What is the law applying to social media?

Useful Resources for Social Media

Recent Rulings on Social Media

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

A public forum includes websites, social media, and online applications. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 387.) The anti-SLAPP statute also protects “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

A public forum includes websites, social media, and online applications. (Daniel v. Wayans (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 367, 387.) The anti-SLAPP statute also protects “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JOSAF SANDOVAL VS TACO NAZO, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges that he worked for ETN in social media marketing until February 8, 2018, when he was terminated. (Compl., ¶ 16.) In late January 2018, ETN required Plaintiff to travel to Mexico with coworkers. (Compl., ¶ 17.) Following an incident during the trip where Plaintiff’s coworker caused them to be arrested, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BRANDIN HARRIS VS PUFFY DELIVERY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Per the complaint, Plaintiff worked as Defendants’ social media and brand manager from June to October of 2018. (Compl., ¶ 1.) In October of 2018, Defendants’ Instagram account was deleted entirely, putting into question Plaintiff’s position as a social media manager. However, Plaintiff continued her work as a brand manager. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff stopped receiving any work. (Compl., ¶ 16.) In November of 2018, Plaintiff again inquired about her position.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BETTY LONG, ET AL. V. ALEX GEIGER, ET AL.

Moreover, the Fears have not provided any authority that merely posting something on a social media site, such as Facebook, to an individual’s select group of “friends” constitutes a waiver of the right to privacy. (See Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court (2020) 10 Cal.5th 329, 353 [acknowledging a right to privacy of a social media user’s restricted posts].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

JOHN DAUPHINEE V. BRADLEY DRATNOL

Plaintiffs respond that a material allegation of the complaint was that Dratnol was a dual employee. The complaint alleges that Dratnol is an employee of All Access, MMI and DOES 16-50. (Cmp., ¶ 9.) The Court limits this request to information related to All Access and MMI, and directs Dratnol to provide a further code-compliant response and to produce documents responsive to these requests with the Court imposed limitation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2020

KRAMER VS DESERT JET CENTER LLC HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY

In addition, she was caught lying at her deposition when she asserted that she had never posted about the Wilsons on social media. [See UMF 56.] The defense of "unclean hands" applies to actions in law and equity, and provides a complete defense where a plaintiff has engaged in inequitable conduct in connection with the matter in controversy. (Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 446- 447; Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 620, 638.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

JOSEPH SASTIEL VS STEVE OROCIO

Plaintiff alleges Defendant then humiliated Plaintiff to coworkers and on social media with claims of being a pedophile. As a result, Plaintiff’s work and social life have been damaged. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant has threatened to come to Plaintiff’s house with the police to access all of Plaintiff’s devices. On August 20, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant for defamation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

ZRP GROUP LLC VS CHRIS TENNBERG

The crux of the complaint is the allegation that Plaintiff employed Tennberg as an independent contractor to design and launch websites for its business, and subsequently employed Tennberg as an employee in similar capacity. Plaintiff terminated Defendant’s employment when Plaintiff learned Defendant had hijacked its websites to display a message demanding that Plaintiff pay Defendant for design services and engaged in other similar social media based conduct.

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

GOLDEN J GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JIANHUA LI, ET AL.

The prohibition should include communication of any kind including communication through electronic means via social media such as WeChat, Whatsapp, email, and text messages.” [Order and Preliminary Injunction After Hearing, filed July 24, 2020].

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RHONDA CLARK VS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiff tried to get Allstate to investigate the harassment, but various Allstate employees refused to do anything about it and guessed that the images appeared because of user error or accessing social media sites. Plaintiff also filed complaints with the California Department of Insurance. Plaintiff also complained of further unauthorized access.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

However, Plaintiff did submit evidence suggesting that: (1) Defendant Lo falsely accused Plaintiff of speaking negatively about the company (PSF No. 65); (2) that Plaintiff had previously complained to Bennet that she believed that Defendant Lo’s reaction to the social media report incident was due to her age and long tenure as an employee (PSF No. 66.); and (3) Defendant Lo singled out employees over the age of 40 with an unreasonably heavy workload to try to drive them out of the company.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JAMES A. WILSON, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Gonzalez states that, when questioned, an employee of the UPS store said they have not seen Plaintiff since April 12, 2020 and that Plaintiff had not paid for his mailbox since that time. (Id., ¶ 5.) Gonzalez spoke to Plaintiff’s relatives, including his brother, sister, and son, who have not seen Plaintiff for over a year. (Id., ¶ 7.) Gonzalez also attempted to look for Plaintiff on social media and left messages to those on Facebook under “James Wilson” to call her, but has not heard back. (Id., ¶ 8.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

JAHANGIRI VS SANTAELLA, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts that Santaella has converted the phone number, website, and social media accounts owned by S & J. She further alleges the website was responsible for directing to plaintiff about 80% of her new business. (FAC, ¶¶56-57.) Plaintiff has not alleged her ownership. Her claim of ownership and right to possession depend on her allegation that the corporation is no longer operational.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

YAZBECK VS PEATROSS

Cross-Defendants further vowed that Cross-Complainant would have continued access to Plaintiff's social media accounts. Ibid. Under the guise of Mr. Yazbeck's impending lawsuit, Cross-Defendants presented Cross-Complainant with a Shareholder's Agreement (the "Agreement") that provided for, inter alia, the sale of Dr.Jess.com to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants, the issuance of 30,000 shares of stock in Plaintiff to Cross-Complainant, and the above promises. Ibid. at ¶¶ 25, 27.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

EILEEN A. STAATS V. CITY OF PALO ALTO

To supplement direct notice, JND will cause over 103,000 impressions targeted to Adults 18+ in Palo Alto, CA to be delivered over 30 days via the largest digital network (Google Display Network) and the top social media platform (Facebook). These digital ads will contain an embedded hyperlink to the case website. Notice will also be published in the Palo Alto Daily Post and be distributed as a press release to over 11,000 media outlets nationwide.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

ZRP GROUP LLC VS CHRIS TENNBERG

The crux of the complaint is the allegation that Plaintiff employed Tennberg as an independent contractor to design and launch websites for its business, and subsequently employed Tennberg as an employee in similar capacity. Plaintiff terminated Defendant’s employment when Plaintiff learned Defendant had hijacked its websites to display a message demanding that Plaintiff pay Defendant for design services and engaged in other similar social media based conduct.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

MATTHEW JACQUES VS THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITY, ET AL.

These facts are far removed from posts on social media that simply “relay” information about the issuance of a bench warrant. (Roger v. County of Riverside (2020) 44 Cal.App.4th 510, 528 [holding that 821.6 immunity did not apply to an administrative tasks of ministerial recordkeeping – entering a violation into a database and “relay[ing] that information to the DOJ”].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

LUIS ROMAN VS ADVENT RESOURCES, INC.

Request No. 29 asks for the production all of Plaintiff’s social media posts and messages from January 2017 to the present, to which Plaintiff objected on grounds of overbreadth, but produced two documents subject to those objections. (Separate Statement at pp. 18–19.) Defendants contend that the request is warranted because investigation of Plaintiff’s social media posts may shed light on his disability claims. (Separate Statement at pp. 20–21.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Beau Souci also continued to market its products on social media into July 2019. (AMF 30; Mansour’s Ex. 1 (Mansour Decl.), ¶ 13.) Defendants counter that these facts do not raise a triable issue as to whether Mansour’s job was terminated because the company was terminating its operations. As far as Beau Souci’s continued social media presence, Defendants assert that it is undisputed that Beau Souci was closing its California operations and continuing as a brand in Paris. (UMF 71.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

CANDY LOPEZ VS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC ET AL

However, Price and Tefft planned to ambush Quon with questions relating to his social media accounts and the allegations against him by another employee. (TACC, ¶ 179.) Quon alleges that these “representations” were false, that Price and Tefft intended to induce Quon to attend the interview without representation, and that Quon was surprised and confused at the line of questioning, which reaction Price and Tefft then used against Quon to find that he was dishonest and uncooperative. (TACC, ¶¶ 181-182.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

SPEEDY FUEL INC VS GILBARCO INC ET AL

Speedy “disputes that BAMS is entitled in this case to an employee’s past telephone numbers, past or present email addresses, past residence addresses, past or present business addresses, past or present employers, or past or present Facebook or other social media names and/or addresses.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ZAPRI OUTLAW VS ELLIOT AMOAKOH ET AL

Plaintiff has not contradicted that showing by citing to Amoakoh’s statements on social media or discovery responses. That an individual may serve as a personal trainer on certain occasions does not turn him or her into an agent authorized to accept service, much less a “person in charge” of a particular address that is purported to be a retail store. Accordingly, Kamani’s Motion to set aside the entry of default and quash service of summons is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

IN RE ALPHABET, INC. SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

At the time of the breach, Alphabet’s pattern of misleading, incomplete, and inaccurate statements regarding data privacy was already drawing heightened regulatory scrutiny and legal penalties, including a 20-year consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission related to charges that the company used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises to consumers in connection with its social media network, Google Buzz. (Complaint, ¶¶ 208–213.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

JARED LIEBERS VS CASEY WINTERS, ET AL.

Defendant explains that the text messages dated January 22-23 involved references to witness statements, information obtained from social media that purportedly contradicted plaintiff’s allegations regarding damages and the severity of his injuries, exchange of a media article researching plaintiff’s past, and information regarding plaintiff’s history.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.