Forum Selection Does Not Automatically Attach to a Post

Who knew issues of personal jurisdiction could be so emotional.  Late last year, the District Court for the Central District of California ruling on the matter in JIbJab Media v. White Castle Managment, 2012 WL 6916586,  issued an opinion on whether White Castle Management Co., makers of the famous White Castle burger, could be hauled into California Court for a Facebook social media campaign, aimed at consumers in the Midwest and New York.  Apparently the campaign was visible to all Facebook viewers; however, Californians viewing the campaign would have to drive at least 1000 miles for the crispy chicken rings that White Castle was trying to sell.

Plaintiff in the case, JibJab, the social media group that gained prominence with their 2004 Presidential Campaing parodies, argued that White Castle’s social media campaign, which centers on its Jib Jab Chicken Ring, is a violation of trademark infringement.   According to Jib Jab, whose main offices are in Santa Monica, Cal., White Castle, used the name and a logo-like picture to accompany the virtues of what the company itself termed the “#7 grossest fast food in the country.”

But getting back to the jurisdictional issue… Jib Jab maintained that the California Court should ascertain specific jurisdiction over WC Management, the holding company of White Castle, because the company “expressly aimed” a brief social media campaign at the California Market.  “Express aiming” is met when “the defendant is alleged to have engaged in wrongful conduct targeted at a plaintiff whom the defendant knows to be a resident of the forum state.”  The Court’s ruling suggests that judge hearing the case was clearly appalled at the chutzpah like suggestion of Jib Jab, calling the claim astonishing because the promotion at issue pertained to the promotion of a single food item, Chicken Rings,  that was offered and served only at restaurants located in the Midwestern United States and New York City metropolitan area.

The lesson to be learned here;  submission to a particular forum does not attach to every Tweet, Post or YouTube video.

Research for Paper Topics

Hello all, as I was attempting to find some research for my own topic involving social media and matrimonial law I cam across this article titled, “INVASION CONTRACTS: THE PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS OF TERMS OF USE AGREEMENTS IN THE ONLINE SOCIAL MEDIA SETTING” cited as Jared S. Livingston, Invasion Contracts: The Privacy Implications of Terms of Use Agreements in the Online Social Media Setting, 21 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 591 (2011). Although this is not related to my own topic, I do know that someone in class was talking about this being a part of this topic so I figured I would post it for all who may be interested or writing about user agreements and you can find the article on Westlaw or Lexus. Hope you are all having a great monday!

Another day, another proposed piece of social media legislation

This one comes from the great state of Virginia.  Virginia lawmakers are considering a bill to permit parental access to a deceased child’s digital accounts. The bill defines digital accounts as “blogging, e-mail, multimedia, personal, social networking, and other online accounts..”  The bill mirrors legislation other jurisdictions are considering, which are designed to grant survivors the benefits of a decedent’s social media estate.  The Virginia Law, however, differs in that it is limited to minor decedents, most of whose estates may not have the financial value of adults who have cultivated a profitable empire through blogging, twitter or the like.  Though not expressely stated, one can assume that Virgnia lawmakers, in adopting the law, are hoping to provide parents with information of value concerning instances of “cyber-bullying”  or unintended consequence of social interaction.  Minors can circumvent the measure through through language in a will or other trust instrument.

Of particular note is the drafting of the bill, which  leaves room for future, anticipated or perhaps even unforeseeable expansion of social media, by including in its definition of digital accounts, “other on-line accounts or comparable items as technology develops.”  The language provides lawmakers with a future-catchall and will potentially guard against the all to common problem of laws playing catch-up with rapid technological advances.  One has to wonder, however, if such broad language could survive a “void for vagueness” challenge.

Anonymous Yelp reviews not hearsay.

A Florida Federal District Court judge ruled that reviews posted on Yelp, the social media site that invites people to review local businesses,  potentially illustrated evidence of “customer confusion,” an element of trademark infringement.  An article appearing in Bloomberg Social Media Law and Policy Report highlighted the case, which concerns a challenge by You Fit, Inc. a national gym chain against a defendants who chose to name their Florida gym, Fit U.   You Fit sought to introduce two Yelp postings that explained consumer confusion.  One such posting began “I am soo confused.”  Defendants in the case argued that the reviews were hearsay and therefore inadmissible.  The court, however, disagreed and concluded that the posters’ declarations were admissible since they demonstrated “the then existing mental state of the declarents who posted the comments.”

SNOPA reintroduced in Congress

Three members of the House of Representatives have  reintroduced the Social Network OnLine Protection Act  last week.  SNOPA would prohibit employers, potential employers, schools and school admissions officials from requiring employees and or students to provide social media passwords or other information used to access online accounts.  SNOPA was first introduced last spring but dies when Congress adjourned at the end of 2012.

 

Pintrest not immune to a Winklevoss-type lawsuit

What were you doing December 27?  While many people were pinning pictures on pintrest.com, perhaps of of New Year’s Eve Feasts or Dream Vacations for yet realized February Blizzards, Attorney Theodore F. Shroeder was filing a law suit in the Southern District of New York against Pintrest founder Brian Cohen for allegedly stealing his idea for what Cohen turned into Pintrest.com.  The complaint reads like the Social Network screenplay.  According to the complaint, while a Colombia Law School student, Shroeder developed the idea for pinning things of interest to a “board.”  Shroeder subsequently brought on a few investors, Cohen being one of them.  But according to the complaint, Cohen stalled Shroeder’s project and misappropriated the idea for his own use.  Schroeder specifically alleges that Cohen “caused the project deadlock so that he could steal the core ideas for himself and freeze out the Plaintiff from reaping benefits.”

This sounds like one to watch.

Facebook Does Not “Like” Being Sued

Facebook is being sued, yet again.  A Dutch company, Rembrandt Social Media, filed a suit on Febrauary  4, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia claiming that  Facebook’s “Like” button and other features infringe on patents. Mr. Van Der Meer, a computer scientist, began working on his website “Surfbook” before his death in 2004.  In 1998, Mr Van Der Meer was granted the patents.  This was 5 years before Facebook appeared.

Is this the beginning of the end to Facebook’s “Like” button?

Protecting Facebook Privacy

The past few days there have been a lot of interesting articles on Facebook. I thought this most recent one would be particularly important to all law students or any professional making sure job searching is not hindered by what is put on facebook. This article explains how to protect everything you have on facebook.

With all of the hoops one has to jump through to keep his private information private, it makes me wonder if Facebook is even worth it all. Here is an interesting article about how a lot of people have just given up on Facebook altogether because it is too much of a hassle to keep everything about their lives updated and private.

In light of these two articles, I think it is rather interesting how one father prohibits his daughter’s use of Facebook. For all of us that have grown up with Facebook usage being the norm, our first reaction is probably “how dare he do that? She has the right to have Facebook!!!” But when it comes down to all the hoops one has to go through to keep information about one’s personal life private, and the fact that many now conclude that the site   isn’t even worth using, then maybe this over-protective father is doing his daughter a favor. I would greatly appreciate anybody’s thoughts on these.

 

Social Media’s Role in Trump v. Maher

Donald Trump is suing Bill Maher for breach of contract.   Last month Maher made an announcement during the Jay Leno show that he would pay the charity of Trump’s choice $5 million if Trump released his birth certificate.  Maher made the offer in response to Trump’s seemingly illogical calls for President O’Bama’s birth certificate, which he made as head of the so called birther movement.  Trump, who in the court filings identifies himself as “a highly successful businessman, investor, and television personality” claims that Maher’s failure to honor the offer constitutes a breach. So  what does social media have to do with the seemingly easy contracts case?  In his complaint, Trump alleges that Maher “engaged in base insults, stating that Mr. Trump’s postings on the Twitter social networking service are the work of a “syphilitic monkey.”  Not sure what these posts have to do with a contracts claim; the comments might be better suited for libel.  Except there are a host of defenses for Maher on this one; truth, privilege, failure to cause special damages, absence of malice (after all, by his own admission, Trump is a public figure)   Which one’s do you think would stick?

Skip to toolbar