PhoneDog v. Kravitz: Difference between revisions
Some wording, clarification in the lead section, other areas. Wikilink for misappropriation would be appropriate. |
comments go on the talk page, not within the article itself. |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
|accessdate= 22 October 2013 |
|accessdate= 22 October 2013 |
||
|quote= |
|quote= |
||
}}</ref> was a case in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] about whether [[Twitter]] accounts and their passwords could be company property or [[trade secrets]]. When Kravitz asked the court to dismiss this case, the court held that Twitter accounts and their passwords (as described by PhoneDog) could constitute trade secrets and that an employee failing to relinquish an account could constitute misuse of a trade secret or "trade secret misappropriation." This case is often cited in arguments for the importance of including clauses about social media account ownership in [[employment contracts]]. |
}}</ref> was a case in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] about whether [[Twitter]] accounts and their passwords could be company property or [[trade secrets]]. When Kravitz asked the court to dismiss this case, the court held that Twitter accounts and their passwords (as described by PhoneDog) could constitute trade secrets and that an employee failing to relinquish an account could constitute misuse of a trade secret or "trade secret misappropriation." This case is often cited in arguments for the importance of including clauses about social media account ownership in [[employment contracts]]. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
PhoneDog is a mobile device news and reviews website that employed Noah Kravitz as a product reviewer and [[Video Blog | video blogger]]. When he was working a writer for Phonedog, Noah Kravitz wrote on Twitter under the name @Phonedog_Noah and amassed 17,000 followers. When he quit his job in October 2010, Kravitz kept his Twitter account despite PhoneDog’s requests, but changed its handle to [https://twitter.com/noahkravitz @noahkravitz]. In December 2010, Kravitz began working for a Phonedog competitor, Techbuffalo, and used his Twitter account on their behalf. <ref name="mcnealy">{{cite journal|last=McNealy|first=Jasmine|title=Who Owns Your Friends?: Phonedog v. Kravitz|journal=Rutgers University Computer & Technology Law Journal|year=2009|volume=39|page=30|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2135601}}</ref> |
|||
In 2011, PhoneDog sued Kravitz for trade secret misappropriation or misuse of a company trade secret. They claimed that Kravitz’s Twitter account, particularly the password to the account, was a trade secret and that his continued use of the account to connect followers to a PhoneDog competitor was misappropriation. PhoneDog also claimed that Kravitz was negligently interfering with their business (or [[Tortious interference | their "prospective economic advantage"]]) by using confidential information to disrupt their relationship with their customers. They also claimed that changing the name of the Twitter account constituted unlawfully changing or “converting” the ownership of the account. |
In 2011, PhoneDog sued Kravitz for trade secret misappropriation or misuse of a company trade secret. They claimed that Kravitz’s Twitter account, particularly the password to the account, was a trade secret, and that his continued use of the account to connect followers to a PhoneDog competitor was misappropriation. PhoneDog also claimed that Kravitz was negligently interfering with their business (or [[Tortious interference | their "prospective economic advantage"]]) by using confidential information to disrupt their relationship with their customers. They also claimed that changing the name of the Twitter account constituted unlawfully changing or “converting” the ownership of the account. |
||
<ref name="mcnealy" /><ref name="dmlp">{{cite web|title=PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz|url=http://www.dmlp.org/threats/phonedog-llc-v-kravitz|publisher=Digital Media Law Project|accessdate=1 October 2013|date=2/9/2013}}</ref> |
<ref name="mcnealy" /><ref name="dmlp">{{cite web|title=PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz|url=http://www.dmlp.org/threats/phonedog-llc-v-kravitz|publisher=Digital Media Law Project|accessdate=1 October 2013|date=2/9/2013}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 15:07, 3 November 2013
| PhoneDog v. Kravitz | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Full case name | PHONEDOG, Plaintiff,
v. NOAH KRAVITZ, Defendant. |
| Decided | November 8, 2011 |
| Holding | |
| Twitter passwords and follower lists could constitute trade secrets. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Maria-Elena James |
| Keywords | |
| Trade secrets, Social media, Tortious interference | |
PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. 11-03474 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011),[1] was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California about whether Twitter accounts and their passwords could be company property or trade secrets. When Kravitz asked the court to dismiss this case, the court held that Twitter accounts and their passwords (as described by PhoneDog) could constitute trade secrets and that an employee failing to relinquish an account could constitute misuse of a trade secret or "trade secret misappropriation." This case is often cited in arguments for the importance of including clauses about social media account ownership in employment contracts.
Background
PhoneDog is a mobile device news and reviews website that employed Noah Kravitz as a product reviewer and video blogger. When he was working a writer for Phonedog, Noah Kravitz wrote on Twitter under the name @Phonedog_Noah and amassed 17,000 followers. When he quit his job in October 2010, Kravitz kept his Twitter account despite PhoneDog’s requests, but changed its handle to @noahkravitz. In December 2010, Kravitz began working for a Phonedog competitor, Techbuffalo, and used his Twitter account on their behalf. [2]
In 2011, PhoneDog sued Kravitz for trade secret misappropriation or misuse of a company trade secret. They claimed that Kravitz’s Twitter account, particularly the password to the account, was a trade secret, and that his continued use of the account to connect followers to a PhoneDog competitor was misappropriation. PhoneDog also claimed that Kravitz was negligently interfering with their business (or their "prospective economic advantage") by using confidential information to disrupt their relationship with their customers. They also claimed that changing the name of the Twitter account constituted unlawfully changing or “converting” the ownership of the account. [2][3]
Kravitz responded by asking the court to dismiss the case. In response to the trade secret claim, he argued that none of the information he obtained were trade secrets under California law. In response to the negligent economic interference claim, he argued that PhoneDog had no economic relationship with any of its Twitter followers. As a result, his use of the Twitter account did not disrupt any ongoing business. He also argued that PhoneDog did not establish that they owned the Twitter account. Kravitz further argued that a federal district court was not the correct venue for the case, because the alleged trade secrets were worth less than $8,000, the minimum limit for a federal court case. He referenced sites like tweetvalue.com and whatsmytwitteraccountworth.com to assess the value of his account. [3]
District Court's Opinion
The court did not dismiss PhoneDog’s trade secret claims, holding that the Twitter account and its password could constitute a trade secret and that Kravitz’s refusal to relinquish his access to it could constitute misappropriation. [4]
The court did find that PhoneDog failed to establish that they had an economic relationship with the Twitter followers necessary or a negligent economic interference claim. [3] However, after PhoneDog amended their complaint to list their advertisers who were on the Kravitz's Twitter followers list, the court, in PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. 11-03474 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012), found PhoneDog established an economic relationship with which Kravitz's behavior could interfere (Interfere with what? ongoing business with customers?) .[5]
The court also rejected Kravitz’s claim that the value of the Twitter account was too small to bring a case in federal district court. They said that the value of the Twitter followers was so tied up with other parts of the case that they could not dismiss the case on this basis. [3]
In December 2012, the PhoneDog and Kravitz settled in PhoneDog v. Kravitz, No. 11-03474 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013). Although the details of the settlement are confidential, Kravitz continues to use the Twitter handle @noah_kravitz.[6][7]
Significance
Several news sources speculated that this case would clarify who owns a social media account and what elements of a social media account could constitute trade secrets. [8][9] Numerous legal scholars (and Kravitz himself) have cited this case when arguing that employers should specify who owns work-related social media accounts when employees sign employment contracts.[10] [2] [9]
References
- ^ PhoneDog v. Kravitz, U.S. (District Court for the Northern District of California 2011).
- ^ a b c McNealy, Jasmine (2009). "Who Owns Your Friends?: Phonedog v. Kravitz". Rutgers University Computer & Technology Law Journal. 39: 30.
- ^ a b c d "PhoneDog, LLC v. Kravitz". Digital Media Law Project. 2/9/2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Case Report: Phonedog v. Kravitz". Trade Secrets Institute at Brooklyn Law School.
- ^ PhoneDog vs. Noah Kravitz (United States District Court, N. D. California. 2012), Text.
- ^ "Case Report: Phonedog v. Kravitz". Trade Secrets Institute at Brooklyn Law School.
- ^ PhoneDog vs. Noah Kravitz (United States District Court, N. D. California. 2013), Text.
- ^ Terdiman, Daniel (12/3/2012). "Curious case of lawsuit over value of Twitter followers is settled". CNET. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b Biggs, John (25 December 2011). "A Dispute Over Who Owns a Twitter Account Goes to Court". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 September 2013.
- ^ Snyder, John (12 December 2012). "PhoneDog v. Kravitz settlement points to the need for agreements on ownership of social media accounts". Lexology. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
See also
- Web property
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act
- Tortious interference
- Christou v. Beatport, LLC: a case that constituted that MySpace profiles could be held as trade secrets
External links
Text of PhoneDog vs. Kravitz is available from: Scribd Google Digital Media Law Project