Search form

Question of Social Media Account Ownership Need Not be a Problem for Employers

By A. Robert Fischer and Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • February 9, 2012

Disputes between employers and departing employees over the ownership of social media accounts are on the docket of a number of federal district courts throughout the nation.  Employers in these cases are asserting ownership over company Twitter and LinkedIn profiles claiming, among other things, that they contain “trade secrets.”  Employees dispute these contentions by pointing out that there is nothing “secret” about social media profiles and that employers have no inherent property interests in Twitter and LinkedIn accounts.

In PhoneDog v. Kravitz, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129229 (MEJ) (N.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2011), for example, a federal court in California denied a motion to dismiss where the employer sought damages for each Twitter follower that a departing employee took with him.  The employee was given use of and maintained a Twitter account for the employer’s business during his employment.  When he left, he changed the Twitter account handle and continued to use the account.  PhoneDog and its former employee do not have a written agreement pertaining to ownership of the disputed Twitter account.  The company alleged several claims against the departing employee, including misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and tortious interference with prospective advantage.

Another example is Eagle v. Morgan, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147247 (RB) (E.D. Pa., Dec. 22, 2011). A federal court in Pennsylvania denied a motion to dismiss a suit over an employee’s LinkedIn account.  The disputed LinkedIn account was developed by company personnel and used for company business.  As in PhoneDog, the parties do not have a written agreement as to ownership of the account.
 
These cases are headed into prolonged discovery and extensive litigation.  They may have been avoided had the parties entered into clearly written agreements at or near the inception of the employment relationship.  Such an agreement was upheld in Ardis Health, LLC v. Nankivell, 2011 WL 4965172 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2011). A federal court in New York granted a preliminary injunction requiring an employee to give her employer access to social media sites pursuant to obligations under the parties’ written Non-Disclosure and Rights to Work Product Agreement.

Employers who profit from their employees’ use of social media should carefully analyze these issues.  In many cases, a properly drafted agreement delineating the property interests in employee work product will save employers from time-consuming and expensive litigation over ownership of social media accounts. 

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this and other workplace developments.

©2012 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

May 20, 2016

Supreme Court: ‘Actual Injury’ Needed to Establish Standing to Sue for Violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act

May 20, 2016

Plaintiffs must show they suffered from an actual injury, not just a “bare procedural violation,” in order to sue in federal court, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in its long-awaited decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (May 16, 2016). By a 6-2 vote, the Court vacated the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals... Read More

May 12, 2016

Defend Trade Secrets Act Becomes Law, Opening Federal Courts to Aggrieved Companies

May 12, 2016

For the first time, companies have a federal private right of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. The Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), signed by President Barack Obama on May 11, 2016, applies to any misappropriation of trade secrets that occurs on or after the signing date. Until now, companies victimized by... Read More

May 6, 2016

New Connecticut Statute Restricts Physician Non-Compete Agreements

May 6, 2016

The Connecticut General Assembly has passed a bill that establishes significant new restrictions on physician non-compete agreements in the state. The governor is expected to sign the bill (Senate Bill 351, as amended) soon. Under SB 351, a physician covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: necessary to... Read More