Social Media

Last Friday, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) ruled that two employees of a sports bar and restaurant were unlawfully discharged for their participation in a Facebook discussion criticizing their employer.  In the Facebook discussion that prompted the firings, a former employee complained in a status update that she owed more taxes than expected because of withholding mistakes by the employer.  The employee commented on the status, “I owe too.  Such an asshole,” and was discharged.  A second employee, who “liked” the former employee’s status, was discharged as well.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act provides, in relevant part, “Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . . .”  At issue in this case was not whether the employees’ Facebook activity was “concerted” or whether the employees had a statutorily protected right to engage in a Facebook discussion about the employer’s tax-withholding practices.  Rather, the case centered on whether, as a result of their actions on Facebook, the two employees adopted the allegedly defamatory and disparaging statements contained in the former employee’s Facebook status and therefore lost the protection of the Act.
Continue Reading NLRB Finds Employee’s Facebook “Like” and Comment Protected By Labor Law

In a closing letter declining to bring enforcement action against shoemaker Cole Haan, FTC staff stated that it believes “Pins” on Pinterest featuring a company’s products can constitute an endorsement of those products, and that if the pins are incentivized by the opportunity to win a significant prize in a contest, contestants should be instructed to label their pins appropriately. 

The closing letter follows an investigation into whether Cole Haan violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act in connection with its “Wandering Sole” Pinterest Contest.  Section 5 of the FTC Act protects consumers from “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”  Pursuant to its Section 5 authority, the FTC requires disclosure when there exists a connection between a product endorser and the seller of the advertiser product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience). 

For a chance to win a $1,000 shopping spree, Wandering Sole contestants were instructed to create Pinterest boards that included five re-pins of shoe images from Cole Haan’s Wandering Sole Pinterest Board.  According to the FTC, these re-pinned images featuring Cole Haan shoes constituted product endorsements that were “incentivized by the opportunity to win” a shopping spree, therefore creating a material connection requiring disclosure.  The contest rules directed contestants to caption each pin with “#WanderingSole,” but the FTC determined that the hashtag was not adequate in communicating the material connection — i.e., financial incentive — between Cole Haan and its contestants.  The FTC concluded that “entry into a contest to receive a significant prize in exchange for endorsing a product through social media constitutes a material connection that would not reasonably be expected by viewers of the endorsement.”Continue Reading FTC Cole Haan Closing Letter: Encouraging Pinterest “Pins” in a Contest Can Trigger Endorsement Guidelines

FDA has previously included claims made on Facebook or other social media platforms along with broader allegations of misbranding using a variety of sources in its enforcement letters . . . [b]y contrast, the present untitled letter focuses solely on a single statement on a Facebook page, and does not take issue with any statements outside the Facebook page.
Continue Reading FDA Issues Untitled Letter Focused On Promotional Claims On Facebook

On January 13, 2014, FDA issued a draft guidance document entitled “Fulfilling Regulatory Requirements for Postmarketing Submissions of Interactive Promotional Media for Prescription Human and Animal Drugs and Biologics.” This draft guidance addresses the procedural topic of submitting Forms FDA 2253 and 2301 when firms use social media…

Continue Reading FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Postmarketing Requirements for Promotion on Social Media

Earlier this month, we blogged about the California Senate’s passage of the bill titled “Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World”, which prohibits certain targeted advertising to California minors and requires that minors be allowed to delete materials they have posted online.  Yesterday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed…

Continue Reading CA Governor Signs Bill Providing Online Protections For Minors

New Jersey has enacted restrictions on the ability of employers to access employees’ social media accounts, becoming the twelfth state to enact such legislation. More than 30 state legislatures have considered bills on the topic in 2013, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

New Restrictions in New Jersey

New Jersey’s new law, signed by Governor Chris Christie on August 29 and effective December 1, generally prohibits employers from requiring or requesting that employees or prospective employees “provide or disclose any user name or password, or in any way provide the employer access to, a personal account through an electronic communications device.” Employers also may not require individuals to waive the law’s protections or retaliate against individuals who refuse prohibited requests or file complaints with the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development about violations of the law. An earlier version of the law, passed by the legislature but vetoed by Gov. Christie, also would have allowed aggrieved individuals to file civil suits for injunctions, damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs.Continue Reading New Jersey Restricts Employer Access to Employees’ Personal Online Accounts

Last Friday the California Senate unanimously passed legislation titled, “Privacy Rights for California Minors in the Digital World,” which prohibits certain types of marketing to minors (defined as a natural person under the age of 18 residing in California) and allows minors to delete materials they have posted online.  The bill, which already cleared the California Assembly, now has been sent to Governor Jerry Brown for approval.  If signed into law, the legislation would be effective beginning January 1, 2015. 

The bill, S.B. 365, which was introduced by Senator Darrell Steinberg, adds two new sections to the California Business & Professions Code.

Section 22580 would:

  • Prohibit an operator of a website, online service or application, or mobile application that is directed to minors from marketing or advertising on the service or application certain enumerated products or services that minors cannot otherwise legally purchase or use.  While some of these products and services may be obvious—e.g., alcohol, firearms, tobacco, and obscene materials—others—e.g., tanning and etching cream that is capable of defacing property—may be less so.  
  • Prohibit an operator of a website, online service or application, or mobile application from marketing or advertising the enumerated products or services where the operator has actual knowledge a minor is using its service or application, if the marketing or advertising is directed to that minor based on information specific to the minor such as profile, activity, address, or location, but excluding IP addresses and product identification numbers.  The operator shall be deemed in compliance with this provision if it takes reasonable actions in good faith designed to avoid marketing or advertising under these circumstances.
  • Prohibit an operator of a website, online service or application, or mobile application that is directed to minors or who has actual knowledge that a minor is using its service or application from knowingly using, disclosing, or compiling the personal information of a minor (or allowing a third party to do so) with actual knowledge that such activity is for purposes of marketing or advertising the enumerated products or services to that minor. 
  • These prohibitions do not apply, however, to the incidental placement of products or services embedded in content, if the content is not distributed by or at the direction of the operator primarily for the purposes of marketing and advertising the enumerated products or services.
  • Additionally, “marketing or advertising” is defined to require an “exchange for monetary compensation” in order “to make a communication to one or more individuals, or to arrange for the dissemination to the public of a communication, about a product or service the primary purpose of which is to encourage recipients of the communication to purchase or use the product or service.”  Thus, social media content or applications that only promote an enumerated product or service without paid placement would not fall within the scope of the bill. 

Continue Reading CA Legislature Passes Bill Establishing Online Protections for Minors

Many employers have been surprised by recent rulings that two common employment policies run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) even if their employees are not union members.  Based on a legitimate interest in preserving confidentiality and privacy, many employers have adopted social media policies limiting what employees may post on Facebook or Twitter about their employer or co-workers.  Based on similar privacy considerations, employer procedures for investigating sexual harassment and other complaints often place restrictions on what employees may reveal to their co-workers or others about the allegations.  According to recent decisions, however, both policies may violate Section 7 of the NLRA, which permits employees to engage in “concerted activity” for “mutual aid and protection.”

Section 7.  It is well established under the NLRA that employees may confer with one another about their wages and other terms of employment and may take  “concerted” action in an effort to improve their working conditions.  Employees (but not managers) are protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, whether or not they are members of a union. But employers rarely face Section 7 issues since claims under Section 7 must be asserted in charges filed with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), and few employees do so.   

Confidentiality of Complaint Investigations.  Enforcement Guidance issued by the EEOC directs employers conducting investigations of workplace harassment to assure complainants that they “will protect the confidentiality of harassment complaints to the extent possible.”  Employers routinely adopt policies asking employees who are part of workplace investigations, either as complainant or witness, to keep such investigations confidential.  Such policies help ensure the integrity of investigations, prevent workplace retaliation for participation in investigations, protect the privacy of complainants, and foster an environment where employees will readily report harassment concerns.Continue Reading The NLRB Strikes Down Employer Policies on Social Media and the Confidentiality of Complaint Investigations

After gaining prominence in 2012, state legislation restricting access to personal social media accounts by employers and schools has remained active.  Three more states have enacted their own restrictions thus far in 2013, and bills are pending in more than two dozen other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2012, Illinois and Maryland  enacted social media privacy laws restricting employers, Delaware and New Jersey enacted laws restricting academic institutions, and California and Michigan enacted both employer- and school-focused restrictions.

So far this year, Utah, New Mexico, and Arkansas have enacted their own restrictions. Utah enacted two laws — the Internet Employment Privacy Act and the Internet Postsecondary Education Privacy Act — as part of one bill, HB100, which was signed into law on March 26 and takes effect May 14. New Mexico enacted two separate bills — SB 371 and SB 422 — focusing on employers and post-secondary schools, respectively. Both bills were signed April 5 and take effect on June 14. In Arkansas, a bill imposing restrictions on public and private post-secondary schools was enacted as Act 998 on April 8.  Below is more information about each.Continue Reading Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas are Latest States to Restrict Access by Employers or Schools to Personal Social Media Accounts