8 Comments

Summary:

There has been an ongoing tug-of-war between journalists and publishers over who gets to keep digital possessions after a break-up. The deba…

Twitter Logo Bird

There has been an ongoing tug-of-war between journalists and publishers over who gets to keep digital possessions after a break-up. The debate took a new twist this week after a court issued a ruling in the case of a tech reporter who walked out the door with 17,000 Twitter followers that his former employer says are worth $2.50 each.

In a Tuesday ruling, a federal judge in San Francisco refused to dismiss news site PhoneDog’s complaint which argued that a Twitter password and the identity of followers was a trade secret. PhoneDog claims that its former journalist, Noah Kravitz, failed to surrender the password to a Twitter account that was originally tied to the handle @phonedog_noah. Instead, says PhoneDog, he simply changed the name of the account to @noahkravitz and kept sending messages to the thousands of followers he had acquired while employed at the site.

Chief Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James ruled that more evidence was needed to decide the question of whether the password was a secret under state law. She also allowed the company to go forward with its allegations of conversion — a tort that involves taking and using the property of someone else.

Kravitz also failed to persuade the judge that the case should be thrown out because it was worth less than $75,000 (the minimum amount for federal court). PhoneDog argues that its claim is worth $340,000 based on the “industry standard” of $2.50 per month for every Twitter follower. The judge found she could not decide as a matter of law that the claim was worth less than $75,000 or that PhoneDog was claiming the amount in bad faith. The company’s “industry standard” metric may, however, be a touch optimistic — reports have suggested that Twitter followers are worth less than a penny a piece.

These type of disputes are becoming more frequent in an era where journalists are encouraged to brand themselves. A BBC correspondent created a stir this summer when she took 60,000 Twitter followers to a competitor while this week the New York Times (NYSE: NYT) filed a lawsuit after its former “Mommylode” blogger started the “Parentlode” blog at the Huffington Post. Ownership of a social media or online brand typically turns on whether the journalist was an employee and the terms of any relevant contract.

The judge’s ruling in the PhoneDog case means the matter is unlikely to be resolved until next year. In the meantime, Kravitz appears to be thriving on Twitter where he now has over 21,000 followers. In recent days, he has posted messages about the Penn St. scandal and his trip to the dentist but not about the court decision.

The ruling was first reported by Venkat Balasubramani on the Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. I have thousands of Twitter follower I will gladly sell to this firm at their “average price” times a standard multiple. Please contact me!

  2. Um, Hi everyone :-)

  3. Hi Noah! Thanks for stopping by.. I’m not sure you intended to get embroiled in an emerging legal issue in social media but the case is an interesting one. 

  4. Do they realise you can get 100,000 followers with bots and tools that just follow people

  5. What’s the difference between following a person and following a company? Go fish.

  6. This would seem to hold true for individuals who land recurring blogging spots and “fame” while employed at an agency. When this individual leaves, does the company he/she previously worked for gain the writing gig or does it go with the writer?

    1. Tyler Ward Is-Bored Jay Sunday, November 13, 2011

      This is no different than musicians who go off on their own after a successful career with a certain record label.  Jay-Z said, “to the company that thinks they made me. Go ahead and make another me.”

  7. Tyler Ward Is-Bored Sunday, November 13, 2011

    Honestly, there is no difference here than people who learn a trade and then go into business on their own dime after learning the trade.  This man served his company and made them money and past that, he owes them nothing.  The company will likely win this case because we have a convoluted court system in this country but what you learn while working somewhere is not intellectual property of the company you worked for (unless you signed a contract that says it is, in which case you are an idiot for doing so).  We are not slaves and we operate in a free market capitalist society and if this country doesn’t understand that they should take their business elsewhere.  How can you have intellectual property on another person’s own name on an account that they operate?  Also, followers are not work $2.50.  I could get you 50,000 followers in six months by just following followback accounts and adding my name to followback lists.

Comments have been disabled for this post