Regulated Industries – Social Media Legal & Regulatory Compliance

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

For the past year and a half, I have been traveling to various conferences around the country to speak on Legal and Regulatory compliance in social media. In the beginning, case law and regulatory guidance was scarce and little information was available to provide businesses engaged in social media with a roadmap for Social Media Legal and Regulatory compliance. However, a lot has changed over the last year and a clear trend is emerging. Industry regulators are aware of the use – and abuse – of social media by their members. This article examines recent guidance provided by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).

Social Media in Marketing, Advertising & Commerce.

The FTC has a prime directive to protect consumers. In the social media sphere, the FTC has pursued this mandate by enforcing companies’ Terms of Use and privacy policies. In addition, the FTC has recently issued updated guidance for companies and individuals that review, promote, advertise or otherwise write about various products and services. In 2009, the FTC tackled its first social media case, an investigation involving Twitter. The focus of the FTC action was Twitter’s privacy policy that asserted A concern about safeguarding confidentiality of personally identifiable information and privacy settings designed to designate tweets as private.

The settlement, first announced in June 2010, resolved charges that Twitter deceived consumers and put their privacy at risk by failing to safeguard their personal information. Lapses in the Twitter’s data security allowed hackers to obtain unauthorized administrative control of Twitter, including both access to non-public user information and tweets that consumers had designated as private, and the ability to send out phony tweets from any account. Under the terms of the settlement, Twitter has hit ended and ongoing obligations concerning consumers and the extent to which it protects the security, privacy, and confidentiality of nonpublic consumer information, including the measures it takes to prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic information and honor the privacy choices made by consumers.

In a similar action, the FTC settled and investigation into Facebook,the leading social media platform/service. The social networking service agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The settlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers’ express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established.

Read the FTC update here.

As recently as January 10, 2012, the FTC reached a settlement with UPromise, Inc., stemming from charges that the company – a membership reward service – allegedly used a web-browser toolbar to collect consumers’ personal information, without adequately disclosing the extent of personal information collected. The FTC found that the toolbar was collecting the names of all websites visited by its users as well as information entered into web pages by those users, including user names, passwords, credit card numbers, social security numbers and other financial and/or sensitive data. Furthermore, this data was transmitted in unencrypted, clear text that could be intercepted or viewed by third parties in a WiFi environment. The result? UPromise had to destroy all data it collected under the “Personalized Offers” feature of its “TurboSaver” toolbar in addition to other obligations related to data collection practices and consent to collection of personal information.

Other Industry Guidance.

In October 2009, the Federal Trade Commission released it’s updated “FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” The updated Guides contain two notable areas of concern for marketers. First, the Guides removed the safe harbor for advertisements featuring a consumer’s experience with a product or service, the so-called “results not typical” disclosure. Second, the FTC Guides underscored the longstanding principle of disclosing “material connections” between advertisers and the consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities providing reviews and endorsements of products and services.

For concise guidance on when, how and what to disclose, see my article here.

Social Media in the Healthcare & Pharmaceutical Industries.

Like other consumer-oriented industries, Pharmaceutical and Biotech firms are rapidly expanding their presence online. This growth over the past several years has not gone unnoticed as evidenced by FDA Warning Letters targeting marketing campaigns “broadcast” via websites and social media platforms. The FDA also provides more general guidance for the industry. Policy and guidance development for promotion of FDA-regulated medical products using the Internet and social media tools are available in the FDA’s Consumer-Directed Broadcast Advertisements Questions and Answers. While this document provides clear direction for traditional media broadcasting , it only skims the surface regarding web content.

Social Media in the Workplace.

Probably no other federal agency has been as active as the NLRB in recent months. The NLRB has a mandate to protect employees rights to organize and discuss working conditions without fear of reprisals from employers. On August 8, 2011, the Associate General Counsel for the NLRB released a memo entitled “Report of the Acting General Counsel Concerning Social Media Cases.The report began by analyzing a case of first impression: whether an Employer unlawfully discharged five employees who had posted comments on Facebook relating to allegations of poor job performance previously expressed by one of their coworkers.

On January 25, 2012, the NLRB released a second report describing social media cases handled by the NLRB. The “Operations Management Memo” available here, covers 14 cases, half of which involve questions about employer social media policies. Five of those policies were found to be unlawfully broad, one was lawful, and one was found to be lawful after it was revised.

The remaining cases involved discharges of employees after they posted comments to Facebook. Several discharges were found to be unlawful because they flowed from unlawful policies. But in one case, the discharge was upheld despite an unlawful policy because the employee’s posting was not work-related. The report underscores two main points made in an earlier compilation of cases: 1) policies should not sweep so broadly that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as the discussion of wages or working conditions among employees; and 2) an employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.

Social Media and the Financial Services Industry.

From the Madoff scandal, to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, to Mitt Romney’s tax returns, the financial services sector is accustomed to the scrutiny and ire of the public and government regulators. Therefore it is no surprise that on January 4, 2012, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations, in coordination with other SEC staff, including in the Division of Enforcement’s Asset Management Unit and the Division of Investment Management, issued its “Investment Adviser Use of Social Media” paper. The paper begins by observing that although “many firms have policies and procedures within their compliance programs” governing use of social media” there is wide “variation in the form and substance of the policies and procedures.” The staff noted that many firms have multiple overlapping procedures that apply to advertisements, client communications or electronic communications generally, which may or may not specifically include social media use. Such lack of specificity may cause confusion as to what procedures or standards apply to social media use.

The SEC paper suggests that the following factors are relevant to determining the effectiveness of a Social Media compliance program:

  • Usage Guidelines
  • Content Standards
  • Monitoring
  • Frequency of Monitoring
  • Approval of Content
  • Firm Resources
  • Criteria for Approving Participation
  • Training
  • Certification
  • Functionality of web sites and updates thereto
  • Personal/Professional sites
  • Information security
  • Enterprise-wide web site content cross collateralization

Similarly, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has issued guidance for secutires brokerage firms. According to its web site, FINRA “is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.” FINRA protects American investors by ensuring fairness and honesty in the securities industry. In January 2010, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 10-06, providing guidance on the application of FINRA rules governing communications with the public to social media sites and reminding firms of the recordkeeping, suitability, supervision and content requirements for such communications. Since its publication, firms have raised additional questions regarding the application of the rules. Key take aways from FINRA’s guidance include the flowing:

  • Brokerages have supervisory and record keeping obligations based on the content of the communications – whether it is business related – and not the media
  • Broker-dealers must track and supervise messages that deal with business
  • Firms must have systems in place to supervise and retain interactions with customers, if they are made through personal mobile devices
  • A broker must get approval from the firm if she mentions her employer on a social media site
  • Pre-approval for instant messages, also known as “unscripted interactions’ in legalese, is not necessary as long as supervisors are informed after the fact

Conclusion.

Many professionals in regulated industries are eager to leverage social media to market and communicate with existing and prospective clients and to increase their visibility. However, participants must ensure compliance with all of the regulatory requirements and awareness of the risks associated with using various forms of social media. Hopefully, the guidance outlined above can serve as a good starting point for discussions about how best to use of social media as well as suggestions regarding factors that firms may wish to consider is helpful to firms in strengthening their compliance and risk management programs. We invite you to contact us with comments and requests about how we can help you educate your employees, prevent fraud, monitor risk, and promote compliance. We can be reached at lsglegal.com866-734-256, @adlerlaw and dadler@lsglegal.com.

How Can Lawyers Use the Social Media Site Pinterest?

For those of us who try to immerse ourselves in technology and more recently, Social Media, the new “kid on the block” seems to be Pinterest. According to their site, “Pinterest lets you organize and share all the beautiful things you find on the web. People use pinboards to plan their weddings, decorate their homes, and organize their favorite recipes. Best of all, you can browse pinboards created by other people. Browsing pinboards is a fun way to discover new things and get inspiration from people who share your interests.”

Not surprisingly, Pinterest is receiving a lot of coverage on B2B and B2C blogs that provide guidance on the how and why Pinterest can be used by business. The next logical question for me is should Lawyers use Pinterest? if so, how?

Should Lawyers Use Pinterest?

The answer to the first question is simple: Yes, if it is useful to you. Pinterest is a social bulletin board allowing users to “pin”, or save, useful information. It leverages social networks and enables users to track, organize and share products or other content discovered online.  The site allows users to subdivide content by category such as travel, books or food. Finally, axiomatic of all social media is the interaction, allowing friends to follow and view your boards and comment on the items that you’ve posted, or re-pin them on their own boards.

How Can Lawyers Use Pinterest?

The answer to the second question is less simple:

Pinterest
Image by stevegarfield via Flickr

Simply put, Pinterest is an image content curation site where one can create “boards” to which they can add images and comments around a common theme. What’s really interesting is that once one begins using Pinterest, this pen up a whole new way to dialogue with people. Users will “re-pin” your items and it creates an opportunity to contact the user and ask what it about your content that prompted them to re-pin it.

While I am still new to Pinterest, I see it as another valuable social media tool to engage and interact with people. My Pinterest page can be found here.

FTC Puts an End to Facebook’s Freewheeling Privacy Ways

The social networking service Facebook has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The proposedsettlement requires Facebook to take several steps to make sure it lives up to its promises in the future, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining consumers’ express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings they have established.

Read the FTC update here.

USPTO Notice of Proposed Rule: Additional Specimens And/Or Evidence Of Use May Soon Be Required

Notice of Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 40,839, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on July 12, 2011 addresses “proof” that a mark is in use. Specifically, the proposed rules address issues related to the USPTO’s ability to verify the accuracy of the identification of goods and services by allowing the USPTO to require additional proof of use of a mark.

The proposed rules allow the USPTO to require (1) additional “information, exhibits, and affidavits or declarations deemed reasonably necessary to examine” renewal applications and declarations of use, and (2) “more than one specimen in connection with a use-based trademark application, an allegation of use, an amendment to a registered mark, or an affidavit or declaration of continued use.” According to the USPTO, the proposed rules “will facilitate an assessment of the reliability of the trademark register . . . so that the USPTO and stakeholders may determine whether and to what extent a general problem may exist and consider measures to address it, if necessary.”

Although the USPTO indicates that the requirements will not be widely implemented, members of the trademark bar have expressed concerns that the circumstances under which the USPTO may require additional specimens and/or evidence are unclear and that such requests may affect filing deadlines.

Court orders turnover of Social Media login info but does not enjoin use of content

Vectorization of Tom Bell's graph, which shows...
Image via Wikipedia

In Ardis Health, LLC et al v. NankivellPlaintiffs, a group of closely affiliated online marketing companies hired Defendant as their Video and Social Media Producer to produce videos and maintain websites, blogs, and social media pages. Defendant’s responsibilities included maintaining passwords and other login information for websites, email accounts, and social media accounts, as well as for third-party servers where plaintiffs stored content.

Defendant signed an agreement governing the creation of work product, stating that all work created or developed by defendant “shall be the sole and exclusive property of [Plainitffs], in whatever stage of development or completion,” and that it “will be prepared as ‘work-for-hire’ within the meaning of the Copyright Act of 1976.” The agreement also provides that defendant must return all confidential information to CYC upon request, and that “actual or threatened breach of [the agreement] will cause CYC irreparable injury and damage.”

Although Plaintiffs provided some equipment, Defendant also used her own computer and video equipment on occasion, and Plaintiffs provided her with a used laptop as a replacement when Defendant’s crashed. At some point, the parties began to develop a social media website for cosmetic products. They later had a falling out, Defendant was terminated and Plaintiffs requested the return of the laptop as well as the social media account access information. Defendant declined to return the computer and information.

The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, requiring defendant to return plaintiffs’ login information for the various websites, although the court did not order return of the laptop or that Defendant refrain from using Plaintiffs’ proprietary content and trademarked or copyrighted works on the newly-created social media web site.

Congress Close to Protecting Fashion Designs under Copyright Law

Fashion design
Image by London College of Fashion short courses via Flickr

On July 13, 2011, Congress once again took up the the so-called “Fashion Bill” a/k/a the “Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act,” H.R. 2511 (“IDPPPA”). This version of the Bill would amend the Copyright Act to extend certain protections to fashion designs.

Extension of design protection to fashion designs

The major effect of the law would be the extension of design protection to fashion designs, by amending § 1301(a) to provide that “A fashion design is subject to protection under this chapter” and by amending § 1302(b) to include “an article of apparel” in the definition of “useful articles” subject to protection. The bill would make clear that for purposes of Chapter 13 a fashion design is the appearance as a whole of an article of apparel, including its ornamentation. The bill elaborates on what would constitute “apparel” for purposes of Chapter 13:

  1. an article of men’s, women’s, or children’s clothing, including undergarments, outerwear, gloves, footwear, and headgear;
  2. handbags, purses, and tote bags;
  3. belts; and
  4. eyeglass frames.

Term of protection will be limited

The term of protection for fashion designs would be only 3 years. Proponents of the legislation have explained that the purpose of the legislation is to protect designs of haute couture during the period of time in which such high-end clothing is sold at premium prices of thousands of dollars and to prevent others from marketing clothing with those designs at substantially lower prices during that initial period, thereby undercutting the market for a hot new fashion design. Because the peak demand for such designs is relatively short-lived, a 3-year term is considered adequate to satisfy the designer’s reasonable expectation of exclusivity.

NLRB General Counsel Releases Memo Providing Guidance to Employers & Employees on Workplace Social Media Use

On August 8, 2011, Anne Purcell, the Associate General Counsel for the NLRB released a memo entitled “Report of the Acting General Counsel Concerning Social Media Cases.” The report details recent case developments arising in the context of social media. These recent cases grappled with emerging issues concerning the protected and/or concerted nature of employees Facebook and Twitter postings, the coercive impact of a union’s Facebook and YouTube postings, and the lawfulness of employers’ social media policies and rules. 

The NLRB has a mandate to protect employees rights to organize and discuss working conditions without fear of reprisals from employers. The report began by analyzing a case of first impression: whether an Employer unlawfully discharged five employees who had posted comments on Facebook relating to allegations of poor job performance previously expressed by one of their coworkers.

The discussion was conducted through Facebook by coworkers about job performance and staffing level issues. The NLRB found the Facebook discussion was a “textbook” example of protected activity, even though it transpired on a social network platform.

The take away for Employers is that most, if not all, job related social media discussions are protected. Employers must think twice before: (1) dismissing employees for discussing workplace “responsibilities and performance” on the Internet; (2) disciplining employees for “liking” a Facebook comment that is critical of the workplace or employer; and (3) disciplining employees when  offline workplace complaints and conversations migrate online via one or more social media posts.

The full text of the memo is available here: http://mynlrb.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d458056e743

Social Media Legal Risks: Seven Ways to Maintain Social Media Marketing Legal Compliance

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

In October 2009, the Federal Trade Commission released it’s updated “FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.” The purpose of the update was to address the increasing use of endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations and celebrities in online marketing. The update is particularly relevant to the explosive growth of social media as a marketing tool.

The updated FTC Guides contain two notable areas of concern for marketers. First, the Guides removed the safe harbor for advertisements featuring a consumer’s experience with a product or service, the so-called “results not typical” disclosure. Second, the FTC Guides underscored the longstanding principle of disclosing “material connections” between advertisers and the consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities providing reviews and endorsements of products and services.

Even with the illustrations provided within the FTC Guides themselves, it is still confusing for advertisers, marketers, bloggers and social media users to know how to comply with the guidelines. The purpose of this article is to provided simple, concrete standards to determine (1) when to make certain disclosures and (2) the type of disclosures required by the situation. I have grouped the disclosures into seven categories: Personal Opinion, Free Samples & Free Gifts, Promotional Relationship, Employment Relationship, Affiliate Relationship, Healthcare Disclosures, and Financial Guidelines & Disclosures. The key requirement to keep in mind is the obligation to disclose any relationship that may have influenced you.

1. Personal Opinion

If you write a review or blog post and your post contains only your own opinions, you haven’t received any compensation for the review or post, and you otherwise have no material connection to the topic of your post, you have nothing to disclose.

2. Free Sample/Free Gift

If you have been given a free copy, sample, or gift of a product or service and you write a review or blog post, you must disclose the facts and circumstances of how you received the item or service, even if you have not been paid to review or post on that topic. You do not run afoul of the disclosure rules if you receive payment unrelated your content. This disclosure is useful to keep in mind when your content relates to product previews, reviews of samples, services, gifts, books, software, music, movies, etc.

3. Promotional Relationships

If you write a review or blog post and your post is based upon an advertising relationship, and you have received compensation (cash, free services, product samples for personal use or a gift) for the review or post, you must disclose the nature of the relationship, whether you received anything of value, and information about relationships with advertisers or endorsers that would have a material impact about how a prospective consumer would view the message. This disclosure is useful to keep in mind when your content relates to paid posts, sponsored messages, tweets, fan page postings, etc.

4. Employment Relationships

If you write a review or blog post and your post is based upon an employment relationship, e.g. you are an employee or shareholder of a related company, you have a “material business relationship” to disclose, even if you are not being directly compensated for the message. You may post on behalf of a business or brand. In fact, it may even be part of your job description. Again, be mindful of the requirement to disclose any “connections” that may have influenced you, including both direct and indirect relationships.

5. Affiliate Relationships

If you write a review or blog post and your post is based upon an affiliate relationship, e.g., you have included affiliate links on your page, you must disclose the fact that the relationship exists and that you will be paid for referrals from your page.

6. Healthcare Disclosures

If you write a review or blog post and your content is based upon a connection to a pharmaceutical or healthcare product or program, you need to include relevant healthcare-related disclosures or information safety warnings, side effects, or official links with information.

7. Financial Guidelines & Disclosures

If you write a review or blog post and you work for a financial services company, you may be making investor-relations communications and your communications are subject to regulation by the NASD, SEC, FINRA and potentially state and federal regulatory agencies. The FINRA Guidance on Blogs & Social Networking Sites” can be found here. Record Retention: ensure that you can retain records of those communications. Suitability: a particular communication a “recommendation” for purposes of NASD Rule 2310 and is it suitable for potential recipients. Public Appearances: determine whether  your post part of an “interactive online forum” and whether supervision is required. Third-Party Posts: If your firm created or “sponsors” and online forum, be aware that, under certain circumstances, a customer’s or other third party’s content on a social media site may become attributable to the firm. Whether third-party content is attributable to a firm depends on whether the firm has (1) involved itself in the preparation of the content or (2) explicitly or implicitly endorsed or approved the content.

Clearly, legal and regulatory compliance for social media remains a minefield. Although this article is intended to give you a working knowledge of the types of risks created by, and disclosures required for, the use of Social Media, it is NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Each situation is unique and you should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding your specific circumstances.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David M. Adler, Esq. is an attorney, author, educator, entrepreneur and partner at the boutique intellectual property, entertainment & media law firm LEAVENS, STRAND, GLOVER & ADLER, LLC based in Chicago, Illinois. My responsibilities include providing advice to business units and executives on copyright, trademark, ecommerce, software/IT, media & entertainment and issues associated with creating and commercializing innovations and creative content, drafting and negotiating contracts and licenses, advising on securities laws and corporate governance and managing outside counsel. Learn more about me here: www.ecommerceattorney.com and here: Leavens Strand Glover & Adler, LLC.

Marvel Comics Wins Key Work-For-Hire Decision Against Stan Lee’s Heirs

What is this case really about? Judge Colleen McMahon notes in her opinion that “this case is not about whether Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is the real ‘creator’ of Marvel characters, or whether Kirby (and other freelance artists who created culturally iconic comic book characters for Marvel and other publishers) were treated ‘fairly’.” Rather this case is about “whether Kirby’s work qualifies as work-for-hire under the Copyright Act of 1909, as interpreted by the courts.”

On Thursday, Judge McMahon ruled that the heirs of the late Jack Kirby, creator and co-creator of the well-known Marvel Comics superheroes such as Fantastic Four, X-Men, the Hulk and more, have no legal claim to the copyrights of those characters.

Despite press efforts (including two pieces in the New York Times) to characterize the proceeding as “unfair” to the artists and creators upon whose labors companies profited, the decision reflects long-standing law that vests ownership of certain creative works in the company that commissions them as a “work-made-for-hire.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David M. Adler, Esq. is an attorney, author, educator, entrepreneur and partner at the boutique intellectual property, entertainment & media law firm LEAVENS, STRAND, GLOVER & ADLER, LLC based in Chicago, Illinois. My responsibilities include providing advice to business units and executives on copyright, trademark, ecommerce, software/IT, media & entertainment and issues associated with creating and commercializing innovations and creative content, drafting and negotiating contracts and licenses, advising on securities laws and corporate governance and managing outside counsel. Learn more about me here: http://www.ecommerceattorney.com and here: Leavens Strand Glover & Adler, LLC

CMO Council Release 2011 State of Marketing Report

The CMO Council released the fifth State of Marketing Report in its annual series that surveys its members to gather insights and views specific to marketing mandates, spend, intentions and frustrations. The Report gathers a broad range of insights from major geographic regions and the top tiers of corporations. The Report identified three critical areas of attention that top the “to do” list of marketers in 2011: Performance, Customer Experience and Brand Loyalty.

Marketing Performance. According to the CMO Council, digital and new media strategies, including Social Media, dominate the imperative to grow market share and refine brand and value proposition. Marketers must use multiple marketing channels with a focus on interactivity, while defining and connecting measurements to assess effectiveness.

Customer Experience: Marketers must focus on providing an “experience” – not just a “message” – that is engaging, personalized and differentiated. While the platform for engaging the customer will undoubtedly include social platforms, it must also integrate the messaging and engagements through traditional channels. The goal is a seamless multi-channel journey for the customer, one that is gratifying and satisfying, thereby improving loyalty, retention and repeat purchase.

Measurement Feedback and Brand Loyalty. A major issue that continues to plague marketers is the struggle to mine customer data, extract valuable insight and create accurate predictive models. Gathering data from every impression, every search, every transaction, status update, or tweet can develop a more complete profile or the customer. However off-line data sources need to be synthesized as well, including localized marketing tools, adaptive merchandising systems, interactive self-serve technologies, mass-personalized messaging solutions, social media channels, mobile relationship marketing platforms, and corporate social responsibility programs (e.g. sustainability).

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD REPORT

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

David M. Adler, Esq. is an attorney, author, educator, entrepreneur and partner at the boutique intellectual property, entertainment & media law firm LEAVENS, STRAND, GLOVER & ADLER, LLC based in Chicago, Illinois. My responsibilities include providing advice to business units and executives on copyright, trademark, ecommerce, software/IT, media & entertainment and issues associated with creating and commercializing innovations and creative content, drafting and negotiating contracts and licenses, advising on securities laws and corporate governance and managing outside counsel. Learn more about me here: http://www.ecommerceattorney.com and here: Leavens Strand Glover & Adler, LLC