Love and Leverage: Should an Athlete’s Celebrity Relationship Affect Their Contract Value?

In today’s professional sports economy, player value stretches far beyond the box score. Teams routinely factor in off-field elements like branding power, media influence, and fan engagement, all forces that can generate revenue and mold a franchise’s cultural footprint. Nowhere is this more apparent than in celebrity-athlete relationships. Even online platforms are quick to recognize and take advantage of the online popularity these celeb romantic entanglements bring. As the example of Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift’s relationship continues to demonstrate: the market impact of a high-profile pairing can be immediate and measurable. 

As legal scholars have long recognized, identity itself carries market power. But as this trend grows, a new question emerges: should front offices actually weigh an athlete’s relationship status with a celebrity when determining their acquisition cost or contract value? Should their total compensation package reflect the marketing value they add with their romantic partner? Or does this blur the lines between sports performance, entertainment economics, and personal boundaries of public figures? Attempting to answer these questions requires us to take a closer look at where sports economics meets publicity rights, using real life examples, while exploring how courts already understand fame, identity, and commercial value.

The “Swift Effect” 

Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift’s relationship didn’t just dominate celebrity headlines, it signaled a new wave in the business of professional football. Swift’s first appearance at Arrowhead Stadium in September 2023 triggered a viewership surge unlike anything the league had seen. In the days following that game, the NFL posted about Swift 34 times across its social channels, generating 170 million impressions, while Kelce’s jersey sales skyrocketed 400% and the Chiefs added over 200,000 new Instagram followers (and counting). What initially looked like a cultural crossover moment quickly became an economic engine.

The impact reverberated across fan demographics. Female viewership (especially among 18 to 24 year-olds) jumped dramatically, helping push Super Bowl LVIII to a record 123.7 million average viewers, fueled by a 24% spike in young women tuning in. Over the year, more than four million new female fans entered the NFL market, with an estimated 3.4 million joining Chiefs Kingdom alone. Chiefs owner Clark Hunt later confirmed the shift: the team’s fan base, once evenly split, now skews 57% female, a change he directly attributes in part to Swift’s presence.

But what’s fascinating from a legal lens is how closely this real-world moment mirrors how courts talk about fame. American case law has long acknowledged that public figures carry commercial value simply by being who they are. In Haelan Laboratories v. Topps, the Second Circuit coined the “right of publicity,” recognizing a person’s identity as a monetizable asset. In today’s example: Swift doesn’t just bring market attention, she expanded the economic value of Kelce’s identity, making the Chiefs more valuable as a brand. And let’s not forget when she gave Kelce a cameo on her record-breaking Era’s Tour, adding even more buzz around the tight end’s name. It’s the exact kind of commercial effect the law already takes seriously.

 

So what does all this data tell us? While the star-impact of Swift is solely responsible for the Chiefs increased cultural and economic footprint, none of that would exist without her relationship to Kelce. Does this justify valuing Kelce differently in contract negotiations or trade considerations? Is his relationship status part of his “brand” or commercial identity just as his stats are?

The Rise of the “Social Value” Metric

While celebrity relationships can supercharge visibility, the underlying trend they highlight is much broader: player value today increasingly hinges on social value: a measurable combination of marketability, audience reach, and cultural influence. Front offices across major sports already factor in off-field metrics when evaluating players, from jersey sales and endorsement potential, to social media followings. In many ways, the modern athlete functions not only as a performer on the field, but also as a content generator and brand ambassador whose visibility can meaningfully shift a team’s revenue streams.

This evolution mirrors the name image likeness (NIL) marketplace that has reshaped college athletics. At the collegiate level, brand value is often as decisive as on-field talent: athletes at high-profile programs, or those with massive online followings, routinely secure lucrative deals even before going pro. Cases like O’Bannon v. NCAA and Alston established what the NCAA resisted for decades: that athletes don’t just produce wins, they produce value. They bring in viewers, marketing opportunities, and they drive revenue in ways that transcend play-calling and stat sheets. The logic is straightforward: audience attention translates to commercial worth.

This framework translates seamlessly into professional sports. Under these principles, a celebrity partner becomes an extension of an athlete’s brand infrastructure. Their combined platforms can amplify visibility beyond traditional sports audiences, turning athletes into crossover figures who occupy cultural spaces far removed from their sport. A player’s social media following, endorsement profile, or crossover appeal can boost a team’s national visibility or open new global markets. It’s not hypothetical. Teams measure this, agents negotiate it, and brands pay for it.

But this shift also raises an important practical dilemma: if teams increasingly consider social value in roster decisions, where is the line between evaluating a player as a commercial asset and respecting boundaries around personal identity and private relationships? The growing influence of off-field marketability suggests that the future of athlete valuation will be shaped not only by performance analytics, but also by cultural fluency. This trend is consistent with past court decisions regarding the right of publicity and the true value the holder of that right has in the case of celebrities. 

The Power-Couple Premium

Kelce and Swift may be the headline act, but they are far from the only pairing showing how quickly an athlete’s public life can spill into a team’s market calculus. Take Klay Thompson and Megan Thee Stallion. On paper, the NBA and hip-hop worlds have always overlapped, but seeing a high-caliber athlete enter that level of mainstream pop culture creates a whole new kind of crossover. With a celeb like Megan Thee Stallion in floor seats at a Dallas Mavericks game, fans of the Grammy-award winner are bound to tune in or perhaps pay more for premium seating for a chance to get a first-hand view of the star. And let’s not forget the reciprocity of the celebrity-athlete partnership: only a few months after making their relationship public, the singer scored a new sponsorship deal with Fanatics Sportsbook – an official sponsor of the NBA.

The same dynamic is found in the relationship between Stefon Diggs and Cardi B. Her presence alone brings a massive online audience. A single game appearance or Instagram post becomes a multi-media event, and within hours you see it reflected everywhere from jersey sales, to internet hashtags. It’s the kind of cultural bleed-over front offices pretend not to notice, even though the revenue streams speak for themselves. It’s not that these players become “more valuable” overnight in a traditional sense, but their teams undeniably get swept into a bigger cultural orbit.

From a legal standpoint, that visibility is not just “noise.” It’s part of the commercial persona that courts protect under the right of publicity. In her lawsuit against Samsung, Vanna White prevailed on her argument based on California’s statutory right of publicity. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that a person’s NIL or commercial identity extended to the broader concept of one’s identity. The court held that Samsung violated the statute even without using her name or image, but because it used the idea of her. This case underscores the courts’ recognition that association itself creates commercial value. Something that professional sports leagues are already aware of as demonstrated by years of lucrative brand-deals and partnerships. 

Trouble in Paradise: Risks of Monetizing Personal Relationships 

Once you start looking closely at the way these relationships shape fan interest and team economics, it becomes hard to ignore a slightly uncomfortable truth: that there’s a fine line between recognizing and rewarding marketability, and commodifying someone’s personal life. Courts have made clear that a person owns the commercial value of their identity. But what about the commercial value of a relationship? What about their romantic partner’s identity? And what happens when teams start using those dynamics to justify contract decisions?

On one hand, it’s easy to see why teams are tempted to lean in. When an athlete’s significant other can open the door to new audiences or bring an entirely different demographic into the market, that’s real, tangible value. It can mean higher ticket demand, more national airtime, stronger sponsorship interest. In a business as competitive as professional sports, where front offices are constantly searching for any kind of edge, ignoring that kind of upside feels naïve in today’s golden age of social media.

On the flip side, when a player’s personal relationship begins to encroach on contract conversations, suddenly it’s not only about his performance on the field, but also off the field. Front offices now run the risk of causing contractual provisions or other incentives to be based on how much of the player’s private life he’s willing to have consumed by the public. It creates a market-based precedent where a romantic partner isn’t just a companion. That “companion” becomes part of a player’s “brand portfolio” whether or not they want that designation. 

And the even bigger risk at the end of this slippery slope? The potential legal consequences teams could face in a cause of action by a celebrity who discovers another party is profiting off of her NIL without first obtaining that celeb’s consent. Or one who finds her commercial identity being used as a bargaining chip in player compensation or trade negotiations. 

Legal Stakes in Love 

Think about it this way: if there was any evidence of a contract provision between a team and a player, that implicitly or explicitly stated that the player may be compensated for the impact/result of another person’s (celebrity’s) presence, and that person was not a party to the agreement, and thus did not consent to the monetization of her persona…a court could easily recognize an action for appropriation of name or likeness. On the other hand, could the commoditization of a player’s personal relationship be taken as pressure on the athlete from the team to exploit their private lives for value? It seems this risk could move a team dangerously close to the line of unwanted commercial exploitation.

The Price of Love and the Future of Player Valuation 

Aaron Rodgers says he “didn’t do myself any favors” dating famous women

As fun as it is to watch sports and pop culture collide, it’s hard not to wonder where this all could lead, especially from a legal standpoint. If romantic relationships can dramatically shape revenue, influence fan bases, and transform a player’s commercial identity…how long before they quietly shape front-office decisions too? Should they? Where should the legal and ethical boundaries sit between commercial identity, intellectual property, and fair contracting? In a modern sports landscape where we’ve been witness to how a romantic relationship can redefine a franchise’s reach, the real question is no longer whether off-field identity carries monetary value, but how far we’re willing to let that value shape the way athletes are analyzed, compensated, and ultimately valued. 

When the Internet Moves Faster than the Market: Impacts of Viral Products and Trends in Social Media

Recently, but not shockingly, the internet and its consumers entered a social media-driven craze over a plush monster toy, labubus. The cute, plush monster took over the internet and social media platforms like Tiktok and Instagram, integrating into one of 2025’s latest fashion trends. Created by Kasing Lung in 2015, a labubu is a fictional character that Lung transformed into collectibles by entering into a licensing agreement with Pop Mart in 2019.  

Blackpink’s star Lisa, and celebrities like Rihanna, Dua Lipa, and Kim Kardashian have all contributed to the fame of this doll — making it one of 2025’s most sought after trends. Aside from the various celebrities and influencers that are attributed to the Labubu’s popularity, the collectibles are also sold in what are referred to as “blind boxes”. Essentially, the color and type of the labubu is revealed only after the blind box is bought and received by the buyer – adding to the excitement and anticipation behind finding a rare figure. Labubus were seen all over Instagram and Tiktok, going “viral” as people created memes of them, posted videos unboxing them, and incorporated them into their fashion style.  

The head of licensing at Pop Mart North America, Emily Brough, disclosed that such blind boxes generated more than $419 million in revenue in 2024 — achieving 726.6% year-over-year growth. The generated increased revenue can be significantly attributed to TikTok’s platform, considering as of April 2025, Pop Mart generated $4.8 million in sales on TikTok Shop, a rise of 89% in only one month. The doll rapidly became ultra-desirable on the internet. Although the collection retails at approximately $27 in the U.S., resellers typically double the price on the market, such as $149 on e-bay for a rare Chestnut Cocoa Labubu. Not only do blind boxes play into the fascination behind a Labubu, but resellers also create the concept of exclusivity for the collectibles that ultimately attracts even more consumers. For consumers, Labubus are more than a fashion accessory; owning a Labubu symbolizes being involved and up to date with the current trends, being relatable to other consumers and influencers, and buying something that is highly sought-after.   

With a product like Labubus going viral, it is natural to wonder what exactly the standard is for something to be considered viral.  The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes “viral” as something that is “quickly and widely spread or popularized especially by means of social media”. Although such definition can be broadly applied, the Merriam Webster dictionary explains the simple, core attributes to something that is viral: 1) it is quickly spread, and 2) it is popular. Something can be popular but gain popularity throughout an extended period of time – but what distinguishes a viral product from a typical popular product is the rapid pace the product gains recognition. It could happen in a timeline of a few months, weeks, days, and even overnight. Essentially, a product or trend becomes viral when the promoter of the product creates highly engaging and shareable content that taps into the emotional connection of their audience, who then tap, click, like, comment, and share about the product. The viewer engages more with the post, and the product being mentioned spreads widely throughout the social media universe, quickly earning that viral title.  

Why should the latest trend of Labubus not be considered shocking? The concept of a plush monster being ultra-desirable and extremely sought-after going viral on the internet might not be expected by everyone; but it is important to note that the common ground behind a majority of viral products is the internet. Labubus are only one example of a nearly endless list of trends and viral products social media has boosted. The same effect social media had on Labubus, it also had on Stanley cups in 2023. Viral videos of Stanley cups circulated TikTok, resulting in a significant jump in Stanley’s revenue from approximately $94 million in 2020 to $750 million in 2023. It is clear that social media platforms are an underlying basis for viral products because of the easy access to posts and videos, alongside the individualized algorithms, content creators, celebrities, and e-community that social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide. 

It is no secret that celebrities and influencers use social media platforms like Tiktok and Instagram to promote products as part of their brand endorsements. Inevitably, viewers and followers of such celebrities are influenced, resulting in the lifecycle of a trend. The trend typically becomes viral quickly, with much contribution associated to social media algorithms as well, but the product trend cycle is rarely long-term.  

Often, these social media trends that come and go are referred to as “micro-trends”; essentially, micro-trends refer to short-lived trends that gain a high amount of attention in a fairly short period outside of a traditional trend cycle, and ultimately lose public relevance just as fast as they gained it. Micro-trends are advertised through social media as consumer must-haves, creating the ripple effect that consumers feel like they need to buy, buy, buy. The shortened lifecycle of viral products and micro-trends have resulted in a long-term cycle amongst consumers to buy them. It is a full circle of a product going viral, that turns into a micro-trend, leads into overproduction and inevitable overconsumption, creating a higher demand in markets that destabilize economies.  

The issue is that micro-trends are highly associated with the issue of overconsumption that results in companies’ fast production and release of products to keep up with trends.  This issue of overconsumption is accompanied by the rapid and disposable use of micro-trend related products, adding to the broader waste problems that already exist in, for example, the fashion industry. Further, these micro-trends impact the longevity of businesses. The quick turnover of consumers losing interest after these trends hit their highest popularity impacts local businesses from keeping up with the rapid production necessary for micro-trends to exist. Simply put, micro-trends are not sustainable for consumers, businesses, and the environment. For example, fast fashion clothing associated with such micro-trends are commonly received from the Kantamanto Market in Accra, Ghana, where about 40% of the clothing leaves as waste.  

The want and need by consumers to be part of current micro-trends can always be drawn back to social media. Moving away from magazines like Vogue or Elle, social media platforms like TikTok have progressed into the new resource for consumers to find the newest and most popular trend.  Social media algorithms create echo chambers of specific trends by identifying when certain style gains recognition and then feeding users with similar tastes; and from there a micro-trend is born. The algorithm identifies specific trends by recognizing which posts receive the most engagement (what content is viral). The more a post is shared, liked, or commented on, the faster it will spread. These algorithms typically have a faster trend turnaround because users of such platforms have access to almost instant updates of what is trending and what is popular – leading into a loophole of doomscrolling and impulsive spending. Trends are appearing in algorithms at a higher pace and demand than supply chains can respond to. With social media apps and their algorithms, consumers have almost instant access to finding micro-trends and buying into them; and almost instant access creates instant gratification for consumers.  

Algorithms are not the only role in the social media realm that contributes to the viral impact on businesses. Now, social media platforms have also progressed into the new digital storefront, serving as a place to both look and buy. It is simple: open the app, scroll, click, and buy it. E-commerce platforms like Instagram and Tiktok have individualized and specific storefronts to make it easier for their users to buy into the most viral, latest trends, and fast. For example, in 2024, TikTok shop had grown to more than 500,000 United States based sellers within the eight months of launching, and had around 15 million sellers worldwide. E-commerce sites like such can benefit companies that prioritize overconsumption, but they also can promote micro-trends. Algorithms and e-commerce sites can have the ability to strongly affect the economy, where in 2024, economists at the Federal Reserve discovered that inflation-adjusted spending on retail goods increased compared to 2018. Additionally, businesses are impacted as consumers are being drawn away from shopping in-person at small, local, and traditional retailers. The overarching economic impact can be conceptualized by the fact that viral products and micro-trends result in temporary, short-term sales, while creating long-term instability in businesses.  

With the rise of e-commerce in social media, also comes the rise of issues for consumers. Whether in store or online, consumers have the right to safety, to be informed, to choose, to be heard, and to redress. To protect consumers, businesses can provide clear, transparent information about their products; maintain fair transactions; hold themselves accountable for the safety of their products; and protect the privacy of their consumers. Given the large volume of transactions taking place on e-commerce sites, it becomes a challenge to accurately and properly regulate and monitor all transactions to protect against any and all issues that may arise. Consumers are now concerned with where the personal information they share is going, avoiding cyber fraud and scams, and receiving low quality products.

Even further, new issues regarding consumer safeguards such as intellectual property concerns are introduced. For example, with social media’s rapid spread of products and trends, copycat products are becoming increasingly more common. A copycat product is a product that is designed, branded, or packaged to resemble exactly the like of a well-established competitor. Copycat products are created deliberately, to use the established brand’s identity and reputation and market off that. The legal implications associated with copycat products include trademark infringement, unfair competition, and consumer fraud liability. Brands will reproduce viral creator designs without permission and devalue creative labor, and viewers are more susceptible to believing and trusting such copycat products are either associated with the original or of similar quality. However, influencers must be aware that when using social media to share and promote products, and earn that viral title, if the product is a dupe, or a copycat, it could fall under a violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

In 2020, Amazon filed a lawsuit against two influencers, Kelly Fitzpatrick and Sabrina Kelly-Krejci, alleging they promoted counterfeit products on their social media account. The two influencers were accused of using Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok accounts and working with eleven other individuals/businesses to promote fake luxury items sold on Amazon. The listings were an effort to dupe Amazon’s counterfeit detection tools. Although the lawsuit concluded in a settlement in 2021, and both influencers were barred from marketing, advertising, and promoting products on Amazon, this lawsuit serves as one of the many examples of legal implications that arise from the merge between the power of social media and e-commerce. Specifically for Amazon, their marketplace along with the associated third-party sellers makes up for more than half of their overall e-commerce sales. However, the strong possibility of counterfeits (copycat products) and unsafe products have become a notorious problem extending outside Amazon’s ecosystem and into the entire e-commerce realm.

E-commerce’s part towards overconsumption can be analyzed by looking at the four step process behind purchasing a product: awareness, desire, consideration, and purchase. Because of how quickly products become viral and how fast micro-trends come and go, this four step process for consumers is sped up. Often, consumers will jump from awareness to purchase if the price tag is small enough. Either way, the desire gets created when either the algorithm brings it to the viewer or a content creator references it. Many posts will draw consumers’ attention to e-commerce sites, showing them how easily accessible their shopping can be, by merging social media and e-commerce. Other methods retailers use to draw in consumers are cognitive biases. For example, countdown banners can create an urgency bias amongst consumers that they need the product now; and a social proof bias can push the consumer who is considering to purchase to buy when they see tags highlighting how many people have bought it or how high the ratings are.

Outside the U.S., in February 2025 the EU Commission has commenced an investigation into online company SHEIN’s compliance with EU Consumer laws, urging SHEIN to stop using dark patterns like fake discount and pressure selling. The Commission’s complaint essentially requests SHEIN stops using deceptive techniques such as “confirm shaming” to play into the consumer’s emotions and to provide substantive evidence that shows customer testimonials or messages referring to “low stock” are genuine. The Commission connects SHEIN’s “dark patterns” to the fuel of over-consumption that is environmentally harmful. Such dark patterns play into the cognitive biases that drive consumers to buy. The EU Commission’s efforts into investigating such impacts should be a standard the U.S. takes into account. Although the overwhelming size of the internet and presents issues of controlling its regulation, increasing investigations can be a start in protecting consumers.

Although the progression of e-commerce and social media bring initial yet exciting benefits to consumers,  the intricacies should not be overlooked. It is important to identify when our internet moves faster than our market. Viral products and trends may have a short lifecycle, yet their impacts can have the potential to be longstanding for businesses and consumers. 

Francesca Rocha

November 12, 2025

The New Border: Immigration Law in the Age of Social Media Monitoring

In today’s digital world, where much of public discourse takes place online, the intersection between social media and immigration law has become increasingly critical. From viral debates over “migrant bashing” posts to visa revocations tied to online activism, social media now serves both as a platform for immigrant voices and as a frontier for government surveillance.

Social Media Monitoring & Immigration

Recent policy developments confirm that U.S. immigration authorities are not only observing social media activity but actively using it to inform decisions.

On April 9th 2025, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced it will begin considering  antisemitic activity on social media platforms when evaluating immigration benefit applications. This policy immediately affected green card applicants, international students, and others seeking immigration benefits. 

“ USCIS will consider social media content that indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests.” 

This marks a significant shift from traditional factors like criminal history or fraud to now assessing online speech and ideology. It reflects a growing willingness to treat moral or political expression, which was once considered private and protected, as a legitimate basis for immigration decisions.

These “discretionary analyses” primarily affect benefit applications such as adjustment of status, asylum, and visa renewals where officers have broad authority to evaluate an applicant’s moral character and other subjective factors.

ICE and Algorithmic Surveillance

Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) continues to expand its social media surveillance capabilities. ICE contracts with private technology companies to build AI driven systems that scrape and analyze public posts, images, and online networks across multiple languages. These systems search for “threat indicators” or potential immigration violations, flagging accounts through pattern recognition and linguistic analysis.

ICE’s Open Source Intelligence program relies on vendors such as Palantir and ShadowDragon to automate the collection and analysis of social media data for enforcement leads. Because these algorithms are secretive and often shielded from public records laws like the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), immigrants often have no way to learn what online data was used against them or to challenge any mistakes or errors.

Observers  describe this trend as part of a broader “tech powered enforcement” model, in which digital footprints shape immigration outcomes.  In effect, a “digital border” has emerged. One that exists not at airports or checkpoints but within the virtual spaces people inhabit every day.

Speech and Expanding Risk

The implications are profound. A noncitizens tweets, Facebook posts, or even tagged photos can be scrutinized and used as evidence in visa adjudications or deportation proceedings.

This pervasive monitoring encourages self censorship. Immigrants and lawful permanent residents may delete posts, avoid political discussion, or disengage from activism online out of fear that a misunderstood comment could threaten their status. What once felt like ordinary self expression now carries real legal risk.

As the Brennan Center for Justice warns, vague or discretionary standards create chilling effects on speech by making it impossible to predict how officials will interpret online expression.

“the April 9 notice is likely to quell speech, discouraging immigrants and non-immigrants who are lawfully seeking a variety of immigration benefits…..from taking part in a wide range of constitutionally protected activity for fear of retaliation. And its smorgasbord of vague terms, many with no legally recognized meaning, enables USCIS officers to exercise nearly unchecked discretion in determining when to reject an otherwise unobjectionable application for a benefit……”

The First Amendment and Ideological Vetting

This new surveillance landscape raises pressing First Amendment concerns. Although noncitizens do not enjoy the full range of constitutional protections, courts have long held that the government may not condition immigration benefits on ideological conformity. Social media vetting, however, blurs that line. Turning online expression into a proxy for moral or political loyalty tests.

Courts have long struggled to balance the executive’s plenary power over immigration with First Amendment concerns raised by ideological exclusions. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) the Supreme Court upheld the government’s exclusion of a Belgian Marxist scholar, deferring to the executive’s authority over immigration even when the denial indirectly burdened U.S. citizens right to receive information and ideas. Decades later, in American Academy of Religion v. Napolitano (2009), the Second Circuit reaffirmed that while the executive retains broad power, it cannot rely on secret or arbitrary rationales for ideological exclusions. Together, these cases highlight the unresolved tension between immigration control and free speech protections.

Case Study: Mahmoud Khalil

The collision of social media, political activism, and immigration enforcement is sharply illustrated in the case of Mahmoud Khalil.

Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by ICE in New York in March 2025 after participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. He was detained in Louisiana for over three months pending removal proceedings.

The government cited  Immigration and Nationality Act  (INA) § 237(a)(4)(C)(i), a rarely used provision allowing deportation of a noncitizen whose “presence or activities” are deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The evidence reportedly consisted of a brief undated letter referencing Khalil’s activism and supposed foreign policy concerns. 

Khalil’s attorneys argued that he was targeted not for any criminal conduct but instead for his speech, association, and protest activity both on campus and online raising serious First Amendment and due process issues. 

 In May 2025, a federal judge found the statute likely unconstitutional as applied, and Khalil was released after 104 days in detention. 

The Future of the Digital Border

As immigration enforcement integrates algorithmic surveillance, the border is no longer confined to geography. It exists everywhere a user logs in. This new reality challenges long standing principles of due process, privacy and free expression.

Whether justified under national security, anti-hate policies, or fraud prevention, social media vetting transforms immigration law into a form of ideological policing. The challenge for policymakers is to balance legitimate screening needs with fundamental rights in an age when one tweet can determine a person’s future.

Cases like Mahmoud Khalil’s reveal how online activism can trigger enforcement actions that test the limits of constitutional and civil liberties protections. Legal scholars and advocates have urged Congress and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish clearer rules ensuring transparency in algorithms, limiting ideology based denials, and mandating bias audits of surveillance tools.

Future litigation will test how the First Amendment and due process doctrines evolve in an age where immigration enforcement operates through data analytics rather than physical checkpoints.

Ultimately, the key questions we must ask ourselves are:

To what extent can authorities treat social media activism as a legitimate factor in visa or green card adjudications?

Does using immigration law to penalize online speech amount to viewpoint discrimination?

The answers will shape not only the future of immigration law but the very boundaries of free speech in the digital age.

From Record Stores to FYPs: Social Media’s Impact on the Music Industry

Who remembers having to go out and buy a record or an 8 track or cassette tape? How about a CD or asking their parents if they can buy the newest songs on iTunes? I sure do, but today many kids and individuals turn to TikTok or other social media platforms to hear the latest songs. But what happens to the music that is used in these viral dances or over a post? Are they free to use just because everything is now digitized or are there still protections for artists and their music once it hits social media?

Social media, since its inception has played a role in musicians finding their big break online. Starting with Myspace in the early 2000s, huge stars like Calvin Harris, Adele and even Sean Kingston used Myspace to their advantage. They grew their fanbase, contacted record labels, and put their music out for the world to hear. One of the most well-known internet success stories for this generation is Justin Bieber and his discovery on YouTube. While covering a Chris Brown song at just 13 years old, caught the attention of music executive and the rest was history. Justin Bieber is one of the biggest household names of this generation being named 8th Greatest Pop Star of the 21st Century by Billboard Canada in 2024. Justin, however, wasn’t the only success story. Ed Sheeran, 5 Seconds of Summer, Charlie Puth, Tate McRae, and so many other artists found their success by posting covers, originals and other content on YouTube in the hopes of getting discovered like Justin Bieber had.

Following and alongside YouTube success, next came the wave of artists being discovered on the hit platform, Vine. Vine unlike YouTube could not have full videos on its platform. In 2012 Vine took the world by storm with only six-second videos. These videos were played on loops so that if you blinked…don’t worry it would play again. In 2013 many young aspiring stars again took to posting to the platform with the hopes of posting that one perfect video, but now they only had six seconds to impress. Shawn Mendes began posting on the app nearly at its inception. He began posting cover clips while he played the guitar.

“One Vine, Mendes posted a video of himself playing guitar while singing the hook to Bieber’s song “As Long As You Love Me” and received 10,000 likes overnight. He followed up with covers of Bruno Mars and other pop singers, and, by the spring, when Island and Massey came calling, he already assumed over 2.5 million followers on the service.”

Mendes soon got to record a hit song with Justin Bieber called “Monster” where the two got to show off their different styles and tell a story about the hardships that come with fame.

After Vine was shut down, artists turned back to other social media platforms to put out their music. And then the 2019 Covid Pandemic hit and TikTok entered the scene. Like Vine, TikTok had short videos that played on a loop. However, this time they were about 15-30 seconds when the app first started gaining traction in the US. Artists could post their videos of viral dances, cover music or even post daily get ready with me videos.

Again, TikTok produced up and coming stars who we know today such as Olivia Rodrigo, Lil Nas X and Alex Warren exploded once their songs became part of a viral trend or pick a song from the platforms “Trending” sounds in the sound library.

This is great, right!? All of these people using what is right at their fingertips to put themselves out there and make their dreams come true. But what happens when these viral songs are being used without the proper licensing or when they infringe on copyright law? This is an issue that has been on the rise in the exorbitant use of social media videos to promote companies, schools or in a popular video. So, let’s talk about it.

First what is copyright law?

“Copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship as soon as an author fixes the work in a tangible form of expression.”

This includes paintings, photographs, illustrations, musical compositions, sound recordings, computer programs, books, poems, blog posts, movies, architectural works and so much more!

So, what if you want to use a copyrighted work? Don’t panic! The Fair Use Doctrine explains that certain usage of these works is allowed.

“Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by promoting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.”

Section 107 calls for consideration of the following four factors in evaluating a question of fair use: purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

However, even with these laws in place, there are still recent cases of music being used in commercials, TikTok videos and on the platform without proper licensing agreements in place. It is not only the big companies that are facing copyright infringement suits, but also the influencers posting the content on behalf of the brands.

In recent there have been several major cases. Here are a few.

Sony Music Entertainment v. Marriott. In this case, Sony alleged that Marriott’s social media pages featured hundreds of videos. Sony sought to hold Marriott liable for their own posts as well as posts made by influencers and Marriott-franchised hotels. Sony claimed that it was entitled to more than $139,000,000 in statutory damages, as well as an injunction. The case was eventually dismissed with prejudice.

Sony Music Entertainment v. Gymshark. Sony claimed unauthorized use of 297 works in online advertisements posted by Gymshark and influencers. This consisted of music by Harry Styles, Beyoncé and Britney Spears in its Instagram and TikTok posts. This case was also dismissed with prejudice.

Music Publishers v. NBA.

“In July of 2024, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Inc. and other music companies filed suit against 14 NBA teams in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the latest ongoing battle between music publishers and organizations that allegedly use copyrighted material without proper authorization. These (teams) engaged in unauthorized use of copyrighted music in social media postings on Instagram, TikTok, X, Youtube, and Facebook and are seeking to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that their works are not exploited without due compensation.”

Sony Music Entertainment v. USC. Sony had previously warned the university about its use of unauthorized music in their posts. These posts were gaining major traction helping the school promote different games and events on campus.

“The law suit … cited 283 videos with songs from musicians including Michael Jackson, Britney Spears and AC/DC that USC’s sports teams supposedly used in TikTok and Instagram posts without licenses. Sony Music asked for statutory copyright damages of $150,000 per song, amounting to tens of millions of dollars in damages.” This case is still ongoing.

Warner Music Group v. DSW. This case again involves the use of music by the company in its ads and on social media along with its influencers without the proper licensing in place. Warner said that the musical works that were allegedly infringed by DSW were “some of the most popular sound recordings and musical compositions in the world.”

Although influencer marketing has helped so many companies grow on social media through the years, without the proper licensing, it leaves these companies and influencers vulnerable to potential copyright infringement. However, Universal Music Group, one of the world’s largest record labels notably pulled all of its music from TikTok due to licensing issues with the social media platform. This impacted video’s featuring songs by Billie Eilish, Drake, Taylor Swift and other big-name artists. Eventually UMG and TikTok struck a deal however while they were working things out, TikTok went silent on these sounds for nearly three months. So, what can influencers and apps due to limit their liability and risk of infringement?

First, social media companies can update their terms of service, which TikTok has done, to help its users avoid suits. Influencers who are posting for promotional content such as an advertisement usually require two different kinds of licenses. Synchronization license and master use license.

A Synchronization or sync license is, “required to pair a musical composition (i.e. the song) with visual content. It must be obtained from the copyright holder, which is usually the music publisher… To make things more complicated, a commercial song can often be co-owned by multiple copyright holders, which is why brands often partner with specialist music clearance agencies to obtain the necessary rights.”

A master use license is “needed if the brand wishes to use a specific recording of a song. It must be obtained from the owner of the recording – usually, a record label.”

By obtaining the proper licensing prior to posting many influencers and brands can post freely without the risk of copyright infringement and potentially risk their post being taken down or even a lawsuit being filed against them. Platforms like TikTok license with record labels so that their songs can be used through their platform library once they are properly licensed.

So while social media has been the place where so many incredible artists have found their fame, once they’ve recorded their hit album, the platform must properly license with the record labels to use their music otherwise they risk being taken to court for copyright infringement not only impacting their platform but also its users, the artists, and labels.

 

 

 

 

Influencing as a Career — the New Age of Endorsements

The Oxford English dictionary defines a celebrity as “the state of being well known, widely discussed, or publicly esteemed.” This broad and general definition can be attributed to any person who obtains publicity and a following, whether it be through sports, acting, modeling, music, etc… The concept of celebrities in our society has existed for centuries, dating back to Plato’s Symposium identifying Athenian celebrities such as the politician Alcibiades. When you think of a celebrity today, you may think of anyone ranging from Ryan Reynolds to Serena Williams.

The distinction here between celebrities and influencers lays heavily on building the authentic relationship with their audience. The Oxford English Dictionary broadly defines an influencer as a person “who influences”. Individuals are using platforms like TikTok or Instagram to post videos about their daily lives, share the new fashion trends of the season, and more. They build a career from making this content; collecting a following of social media users who watch, like, comment, repost, and most importantly, purchase what is being endorsed. It varies on the size of their followings, but influencers are an individual in a position of authority with fame and knowledge that obtains an authentic relationship with their audience.

 

Today however, the progression of social media has resulted in influencing becoming a sought after occupation. Brands are now not limited to traditional endorsements like commercials and magazines. With the rapid and accelerating integration of social media into our society, brands can now utilize cost-effective marketing strategies such as influencer endorsements. According to the Digital Marketing Institute, the influencer marketing industry is expected to reach approximately $32 billion by the end of 2025.

By using influencers to endorse their products, brands are reaching to highly engaged audiences through the influencers’ authority and authenticity. Influencer endorsements deals are “mutually beneficial collaborations” where brands partner with social media influencers to market and endorse their products. Given that influencers build their following and make their content based around this idea of authenticity, these influencer endorsement deals build greater credibility with the audience. By using influencers, brands are also using their followings, expanding outside of being limited to just individuals who are familiar with the brand. Two hundred million Instagram users visit a business account per day, and 80% of Instagram users are researching a company’s product or service on the popular social media platform. Brands utilize not only social media, but influencers who speak on their behalf for marketing purposes.

Essentially influencers become third-party contractors with such brands. They enter into contracts with brands that outline the terms of their employment, which is typically just being hired to post. This might seem like a simple enough career – post, promote, and get paid. However, behind the appealing concept of getting paid to post are underlying legal implications associated with content ownership and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines.

Title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States establishes that a work is created when it is fixed in a copy for the first time and when it is prepared over a period of time, any portion of it fixed at any time constitutes the work. This is important considering many endorsements deals content are not made in a single take. By “fixed”, Title 17 mans the work is in a tangible medium of expression in a copy or is able to be perceived, reproduced, or communicated. Title 17 also establishes that a work-made-for-hire is any work made by an employee within the scope of their employment, or a work specifically ordered for use as a contribution to a collective work.

If an influencer-brand contract fails to define ownership, content disputes may arise. However, under U.S. Copyright Law, the default rule applies, meaning the author who made the content owns the copyright from the moment it is fixed, in this case, that being the influencer. A brand can own influencer content through a written assignment signed by the creator, or a valid work-made-for-hire agreement under 17 U.S.C. §101. Content ownership is not the only legal area that influencers need to worry about. The FTC also has endorsement guidelines that influencers need to follow, such as disclosing that you are being sponsored and disclosing the connection between the endorser and marketer. Although the guides are not regulations, many lawsuits can and have been brought against the influencer, and brand, for unfair and deceptive marketing under FTC Act Section 5a, 15 U.S. Code §45. The FTC Act and Endorsement Guides essentially prohibits influencers and brands from using deceptive marketing tactics by not disclosing they are in an agreed sponsorship, and therefore upholding the authenticity of influencing.

Content ownership and FTC endorsements are only two implications that arise with influencer marketing. As influencing now rises into a new era of being a career, many influencers lack the power or experience to understand all implications associated with influencer endorsements. The good news is influencers’ deals are now covered under a SAG-AFTRA contract. SAG-AFTRA is the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists unions that represents approximately 160,000 actors, announcers, broadcast journalists, and a wide variety of other media professionals, now including influencers. SAG-AFTRA now has an influencer agreement that covers influencers with a union contract when hired by a brand to produce, perform, and distribute sponsored content on social media. How does this work? The influencers first bargain their rates with the brand, and once a contract is finalized, they use their business entity to sign up with SAG-AFTRA as the direct signatory for the project, ensuring a covered brand deal. A project qualifies if it is influencer-generated sponsored content made for distribution on a social media platform, including video or voiceover performance, with sole responsibility by the influencer for the production and distribution of the content, you are enlisted as a business entity, there is a contract with the advertiser, and you own the final content.

The influencer agreement under SAG-AFTRA is just one step in the right direction of ensuring influencers are properly represented and protected. The progression of social media is inevitable, and with that comes more posts and more influencers. It is a new concept of a career that is going to continue to develop rapidly as more social media platforms emerge, and as more brands shift away from traditional ads and into influencer marketing. With such, it is important to understand the implications behind having a career as an influencer and avoiding liability as an influencer.

Francesca Rocha

 

Fame, Free Speech, and Fantasy: Why It’s Time for Federal Action

The rise of fantasy sports has transformed how fans engage with professional athletics, blurring the boundaries between data, identity, and commerce. But, while online fantasy sports platforms continue to evolve into a mature, multi-billion-dollar industry, the balance between the publicity rights of the professional athletes featured on those mediums, and the First Amendment rights of the online intermediaries is still on delicate footing. 

As these platforms continue to advance, they expose a fundamental tension in our legal system: the fragmented and inconsistent nature of publicity rights across states. Professional athletes argue that the unlicensed or unapproved use of their names and statistics constitutes a commercial exploitation of their identities, while fantasy sports enterprises contend that such data are publicly available facts protected by the First Amendment. This unresolved conflict underscores the urgent need for a federal right of publicity statute…one that harmonizes legal standards, reduces costly litigation, and provides a coherent framework for balancing economic innovation with individual rights in the digital era.

What is the Right of Publicity?

The right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial use of someone’s name, image, or likeness. Most states have a publicity rights statute, however a statute is not a prerequisite to enforce one’s right of publicity. Many courts arrive at the same outcome using state common law.

In New York, the state’s publicity rights statute was interpreted by the court in Stephano v. News Group Publications, Inc.. In this case, the plaintiff was a fashion model who brought suit against the defendant, a photographer, who used his picture for commercial advertising purposes without the plaintiff’s consent, thus violating his statutory right of publicity. Here, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff.

Moreover, the court reasoned that the statute is not limited to situations where the defendant’s conduct has caused distress or harm to a person who wishes to lead a “private life free of all commercial publicity.” Rather, the court held that by its plain language, the statute applies to any use of any person’s image for commercial purposes whenever the defendant has not obtained the person’s written consent to do so. It follows from this decision that, regardless of a person’s publicity status (i.e., a professional athlete v. your average Joe), he is covered under the statute.

What’s in a Name?  

So — what does the court’s decision in Stephano have to do with the world of online fantasy sports and professional athletes? Well, athletes argue that the use of their names, images, and stats constitutes a commercial appropriation of their identities, allowing private companies to profit from their identities without consent or compensation. On the other hand, fantasy sports platforms maintain that players’ statistical data are publicly available facts, not proprietary information, and thus their use is protected under the First Amendment. This disagreement has placed courts in a difficult position, as fantasy sports platforms do not fit neatly into either category of commercial exploitation or pure free speech.

Conflict in the Courts

The unpredictable nature of the right of publicity is best illustrated through the inconsistent outcomes in key cases involving fantasy sports platforms. In C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, the Eighth Circuit confronted whether the use of player names and statistics in fantasy baseball products violated players’ rights of publicity. While acknowledging that a violation technically existed, the court held that the First Amendment interests in disseminating factual data outweighed those rights.

The District of Minnesota reached a similar conclusion in CBS Interactive v. NFL Players’ Association, extending the Eighth Circuit’s reasoning to fantasy football and reaffirming that the publication of player statistics equates constitutionally protected expression. Conversely, in Gridiron.com, Inc. v. NFL, the court took the opposite approach, rejecting the First Amendment defense and finding that the online platform’s use of player images and information constituted commercial exploitation in violation of the NFL Players Association’s exclusive licensing rights.

High Stakes Moving Forward

The latest test of this legal imbalance is now before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case of MLB Players Inc. v. DraftKings & Bet365. In its complaint, MLB Players, Inc. (the MLB’s Player Association group licensing subsidiary) alleges the online fantasy/gambling platforms of misappropriating the images and likenesses of numerous MLB players on their online and mobile platforms. Plaintiff emphasizes it was not suing “to protect MLB players’ personal privacy interest, but rather the commercial value of their NIL rights.” Still pending in federal court, the court’s ruling here could seta new precedent after 71 years of sports-related litigation arguing over professional athlete’s publicity rights.

Without a federal publicity rights statute and a lack of uniformity across jurisdictions, the ultimate burden falls onto the litigants. The troubling fact is that identical conduct may be lawful in one jurisdiction and unlawful in another. The end result? A legal patchwork that breeds uncertainty, invites forum shopping, and imposes significant litigation costs on all parties involved.

Regulating the Scroll: How Lawmakers Are Redefining Social Media for Minors

In today’s digital world, the question is no longer if minors use social media but how they use it. 

Social media platforms don’t just host young users, they shape their experiences through algorithmic feeds and “addictive” design features that keep kids scrolling long after bedtime. As the mental health toll becomes increasingly clear, lawmakers are stepping in to limit how much control these platforms have over young minds.

What is an “addictive” feed and why target it? 

Algorithms don’t just show content, they promote it. By tracking what users click, watch, or like, these feeds are designed to keep attention flowing. For minors, that means endless scrolling and constant engagement which typically is at the expense of sleep, focus, and self-esteem.

Under New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act, lawmakers found that:

 “social media companies have created feeds designed to keep minors scrolling for dangerously long periods of time.”

The Act defines an “addictive feed” as one that recommends or prioritizes content based on data linked to the user or their device.

The harms aren’t hypothetical. Studies link heavy social media use among teens with higher rates of depression, anxiety, and sleep disruption. Platforms often push notifications late at night or during school hours. Times when young users are most vulnerable. 

Features like autoplay, for you page, endless “you may also like” suggestions, and quick likes or comments can trap kids in an endless scroll. What begins as fun and harmless entertainment soon becomes a routine they struggle to escape.                              

 

Key Developments in Legislation 

It’s no surprise that minors exposure to social media algorithms sits at the center of today’s policy debates. Over the past two years, state and federal lawmakers have introduced laws seeking to rein in the “addictive” design features of online platforms. While many of these measures face ongoing rule making or constitutional challenges, together they signal a national shift toward stronger regulations of social media’s impact on youth. 

Let’s take a closer look at some of the major legal developments shaping this issue.

New York’s SAFE for Kids Act

New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act represents one of the nation’s most ambitious efforts to regulate algorithmic feeds. The law prohibits platforms from providing “addictive feeds” to users under 18 unless the platform obtains verifiable parental consent or reasonably determines that the user is not a minor. It also bans push notifications and advertisements tied to those feeds between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless parents explicitly consent. The rule making process remains ongoing, and enforcement will likely begin once these standards are finalized.

The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)

At the federal level, the Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA) seeks to create national baselines for youth protections online. Reintroduced to Congress, the bill would:

  • Ban social media accounts for children under 13.
  • Prohibit algorithmic recommendation systems for users under 17.
  • Restrict social media access in schools during instructional hours.

Supporters argue the bill is necessary to counteract the addictive nature of social media design. Critics, including digital rights advocates, question whether such sweeping restrictions could survive First Amendment scrutiny or prove enforceable at scale. 

KOSMA remains pending in Congress but continues to shape the national conversation about youth and online safety.

California’s SB 976 

California’s Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976) reflects a growing trend of regulating design features rather than content. The law requires platforms to:

  • Obtain parental consent before delivering addictive feeds to minors.
  • Mute notifications for minors between midnight and 6 a.m. and during school hours unless parents opt in.

The statute is currently under legal challenge for potential First Amendment violations, however, the Ninth Circuit allowed enforcement of key provisions to proceed suggesting that narrowly tailored design regulations aimed at protecting minors may survive early constitutional scrutiny.

Other State Efforts

Other states are following suit. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), at least 13 states have passed or proposed laws requiring age verification, parental consent, or restrictions on algorithmic recommendations for minors. Mississippi’s HB 1126, for example, requires both age verification and parental consent, and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to remain in effect while litigation continues. 

Final Thoughts

We are at a pivotal moment. The era when children’s digital consumption went largely unregulated is coming to an end. The question now isn’t if  regulation is on the horizon, it’s how it will take shape, and whether it can strike the right balance between safety, free expression, and innovation.

As lawmakers, parents, and platforms navigate this evolving landscape, one challenge remains constant: ensuring that efforts to protect minors from harmful algorithmic design do not come at the expense of their ability to connect, learn, and express themselves online.

What do you think is the right balance between protecting minors from harmful algorithmic exposure and preserving their access to social media as a space for connection and expression?

From Cute to Concerning: The Legal and Emotional Costs of Sharenting

After a long day at work, most people now sit down for a nice relaxing…scroll. That’s right, most people have social media and enjoy going through the latest posts to wind down or pass the time. Whether it’s on Instagram, Facebook, or TikTok someone is looking at a post made by a parent displaying their child doing something adorable, funny, documenting a family trip or marking a milestone like the first day of school. What seems like an innocent post, can be something much darker.

What is Sharenting

As social media gained traction in recent years, so did sharenting. Sharenting is  when

a parent overshares or excessively posts information, pictures stories or updates about their child’s life.

A proud parent could post the smiling face of their child at a sporting event on their private account thinking only family and friends will see it. Some parents even post daily vlogs involving their children making money on filming their day to day with strangers. Most parents engage in sharenting to share details of their child because they are proud of them. Some want to build a digital archive, or want to connect with loved ones. Others are even trying to build camaraderie with other parents, and they could even be trying to help others. Most parents do this with the purest motives in mind; however, their content is not always received as it is intended.

The Risks of Sharenting

Legal Risks

As established in Troxel v. Grainville, parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. This includes education, religion, and even social media. Parents have a First Amendment right to speech just as much as a child does when it comes to posting online. Parents are protected in their posting videos and pictures of their children under the First Amendment; however, this right is not unlimited. These restrictions apply in certain circumstances such as child explosion laws, or other compelling state interests.

Children also have a right to privacy that conflicts with their parents First Amendment right of speech and expression in the context of posting them online.  Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), significant protections for children’s online privacy were established. COPPA imposes certain requirements on operators of websites or online services directed

to children under 13 years of age, and on operators of other websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information online from a child under 13 years of age.

COPPA, however, only targets protecting children’s data not the actual child from the risks of being online.

Psychological Risks

 In addition to the legal risks of sharenting, there are also many psychological risks. What happens when a parent posts that one picture that comes back to haunt their child later on. These videos and images can be used by other students to bully the child down the road. Children can have a harder time developing their own image and identity when they are prescribed an online persona by their parents through their posts.

Even with pure motives, a survey of parents discussed by Dr. Albers of the Cleveland Health Clinic found that:

74% of parents using social media knew another parent engaging in sharenting behavior.

56% said the parents shared embarrassing information about their kid.

51% said the parent provided details that revealed their child’s location.

27% said the parent circulated inappropriate phots.

The impact that these posts that, once are made are always out there, can be detrimental to a child’s mental health. Social media, according to the Mayo Clinic, already amplifies adolescents’ anxiety and depression. Parents can add to this by sharenting.

Other Risks

These seemingly innocent posts can often lead to greater risks,  for their children than most parents realize. In addition to negative psychological impacts, sharenting can endanger the child’s mental health as well as their physical health. Sharenting is a window directly into a child’s life, one which a predator can abuse. Images can be taken from their parents accounts and shared to sites for pedophiles.

The taking of these images can also enable identity theft, harassment, bullying, exploitation and even violence.

Parents who have gotten famous from posting their kids like the Labrant Family and The Fisher’s have increased their kids risk of being subject to one of these crimes by constantly posting them online.

Sharenting can blur the line between a fun posts and advertising your child to strangers.  In extreme situations creating dangerous environments for internet famous children.

Parents are also contributing to their child’s digital identity which could impact their future educational and employment prospects. It could also lead to embarrassment that the content was shared, and they cannot get rid of it.

How Can Parents Protect their Kids

As social media continues to grow and be a part of our daily lives, parents can take action to protect their children going forward. One way parents can do this is by blurring or covering their child’s face with an emoji. Parents can still have the excitement of posting their child’s achievements or milestones without exposing their identity to the internet.

Parents can think before they post.

If you’re trying to decide whether a post counts as sharenting, ask yourself these questions:

What’s the content?

Why am I posting it?

Who’s my intended audience? Have I set my permissions accordingly?

Is my child old enough to understand the concept of a digital footprint? If they are, did I ask their consent? If not, do I think they’d be happy to see this online when they’re older?

Sharenting is not going to stop, but it can evolve to be done in a way that protects a parent’s right to post and their child’s safety.

 

End The Loop

Have you ever found yourself stuck in an endless loop of viewing social media posts as time flies by? It’s likely. On average, people spend about 2 hours and 24 minutes on social media daily, that is 144 minutes. It is time for users to take back control of their daily lives. But how? Well, Ethan Zuckerman is at the forefront of empowering users to control their social media algorithms.

 

Photo Credits

 

 

 

 

Unfollow Everything 2.0

When users of Facebook friend request another person upon being accepted, they automatically “follow” the person. This means they will see all their posts on their Home Page. Following every page, friend, or group you are involved with is what creates the infinite loop of posts users get sucked into. Right now, there is no extension or tool that gives users the ability to combat infinite scrolling on social media platforms.

Ethan Zuckerman is in the process of creating a browser extension that lets Facebook users unfollow all of their friends, groups, and pages with the click of a button. 

Here’s how it works: When a user activates the browser extension, Unfollow Everything 2.0 causes the user’s browser to retrieve their list of friends, groups, and pages from Facebook. The tool would then comb through the “followed” list, causing the browser to ask Facebook to unfollow each friend, group, or page on the users list. The tool would allow the user to select friends, groups, and pages to refollow or gives the option keep their newsfeed blank and view only content that they seek out. It would also encrypt the user’s “followed“ list and save it locally on the user’s device, which would allow the user to keep the list private while still being able to automatically reverse the unfollowing process. By unfollowing everything, users can eliminate their entire News Feed. This leaves them free to use Facebook without the feed or to more actively curate it by refollowing only those friends and groups whose posts they really want to see.

Note that this isn’t the same as unfriending. By unfollowing their friends, groups, and pages, users remain connected to them and can look up their profiles at their convenience.

Tools like Unfollow Everything 2.0 can help users have better and safer online experiences by allowing them to gain control of their feeds without the involvement of government regulation.

 

Photo Credits:

 

 

Unfollow Everything 1.0

The original version of the tool ” Unfollow Everything 1.0” was created by British developer Louis Barclay in 2021. Barclay believed that unfollowing everything but remaining friends with everyone on the app and staying in all the user-joined groups forced users to use Facebook deliberately rather than as an endless time-suck.“I still remember the feeling of unfollowing everything for the first time. It was near-miraculous. I had lost nothing, since I could still see my favorite friends and groups by going to them directly. But I had gained a staggering amount of control. I was no longer tempted to scroll down an infinite feed of content. The time I spent on Facebook decreased dramatically. Overnight, my Facebook addiction became manageable.”

Barclay eventually received a cease and desist letter and was permanently banned from using the Facebook platform. Meta claims he violated their terms of service.

Meta’s Current Model

Currently, there is no way for users to not automatically follow every friend, page, and group on Facebook that they have liked or befriended, forcing the endless feed of posts users to see on their timelines.

Metas’ steps to unfollow everything involve manually going through each friend, group, or business and clicking the unfollow button. This task can take hours as users tend to have hundreds of connections; this is likely deterring users from going through the extensive process of regaining control over their social media algorithm.

Meta unfollow someone’s profile Directions:

  • Go to that profile by typing their profile name into the search bar at the top of Facebook.
  • Click at the top of their profile.
  • Click Unfriend/Unfollow, then Confirm

 

 

Photo Credits:

 

 

Making a Change:

Unfollow Everything 2.0 filed a preemptive lawsuit asking the court to determine whether Facebook users’ news feeds contain objectionable material that users should be able to filter out to enjoy the platform. They argue that Unfollow Everything 2.0 is the type of tool Section 230(c)(2) intended to encourage by giving users more control over their online experiences and adequate ability to filter out content they do not want.

Zuckerman explains users currently have little to no control over how they use social media networks. “We basically get whatever controls Facebook wants. And that’s actually pretty different from how the internet has worked historically.“

Meta, in its defense against Unfollow Everything 2.0 (Ethan Zuckerman), is pushing the court to rule that a platform such as Facebook can circumvent Section 230(c)(2) through its terms of service.

Section 230

Section 230 is known for providing immunity for online computer services regarding third-party content users generate. Section 230(c)(1): “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”  While Section 230(c)(1) has been a commonly litigated topic, Section 230(c)(2) however, has been rarely discussed in front of the courts.

So what is Section 230(c)(2)? Section 230(c)(2) was adopted to allow users to regulate their online experiences through technological means, including tools like Unfollow Everything 2.0.  Force V. Facebook (2019) discretions that Section 230(c)(2)(B) provides immunity from claims based on actions that “enable or make available to . . . others the technical means to restrict access to” the same categories of “objectionable” material.  Essentially, Section 230(c)(2)(B) empowers people to have control over their online experiences by providing immunity to the  3rd party developers of extensions/tools that users can use with social networking platforms such as Facebook.

 

Photo Credits:

 

 

Timeline of Litigation

May 1, 2024: Zuckerman filed a lawsuit asking the court to recognize that Section 230 protects the development of tools that empower social media users to control what they see online.

July 15, 2024: Meta filed a motion to dismiss on the lack of Zuckerman’s standing at the current time.

August 29, 2024: Zuckerman filed an opposition to Meta’s motion to dismiss.

November 7, 2024: Dismissed. However, the researcher could file at a later date because his tool was not complete at the time of the suit. Once developed, it will likely test the law.

Why social media companies do not want this:

Companies like Meta want to prevent these 3rd party extensions as much as possible because it’s in their best interest to continuously keep users engaged. Keeping users on their platform allows Meta to display more advertisements, which is their primary source of revenue. Meta’s large scale of users gives advertisers an excellent opportunity to have their message reach a broad audience. For example, in 2023, Meta generated $134 billion in revenue, 98% of which came from advertising. By making it difficult for users to control their feed adequately, Meta can make more money. If the extension of Unfollow Everything was released to the public, Meta would likely need to shift their prioritization model.

The potential future of section 230:

What’s next? In the event that the court rules in favor of Zuckerman in a future trial, giving users an expanded ability to control their social mediaitIt likely isn’t the end of the problem. Social Media Platforms have previously changed their algorithms to prevent third-party tools from being used on platforms. For example, X (then Twitter)  put an end to Block Party‘s user tool by changing its API (Application Programming Interface) pricing.

Lawmakers will need to step in to fortify users’ control over their Social media algorithms. It is unreasonable to forsee the massive media conglomerates willingly giving up control that would negatively affect their ability to generate revenue.

For now, if users wish to take the initiative and control their social media usage, Android and Apple allow their consumers to regulate specific app usage in their phone settings.

Due Process vs. Public Backlash: Is it Time to Cancel Cancel Culture?

Throughout history, people have often challenged and criticized each other’s ideas and opinions. But with the rise of internet accessibility, especially social media, the way these interactions unfold have changed. Now, it’s easy for anyone to call out someone else’s behavior or words online, and the power of social media makes it simple to gather a large group of people to join in. What starts as a single person’s post can quickly turn into a bigger movement, with others sharing the same views and adding their own criticism. This is cancel culture.

Cancel culture has become a highly relevant topic in today’s digital world, especially because it often leads to serious public backlash and consequences for people or companies seen as saying or doing something offensive. The phrase “cancel culture” first originated from the word cancel, meaning to cut ties with someone. In the abstract, this concept aims to demand accountability, but it also raises important legal questions. When does criticism go too far and become defamation? How does this “online backlash” affect a person’s right to fair treatment? And what legal options are available for those who feel unfairly targeted by “cancel culture”?

 

What Is Cancel Culture?

Cancel culture is a collective online call-out and boycott of individuals, brands, or organizations accused of offensive behavior, often driven by social media. Critics argue that it can lead to mob justice, where people are judged and punished without proper due process. On the other hand, supporters believe it gives a voice to marginalized groups and holds powerful people accountable in ways that traditional systems often fail to. It’s a debate about how accountability should work in a digital age—whether it’s a tool for justice or a dangerous trend that threatens free speech and fairness.

The impact of cancel culture can be extensive, leading to reputational harm, financial losses, and social exclusion. When these outcomes affect a person’s livelihood or well-being, the legal implications become significant, because public accusations, whether true or false, can cause real damage.

In a Pew Research study from September 2020, 44% of Americans reported being familiar with the term “cancel culture,” with 22% saying they were very familiar. Familiarity with the term varies by age, with 64% of adults under 30 aware of it, compared to 46% of those ages 30-49 and only 34% of people 50 and older. Individuals with higher levels of education are also more likely to have heard of cancel culture. Political affiliation shows little difference in awareness, although more liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans tend to be more familiar with the term than their moderate counterparts.

 

Cancel Culture x Defamation Law

In a legal context, defamation law is essential in determining when online criticism crosses the line. Defamation generally involves a false statement presented as fact that causes reputational harm.

To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, plaintiffs must show:

  • a false statement purporting to be fact;
  • publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
  • fault amounting to at least negligence; and
  • damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

US Dominion, Inc. v. Fox News Network, Inc. is a defamation case highlighting how the media can impact reputations. Dominion sued Fox News for $1.6 billion, claiming the network falsely accused it of being involved in election fraud during the 2020 presidential election. Fox News defended itself by saying that it was simply reporting on claims made by others, even if those claims turned out to be false. The case was settled in March 2023 for $787.5 million, showing that media outlets can be held accountable when they spread information without regard for the truth. This is similar to how cancel culture works – individuals or companies can face backlash and reputational damage based on viral accusations that may not be fully verified. Ultimately, the case highlights how defamation law can provide legal recourse for those harmed by false public statements while emphasizing the balance between free speech and accountability in today’s fast paced digital environment.

 

Free Speech vs. Harm: The Tensions of Cancel Culture

Cancel culture brings to light the ongoing tension between free speech and reputational harm. On one hand, it provides a platform for people to criticize others and hold them accountable for their actions. However, the consequences of these public accusations can be severe, leading to job loss, emotional distress, and social isolation—sometimes even beyond what the law might consider fair.

While the First Amendment protects free speech, it doesn’t cover defamatory or harmful speech. This means people can face consequences for their words, especially when they cause harm. But in the realm of cancel culture, these consequences can sometimes feel disproportionate, where the public reaction can go beyond what might be considered reasonable or just. This raises concerns about fairness and justice – whether the punishment fits the crime, especially when the public can amplify the damage in ways that the legal system may not address.

In Cajune v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 194, the Eighth Circuit Court addressed a First Amendment issue regarding the display of “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) posters in classrooms. The case revolves around whether the school district’s policies, which allow teachers to choose whether to display these posters, restrict or support free speech. The plaintiffs argue that this limitation on expression resembles the broader dynamics of cancel culture, where certain viewpoints can be suppressed or silenced. Much like cancel culture, where individuals or ideas are “canceled” for holding or expressing controversial views, this case touches on how institutions control public expression. If the district restricts messages like “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter,” it could be seen as institutional “canceling” of dissenting or unpopular opinions, which can show how cancel culture restricts diverse speech. This shows the clash between promoting free speech and managing controversial messages in public spaces.

 

New York’s Anti-SLAPP Law

New York’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law is also highly relevant in the context of cancel culture, especially for cases involving public figures. This statute protects defendants from lawsuits intended to silence free speech on matters of public interest. In 2020, New York amended the law to broaden protections, allowing it to cover speech on any issue of public concern.

In Gottwald v. Sebert (aka Kesha v. Dr. Luke), New York’s Court of Appeals upheld a high legal standard for defamation claims made by public figures, by requiring them to prove actual malice. This means Dr. Luke would need to show that Kesha knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard. The court’s decision highlights the strong free speech protections that apply to public figures, making it difficult for them to win defamation cases unless they provide clear evidence of malice. This reflects how cancel culture incidents involving public figures are subject to stricter legal standards.

 

Social Media Platforms: Responsibility and Liability

Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram play an important role in cancel culture by allowing for public criticism and allowing for rapid, widespread responses. Section 230 shields platforms from liability for user generated content, so they typically aren’t held liable if users post defamatory or harmful content. However, recent Supreme Court decisions upholding Section 230 protections highlight the tension between free speech and holding platforms accountable. These decisions have affirmed that platforms aren’t liable for third-party content, which affects the spread of cancel culture by limiting individuals’ ability to hold platforms accountable for hosting potentially defamatory or harmful content.

 

Legal Recourse for the Cancelled

For individuals targeted by cancel culture, legal options are limited but exist. Potential actions include:

  • Defamation lawsuits: If individuals can prove they were defamed, they may recover damages.
  • Privacy claims: Those whose personal information is shared publicly without consent.
  • Wrongful termination suits: If cancel culture leads to job loss, employees may have grounds for legal action if the termination was discriminatory or violated their rights.
  • Pursuing legal action can be difficult, especially given New York’s high standard for defamation and its expanded anti-SLAPP protections. In cases involving public figures, plaintiffs face many obstacles due to the requirement of proving actual malice.

 

Looking Ahead: Can the Law Catch Up with Cancel Culture?

As cancel culture continues to evolve, legislature will continue to face challenges in determining how best to regulate it. Reforms in privacy laws, online harassment protections, and Section 230 could provide clearer boundaries, but any change will have to account for free speech protections. Cancel culture poses a unique legal and social challenge, as public opinion on accountability and consequences continues to evolve alongside new media platforms. Balancing free expression with protections against reputational harm will likely remain a major challenge for future legal developments.

Skip to toolbar