Skip to content

Paul Porvaznik – Business Litigator

Case Notes and Summaries of Recent Cases (State and Federal Courts – Illinois Focus)

  • My Bio
    • Practice Areas
    • Presentations/Projects
    • Published Content (Print and Electronic Media)
  • Contact Me
  • Expert Witness Services, Freelance Writing Queries

Disclaimer

The content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only. It is not intended to solicit business or to provide legal advice. Laws differ by jurisdiction, and the information on this blog may not apply to every reader. You should not take, or refrain from taking, any legal action based upon the information contained on this blog without first seeking professional counsel.

Tag: misappropriation of identity; invasion of privacy; intrusion on seclusion; hijacked LinkedIn account; right of publicity; unfair competition; lost profits

Can Hijacking a LinkedIn Account Subject You to Invasion of Privacy and Missapropriation Claims?

In Eagle v. Morgan, 11-4303 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 12, 2013), an employee sued her employer for seizing the employee’s LinkedIn account and blocked her from it for several weeks.  

After trial, the court ruled in Plaintiff’s favor on the following three state law claims:

(1) Claim: Statutory unauthorized use of name

Ruling and Reason: Plaintiff’s claim sustained.  Plaintiff’s name has commercial value based on her investment of time and effort developing her reputation in the banking industry.  Defendant (Edcomm) used plaintiff’s name without her consent for commercial purposes in that someone looking on-line for plaintiff, would instead be redirected to an Edcomm agent.   *6.

2) Claim: Invasion of privacy

Ruling and reason:  Judgment for plaintiff.  Plaintiff has privacy interest in her name, picture and resume and plaintiff’s name in banking industry has “prestige and commercial value”.  Edcomm appropriated plaintiff’s reputation, prestige and commercial standing for its own use by allowing plaintiff’s name to remain on LinkedIn URL.  *7-8.

 3) Claim: Misappropriation of Publicity

Ruling and reason: Judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff has exclusive property right in her identity and sole right to control the commercial value of her name and the companion right to prevent others from exploiting it without her permission.  Edcomm exploited plaintiff’s name and commercial value associated with her name by locking plaintiff out of her LinkedIn account and replacing plaintiff’s credentials with those of her successor.  *8.

Damages

Plaintiff offered no specific, tangible damages evidence.  Her lost profits and lost business opportunities claims were purely speculative and she failed to point to a single contract, client, prospect or transaction that didn’t materialize as a result of Edcomm’s conduct.  *13-16.

 Defendant’s Counterclaims

(1) Misappropriation – Edcomm claimed plaintiff misappropriated Edcomm’s LinkedIn account as her own when plaintiff retook control of her LinkedIn account after about 17 days post-firing.  Edcomm claimed that it had the initial idea to use LinkedIn as a business marketing tool and that it retained the rights to the account after plaintiff was fired. 

The Court disagreed and said that the LinkedIn user agreement was clearly between the individual user (plaintiff) and LinkedIn.  The Court also noted that Edcomm didn’t have a written LinkedIn policy in which it dictated its employee’s LinkedIn use. *16. 

(2) Unfair Competition – Edcomm asserted that plaintiff improperly recaptured her LinkedIn account to compete unfairly with Edcomm for business and clients.  The court summarily rejected this by saying that Edcomm failed to show that plaintiff misappropriated her LinkedIn account and therefore could not show “passing off” or “likelihood of confusion” – the twin hallmarks of a common law unfair competition claim. *16.

Take-aways:

– Where a plaintiff can show she has invested time and energy into furthering her reputation in an industry, the plaintiff’s identity or “brand” will have commercial value and that value will be protectable;

– So who owns a LinkedIn account? If the employer sponsors the account and has a clearly defined policy concerning ownership and use of the account, an argument can be made that once an employee is terminated, that account devolves to the employer.  

– Where a plaintiff can’t pinpoint any specific lost business opportunities, damages will be too speculative and she will get nothing.

 

 
 
 
 
 

Share this:

  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Tumblr
  • Twitter
  • Print
Posted on June 9, 2013January 25, 2015Categories Employment Law, Social MediaTags LinkedIn; Invasion of Privacy; Right of Publicity; Unfair Competition; Tortious Interference; Misappropriation, misappropriation of identity; invasion of privacy; intrusion on seclusion; hijacked LinkedIn account; right of publicity; unfair competition; lost profitsLeave a comment on Can Hijacking a LinkedIn Account Subject You to Invasion of Privacy and Missapropriation Claims?
Proudly powered by WordPress