Who Owns Your Company's Twitter Followers?

14 May 2012 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
More and more companies are turning to social media for marketing, and in some cases are creating accounts on Twitter.com, a social networking service which allows a use to send updates or “tweets” of 140 characters or less to its “followers,” people who have subscribed to that user’s content (even Foley & Lardner LLP has its own Twitter presence, which can be found at: http://twitter.com/#!/FoleyandLardner. As corporate use of social media tools grows, so do the inevitable issues with managing employees’ use of these tools. A case going forward in California right now illustrates a potential problem with the corporate use of Twitter: what happens when the employee who created and managed a Twitter account on behalf of the company leaves and takes the Twitter account and its followers with him?

In PhoneDog LLC v. Kravitz, the employee created a Twitter account to provide reviews of cellular phones as part of his job with PhoneDog, a provider of mobile device news and reviews. The Twitter account was called “@phonedog_noah” (all Twitter account names begin with the @ symbol). The Defendant amassed 17,000 Twitter followers at this account. When he left PhoneDog, he simply changed the user name of the account to @noahkravitz and kept using it, broadcasting new content to the 17,000 people who had begun following him while he worked at PhoneDog. This content was not related to PhoneDog and did not link back to its site. In fact, PhoneDog alleged he was using the Twitter account to disparage it. PhoneDog sued him for misappropriation of trade secrets related to the Twitter account, as well as interfering with its business relationships with its Twitter followers. PhoneDog claims its Twitter followers can be valued at $2.50 per month per follower and that as a result of Kravitz taking the Twitter feed, followers no longer clicked on links to its site, which caused its advertising revenue to decrease. This case is ongoing, and the court declined to dismiss the action, meaning that if PhoneDog can prove its claims, and its damages, it may be able to recover against Kravitz for his use of the Twitter account after his departure from PhoneDog.

The PhoneDog case illustrates the need for clear corporate social media policies. If your company has a Twitter account that one employee maintains, your policies should account for what will happen to that account should the employee leave. Clearly stated policies which account for the possibility of account turnover if needed will help protect the social media assets your company has developed.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA