“RTs do not = endorsements.” We’ve all seen it on Twitter bios, usually bios belonging to members of the media.

These kinds of disclaimers, disassociating the tweets from the people who retweet them, are common. The Twitter bio belonging to Brian Stelter of the New York Times (@brianstelter) notes, “RT & links aren’t endorsements.”

A Social Media Policy Addressing RTs and Linking

But for some, those disclaimers are not enough.  Last fall, the Associated Press introduced an updated social media policy for its reporters and editors.  As recently reported in Yahoo! News, the AP memo advised reporters and editors that “Retweets, like tweets, should not be written in a way that looks like you’re expressing a personal opinion on the issues of the day. A retweet with no comment of your own can easily be seen as a sign of approval of what you’re relaying.” The guidelines note, “[W]e can judiciously retweet opinionated material if we make clear we’re simply reporting it.”

Continue reading

It is a task often relegated to the office interns: posting promotional content to outside social media sites.

Despite the fact that this practice is officially frowned upon in the Federal Trade Commission’s 2009 endorsement guidelines, companies will often engage paid individuals – either employees on the payroll or outside bloggers who receive compensation in the form of a free sample – to post positive reviews online, including to places like Twitter, personal blogs, or online public forums without identifying the connection between the commenter and the product being commented on.

The FTC’s endorsement guidelines seek (among other things) to ensure that unbiased positive reviews online can be considered credible, while also ensuring that positive reviews that are partially the result of some sort of compensation be acknowledged as such. Continue reading

Much has been made lately of tension between Twitter and its outside developers.  The issues stoking the fire are less legal issues than business issues brought to front-burner by two particular factors:

(1) The maturity of Twitter as a development platform, or in the words of Ryan Sarver of Twitter, “In the early days, all the clients except Twitter.com were built out by ecosystem companies, mainly because Twitter was so focused on keeping the lights on.  But we learned that in order for us to really grow, we had to start taking over that core experience.” (quoted in the NY Times, 7/17/11).

(2) A reported Federal Trade Commission inquiry into the relationship by the , which has (in some views) caused Twitter to re-think its liberal open-door policy when it came to permitting outside development on its platform.

An excellent story and accompanying podcast on this subject appeared in the NY Times last week, written by Claire Cain Miller.

Bottom line: Twitter is seeking to control the applications that control access to Twitter, meaning desktop and mobile, and leaving the field open to enterprise applications, usability applications, analysis and similar applications.

Certainly the business reasons seem pretty clear, in that Twitter seeks to control core functionality – and the development of that core functionality – of the mother ship.  Although it is not terribly surprising that that strikes some critics as cynical, see for example here (“Twitter, just be honest: ‘The only way we can figure out how to make money is same ol’ display ads and we need to own the client for that.’”)

There are legal issues here, namely the ability of the platform to restrict access to its API.  As Claire Miller and others have noted, part of the problem for Twitter is that developer expectations may have been artificially inflated.  But there is more.  The FTC hint of antitrust scrutiny may be causing Twitter some heartburn about its historical open-ness.  Some analogy from two unrelated contexts: In trademark law, the concept “use in commerce” requires confirmation of continued public use of a registered trademark every 5 years or so.  In real property law, a property owner’s failure to restrict public access to property – and thus demonstrate its private claim – can, under some circumstances, support a court’s granting a permanent public right of way.

Quoting Rob Diana from Regular Geek, “Twitter also now owns the platform as a whole and must be as reliable as a utility company.  They must provide all of the capabilities that consumers need in the clients.” (emphasis added) A danger for a “public utility” of the information superhighway is creeping expectation of the duties and obligations of public purpose: Loss of commercial freedom, permanent regulatory scrutiny and public stakeholder claims.  It may very well be that Twitter is acting much like New York’s Rockefeller Center, which closes public access to traffic one day a year as a legal “fiction” in order to continue to assert private ownership rights.

Twitter rolled out its new API TOS (“Developer Rules of the Road”) in March of this year.  Rob Diana noted at that time that the announcement may have been – or perhaps should have been – anticlimactic, in that “A basic Twitter client is a terrible idea in today’s ecosystem.”  Wrote Diana:

Unless there is major functionality outside of the existing solutions, a new client is a losing idea. There is a high barrier to entry when we already have third-party clients like Tweetdeck, Seesmic, HootSuite and PeopleBrowser. This does not include some of the other applications that focus on team or brand management. So, by saying not to develop a new client, Twitter has saved us and investors a lot of time and money.

A privacy policy?  Who needs a privacy policy?  Privacy is a mess.  You’re building an online business, and you figure you have to have a privacy policy.  But why?  Is “because everyone else has one” a good enough reason?  Ever wonder what you really need to know about privacy law?  I mean … what you have to comply with as a business operating in an online environment?

Here, then, the first of several Frequently Asked Questions about privacy policies.  Or to be more precise, here now some practical answers on privacy practices:

FAQ #1: Can I simply post a privacy policy and forget about it?  Short Answer: No.  Longer Answer: No, because as between posted statements and actual compliance, actual compliance is what’s required.   Continue reading

Podcast #1: December 30, 2010

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In today’s podcast, we discuss the Federal Trade Commission’s recently issued privacy proposals. My guest is Karen Neuman, a founding partner of St. Ledger-Roty Neuman & Olson LLP, a Washington, DC law firm that focuses on regulation of information technologies and communications law, including privacy & data security, mobile communications, the Internet, media, telecommunications and related transactional matters.

At the core of the new privacy proposal is the idea that the current system of self-regulation does not provide enough consumer protection.  Basically, from the FTC’s perspective, people do not pay enough attention to the data-collecting activities of websites and not enough companies are up-front about the data they do collect from visitors to their sites.  The FTC says that while many companies detail their data collection through privacy policies, consumers bear too much of a burden in having to sort through such long, legalistic documents.

Among other proposals, the FTC’s new framework would require a “Do Not Track” option, much like the one we currently have to avoid telemarketers.  “Do Not Track” would essentially prevent companies from tracking things like your browsing history and buying habits, making it much more difficult for them to target consumers with personalized ads.  The proposal also aims to have companies incorporate more consumer protection into their business practices through simpler, more transparent options and by allowing consumers more access to the data being collected about them.  The FTC issued its proposed rules just last week, and requested public comment from both businesses and the public.

Please click play on the audio player below to hear the podcast.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.