoc on a state level and industry specific on the federal level.

There has been ongoing pressure in Europe for “right to-be-forgotten” legislation, which differs from California’s legislation in that it would provide for a similar “eraser” right for all Europeans regardless of age.

You can find the proposed California legislation here.  

Turns Out “Like”ing Something on Facebook Constitutes Actual Speech

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that “Liking” something on Facebook constitutes protected speech.

In an important, but hardly surprising, decision, the court reversed a ruling by federal district judge, Raymond A. Jackson. In a decision that must have upset admirers of symbolic and actual speech everywhere, Judge Jackson ruled that a Facebook “like” was “insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.” The lower court judge distinguished the Facebook “like” by noting that in other opinions recognizing protected speech on Facebook “actual statements” were used.”  Regardless, if one should ever come upon a sign while driving that simply says “stop” assume it is an actual statement.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by a group of deputy sheriffs in Hampton, Virginia, one of whom, Daniel Ray Carter, Jr., claimed to have been fired from his job because he had “liked” the individual running in a campaign against the current sheriff (i.e. his boss). The Fourth Circuit’s Chief Judge William Byrd Traxler writes, “Once one understands the nature of what Carter did by liking the Campaign Page, it becomes apparent that his conduct qualifies as speech. On the most basic level, clicking on the “like” button literally causes to be published the statement that the User “likes” something, which is itself a substantive statement.”  Chief Judge Traxler also noted that “Carter’s speech was political speech, which is entitled to the highest level of protection.”

The case is Bland v. Roberts.  You can read the 81 page decision in its entirety here.

State Social Media Privacy Legislation Now an Issue for Securities Regulators

The Financial Services Institute, which represents individual financial services firms and individual financial advisors, warned that 70 social media bills introduced throughout the U.S. could conflict with Finra advisor regulations.

An article in Financial Advisor magazine said that a spokesman for the North American Securities Administrators Association expressed concern that privacy provisions in the bills might interfere with supervisory and record-keeping responsibilities of advisors under state and federal securities laws and regulations.

Recall that many states have started to pass legislation restricting employers’ ability to acquire employee passwords or gain other means of access to employee social media accounts.  In his Financial Advisor article, Ted Knutson reports that Finra has been in contact with 12 states about the legislation. In the organization’s letter to the Colorado legislature, it noted that “the objective may be accomplished through a specific exemption for broker-dealers whose employees use a personal account or service for business communications.”

While courts continue to deal with the ongoing challenge of applying traditional legal doctrine to social media platforms, it is also worth noting how regulators must now contemplate not only social media itself but the way both current and future laws passed in response to social media will impact their own regulations.

Facebook Posts Lead to Judge Tossing Verdict

Facebook posts may have played a role in a Georgia judge throwing out a plaintiff's verdict.

The suit involved a claim brought by Michael Bowbliss, who suffered nerve damage as a result of a lab technician's failure to properly draw blood for a routine, insurance related blood test. The award, originally for 5.7 million dollars, was first reduced by State Court Judge Patsy Porter to 4 million dollars, and then further reduced after the judge questioned Bowbliss's spouse's award for consortium damages, which exceeded Bowbliss's award for his original injury.  However, the Georgia judge eventually eliminated the entire verdict as a sanction against the couple for perpetrating a fraud upon the court.  Evidence, including the couple's Facebook posts, seemed to indicate that the couple had been in a troubled marriage during the time Dee Anna Bowbliss was seeking loss of consortium damages.  The attorneys for the defense claimed the marriage itself was a sham and that the Bowbliss's intention was to divorce after the completion of the trial. Moreover, the plaintiff's Facebook posts indicated that his injuries may not have been as severe as professed to the court.  One such post included, "can not go to gym til lawsuit over...due to it not looking right for me to be working out...and saying I have a bad arm."  With respect to the defense attorney's "sham marriage" assertion, one of the plaintiff's other posts read ""Judge is f[**]king on my case...dee and I aren't divorced yet because of piece of s[**]t judge and case."

Although the attorneys for defendant, Quick-Med, Inc. and its parent Quest Diagnostics, requested that the suit be dismissed with prejudice, Judge Porter refused.  The plaintiff's attorneys have already refiled the case.

Read more about this case in The Daily Report.