The UK Government has added two new duties to the proposed Online Safety Bill (the Bill) that are aimed at protecting people against anonymous online abuse. These measures would give users of “main social media firms” more control over
As the telemedicine industry continues to grow, especially in light of COVID-19, businesses should reconsider their policies and procedures in connection with telehealth services and user safety.
Notably, Facebook recently responded to the growing use of telemedicine by amending its policies with respect to advertisements by telemedicine companies for prescription drugs. The new policy, which according to Facebook is intended to ban the promotion of illicit drugs and unsafe substances, goes into effect on August 25, 2021.
So far, 2021 has seen some social media businesses implementing content takedowns, rolling internal reforms and banning high-profile individuals and applications from using their services. It has caused some tech commentators to question recently whether this could be a defining
Social media platforms have revolutionized the way people receive and deliver their news and information. Industry players, legislators, and consumers of social media have all had to adapt to this new medium of speech. While having the permanence and public nature of traditional forms of news, such as newspapers, social media posts are not subject to the same kinds of editorial review and control. The sheer volume and pace of social media posts has made it impractical for social media companies to maintain a similar amount of content review as newspapers or television broadcasts.
Although this new environment has provided a robust avenue for free speech, it also creates legal risks as it becomes difficult to protect against illicit forms of speech. Social media companies face both business and legal risks in Canada where their platforms are used by consumers to spread illicit speech. To thwart this risk, social media companies may need to consider monitoring and removing illicit content without taking on undo expense or undermining the benefits of the platform.
In an August 1, 2019 post titled “Without Proper Enforcement, Even the Strongest Social Media Policies May Not Protect Employers,” we discussed how enforcement of corporate social media policies was paramount to protecting employers from liability stemming from employee violations of that policy. That post discussed how employers must take care not only to formulate comprehensive social media policies, but also to provide thorough training and ensure rigorous enforcement of those policies to its employees and managers.
In keeping with that theme, this article examines a specific illustration of the importance of maintaining and enforcing corporate social media policies.
In 2019 new California laws require a close review and revision of corporate social media policies.
The use of social media by employees is as fraught as it is widespread, and creates tremendous legal risk for the employer. Indeed, employers are wise to require adherence to a thorough policy regarding employee use of social media both inside and outside of work. The best policies will aim to sidestep potential legal landmines by preventing unauthorized disclosure of the company’s trade secrets and other confidential information, violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from an employee’s promotion of company products, infringement of third party intellectual property rights, employee harassment, and privacy violations.
On August 30, 2018, a federal trial court in Texas ordered a defendant to include a disclaimer on certain social media posts as part of a preliminary injunction in a private litigation. (WorldVentures Marketing, LLC v. Rogers, 4:18-cv-00498 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018) (2018 WL 4169049)).
In the wake of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (Dec. 14, 2017), the NLRB has recently issued new guidance regarding employee handbook rules. The NLRB’s guidance can be found here.
In Boeing, the Board overturned its old standard, under which an employer rule violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if a worker could “reasonably construe” it to interfere with the right to engage in protected concerted activity. Under the new standard adopted by the Board, an employer rule will only violate the NLRA if it would be reasonably interpreted to interfere with workers’ NLRA rights considering the balance between (A) the nature and extent of the rule’s potential impact on protected rights and (B) the employer’s legitimate justifications for the rule.
As we are all aware, the news has been populated with stories concerning allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct, particularly in the entertainment and media industries as well as government institutions. These stories have contributed to the “#MeToo” movement, which originated on Twitter and other social media websites in late 2017 and has since become a widespread message on social media encouraging individuals to share their stories and speak out against sexual harassment and abuse. Although its purposes are laudable, the #MeToo movement is a touchy subject for employers, who ever-more-frequently find themselves accused of sexual harassment or other misconduct on social media and must grapple with the implications of publicly aired grievances.