US company sues ex-worker over followers on Twitter

If it's the company's twitter account, then they have a case.

If it's the employee's personal twitter account, then there's nothing they can do... BUT if it's used on company resources, then they might have a case...


Should be quite interesting.
 
The_Librarian said:
If it's the company's twitter account, then they have a case.

If it's the employee's personal twitter account, then there's nothing they can do... BUT if it's used on company resources, then they might have a case...


Should be quite interesting.
Click to expand...

More than that, if he generated the followers as a representative of PhoneDog LLC, which he did since his name was PhoneDog-Noah, then he is guilty. Its a company resource, being in control of that resource does not entitle you to keep it when you leave the company.

Edit: But $340 000? :wtf: I'm not sure if that's justified. Did they generate income off of twitter?
 
Last edited:
Madman88 said:
More than that, if he generated the followers as a representative of PhoneDog LLC, which he did since his name was PhoneDog-Noah, then he is guilty. Its a company resource, being in control of that resource does not entitle you to keep it when you leave the company.
Click to expand...

I go with this one.

He's gonna lose badly.
 
what happens if most of those followers was his before he joined PhoneDog? That's an assumption that can be made since the article didn't clarify when the followers were added.
 
PhoneDog is going to lose those followers anyway. If, instead of being morons about it, they'd set up another account they could potentially have lured those followers to an official PhoneDog twitter account. If those were really followers of PhoneDog and not Noah himself, who happened to work for PhoneDog. Now they just look like greedy bullies.
 
Bosvark@ said:
Will keep my eye on this one... He may win it.
Click to expand...

I think he might lose. He used the companies name in his twitter account which obviouslly gave hime all that followers..... The people found him via that company and decided to follow him expecting meterial relating to that company.

That could land him in big trouble... He needs to get a good lawyer
 
Last edited:
noxibox said:
PhoneDog is going to lose those followers anyway. If, instead of being morons about it, they'd set up another account they could potentially have lured those followers to an official PhoneDog twitter account. If those were really followers of PhoneDog and not Noah himself, who happened to work for PhoneDog. Now they just look like greedy bullies.
Click to expand...

I dont think theyre greedy bullies. I think they're right.

This company relies on revenue generated by advertising on their site. Twitter is used to bring people to the site and generate revenue. By taking the twitter account he has stolen traffic to the site and therefore income.
 
cavedog said:
I think he might loose. He used the companies name in his twitter account which obviouslly gave hime all that followers..... The people found him via that company and decided to follow him expecting meterial relating to that company.
Click to expand...
Some people are, stupidly, proud of their employer, so they do silly things like include the employer's name in an account on something like twitter. Maybe that's how he got his followers, maybe not. Obviously the company will claim so. Best to simply keep employer and company names out of it. Although don't be surprised if companies start trying to sue anyway. Stealing people's followers on social media could be the next corporate trend.

Is that what all the followers said, that they expected material relating to the company. Fact is he might have been giving free advertising to the company.

Madman88 said:
I dont think theyre greedy bullies. I think they're right.

This company relies on revenue generated by advertising on their site. Twitter is used to bring people to the site and generate revenue. By taking the twitter account he has stolen traffic to the site and therefore income.
Click to expand...
If it was his account rather than a company created one then he was generating free traffic for them. Maybe they owe him money. The perception is already out there that they're bullies, thugs, greedy. For a company that supposedly relies on advertising they're behaving like monumental idiots. What do they think, that all those followers are now going to flock to their company?

There are questions that should be asked. What steps they did take to inform twitter that Noah had hijacked a company account? If these followers were following him solely because he worked for PhoneDog why did they not all leave once he no longer worked there? Did he pretend to still be working for PhoneDog, but was busy tricking these poor twitter follower saps into going to the site of his new employer? Why did they let him keep the account when he left? Why wait 8 months to sue?

The little I've read about this case gives the definite impression of shena****ns on the part of PhoneDog.
 
If he's job required him to have/use a twitter account they'll loose.
They'd be better off complaining about copyright infringement.
These are networking websites with the goal of 'networking'.
He uses the site for what it was. Unless he's boss told him to do it, it's his twitter.
 
This is one funny case, I'm with Phonedog on this one, and admittedly I'll be biased because I own my own business too.

By using the company name in his handle, he already represents the organization he works for. This is similar in issue to this instance case. If something negative was raised up by said employee, wouldn't Phonedog be liable, since the account has been used for Phonedog's purposes? He used their brand, and regardless of how he looks at it, he has done what all employees do when their leave their companies, i.e. take a few "clients" with, except in this instance, he did it in full view of the previous employers.

Personally i think this just boils down to the kind of attitude people have nowadays, "I can do whatever i like without consequences". There are ethical rules in place, regardless of contracts as stated earlier @noxbox, which people have forgotten. My argument is he used the company's brand, and used that account to promote the company. Him and Phonedog should have come to an understanding when he left that he should hand the account to them. At this rate, dude can use his new company name on his twitter handle, leave them, join a new company do the same etc... If he won this case, it would set a new precedence for copyrights on social networks. Flock him! LOL
 
_TrXtR_ said:
If he's job required him to have/use a twitter account they'll loose.
They'd be better off complaining about copyright infringement.
These are networking websites with the goal of 'networking'.
He uses the site for what it was. Unless he's boss told him to do it, it's his twitter.
Click to expand...

True. thats my argument, i could care less about networking or the value of each twitter user to PhoneDog. My problem is the copyright infringements to gain those users. Yes they knew his twitter account was phonedog_noah, imagine if he represented negative views like homophobia or racism, Phonedog's brand would have gotten the backlash for his actions. to me once he started using the brand to promote, it partially became the company's account too.
 
The_Librarian said:
If it's the company's twitter account, then they have a case.

If it's the employee's personal twitter account, then there's nothing they can do... BUT if it's used on company resources, then they might have a case...


Should be quite interesting.
Click to expand...
If he indeed hijacked their twitter account, then it would be a different case altogether, I doubt it's that.
They're insulting their ex-clients by insinuating that they mindlessly followed him IMO.
 
_TrXtR_ said:
If he's job required him to have/use a twitter account they'll loose.
They'd be better off complaining about copyright infringement.
These are networking websites with the goal of 'networking'.
He uses the site for what it was. Unless he's boss told him to do it, it's his twitter.
Click to expand...
There's nothing copyrightable on which to infringe. As that link I posted indicated a client list would normally be a trade secret, but twitter followers are public.

purpleonlineadmin said:
True. thats my argument, i could care less about networking or the value of each twitter user to PhoneDog. My problem is the copyright infringements to gain those users.
Click to expand...
There is no copyright issue here. As far as the account the company don't appear to have shown it was created by them or specifically as a company account. Further they didn't take control of it when he left and appear to have had no agreement in place as to usage parameters or later handover. If it was in fact his personal account then they simply lucked out that he was willing to promote their business for free.

purpleonlineadmin said:
Personally i think this just boils down to the kind of attitude people have nowadays, "I can do whatever i like without consequences".
Click to expand...
That is indeed the typical corporate attitude.

There are ethical rules in place, regardless of contracts as stated earlier
Click to expand...
Contracts are there to clearly set out the rules. With good reason we require contracts to specify the rules and responsibilities.

It's not even clear anything was taken, particularly if the number of followers has indeed increased since he changed his account name.

Quite often employees do not deliberately take clients, but rather those clients choose to follow the employee because they trust them. Nor do they seek to entice fellow employees away, but once those people they know find out that their new employment is better and there are openings they leave on their own. Most of the time no-one even bothers going to court these matters, although threats might be made, simply because they know that the chances of winning are slim.

My argument is he used the company's brand, and used that account to promote the company. Him and Phonedog should have come to an understanding when he left that he should hand the account to them. At this rate, dude can use his new company name on his twitter handle, leave them, join a new company do the same etc... If he won this case, it would set a new precedence for copyrights on social networks. Flock him! LOL
Click to expand...
You're almost certainly putting too much stock in the fact that he had phonedog in his username. The onus should of course rest on PhoneDog to prove that each individual follower was gained solely through that. There is no copyright infringement. The list of followers is basically public information.

I wonder again, if these followers are staying with him how can we in any way attribute that to the company name. More so if he keeps getting more and more followers.

If he loses it will set a very bad precedent. The next step will be to claim that the followers knew an individual was an employee of company X, even though it wasn't part of the username, and thus all followers were really the company's. They'll also assert that any mention of topics related to the company's area of business will mean the followers belong to the company.

There are undoubtedly more facts to come to light, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Noah, like many, naively trusted in the integrity of his employer, only to find they'll stab you in the back.
 
MyDogHasNoNose said:
If he indeed hijacked their twitter account, then it would be a different case altogether, I doubt it's that.
They're insulting their ex-clients by insinuating that they mindlessly followed him IMO.
Click to expand...
They'd still have no case if they took no steps to secure the account.

In this kind of situation it is very often the personality that is more important than the company name. If it was a company account, then why allow him to continue to use it? I strongly suspect these were followers of Noah and he benefitted his employer by associating the account with the company. Now he no longer works for them, so he has opted to no longer use his following to their benefit. I think people, those who take PhoneDog's side, are wrongly assuming that the famous brand here is the company and not Noah himself. Look at how many followers other employees have.

Their claims about confidential information are silly. If you put your client list out in the open it is no longer confidential.

And since these really dumb people on twitter now know that Noah isn't with PhoneDog any longer have they all moved their following to an 'official' PhoneDog account? I presume they would if their goal was to follow PhoneDog, and not Noah.

Regardless, as an internet company you'd think PhoneDog would know the folly of launching a suit like this. They're getting crucified in the court of public opinion. Even if they win in court, they're going to lose outside.
 
As i said in my previous post, I'm looking at this strictly from an employers point of view, everyone else will look at it from an employee's point of view. If it was as easy as you say, i doubt lawyers for the company would go with the case. We both have valid points, and at the end of the day they have a bit more information than the general public. I doubt any company in their right mind would risk alot if this was just a case of egos at play. As i read some article posted, there was an instance where the employer did use this very same twitter account for business purpose, albeit through the employee. The way i see it, as editor in chief of said company, user might have been asked to create a twitter account (or he might have suggested it, only they know) to promote the business interests of said company. I doubt any company would be as petty as risk their reputation just to make an example of their former employer over twitter followers. This seems like an account that was used to promote the company (thats why the company name attached to the said employers twitter name), and when he left, due to him knowing he never signed a contract with said company, decided that "because i brought on those users, I'll take them with", which happens to be the mentality of employees when they leave a workplace. It's all a matter of objectivity, which none of us here have, especially considering we don't have any facts on the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X