Court Rules on Social Media Sites' Privacy Settings
On May 26th, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that, under the Stored Communications Act of 1986, postings to a user’s Facebook “wall” (and, similarly, to the “comments” page on MySpace – although nobody actually uses MySpace anymore) are considered private so long as the user has his privacy settings set such that only “friends” can see his wall postings. Accordingly, such private communications are not subject to discovery in a civil proceeding. The case is Crispin v. Christian Audigier Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 52832 (C.D. Calif. May 26, 2010). It makes no difference whether the Facebook user is wildly popular and has thousands of “friends.” According to the court, a determination of whether someone has deemed his communications to be private cannot be based on the number of “friends” on one’s account, as this would result in arbitrary line-drawing.
This is a pretty significant decision in the emerging area of Social Media Law, as it is the first time any court has examined the question whether the privacy settings of popular social media sites like Facebook actually have any legal implication. If the rest of the country chooses to follow the trail blazed by the Federal Court in Los Angeles (as is often the case), the ability for litigants to use social media sites as a treasure trove of discoverable information (the “hot” thing to do these days if you’re a litigator) may be significantly curtailed. All one needs to do, according to the California court, is to properly set one’s privacy settings so that one’s Facebook page is not open to the general public.
I’m double-checking my privacy settings right now…
Topics
- Branding
- Intellectual Property
- Social Networking Sites
- Privacy Laws
- MySpace
- Stored Communications Act of 1986
- Social Media Content
- RFP
- Evidence
- Privacy
- Social Media
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- E-Discovery Case Law
- 2006 FRCP E-Discovery Amendments
- Digital copier hard drive security
- Native Format of Documents
- Cloud Computing
- Technology
- Zubulake
- Sanctions
- Email Retention
- Sedona Conference
- Rule 34
- Rule 26
- Rule 1
- Federal Rule
- Cooperation Proclamation
- Risk Assessment
- Electronic Data Discovery
- EDD Processing
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- TREC Legal Track
- Litigation
- ESI
- E-Discovery
- Outsourcing
- Document Review
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- E-Discovery Vendor or Partner: It’s All in the Name
- Ex Parte Discovery Permitted in Website Trademark Infringement and Defamation Case
- Be Careful What You Post: Social Networks Are Discoverable
- Retrieving Discoverable E-Discovery Data from Social Media Sites: Or, "Wow, is this what I asked for?!"
- Always Have A Plan
- Your E-Discovery GPS: Are You on the Right Track?
- "Massive" E-Discovery Failures Result in $8.5 Million Sanction
- Oh the stories a copier can tell!
- Does Your Law Firm Follow ESI Best Practices

