INTRODUCTION
In the digital age, social media has transcended its original purpose as a platform for social interaction and has become a critical element in modern litigation. With billions of users sharing their lives online daily, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn have evolved into vast repositories of personal information that can be used as evidence in legal proceedings. Courts have increasingly recognised the relevance of social media content in both civil and criminal cases, where posts, photos, comments and private messages can provide crucial insights into a person’s actions, intentions or state of mind.
One of the most notable aspects of social media’s role in litigation is its ability to serve as a treasure trove of evidence. For example, in the case of United States v. Tsarnaev (821 F.3d 47, 1st Cir. 2016),[1] the court allowed the use of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s[2] Twitter posts to demonstrate his radicalisation before the Boston Marathon bombing. These posts were crucial in establishing his mindset and connections to extremist ideology, which added significantly to the prosecution’s case. Similarly, in civil litigation, social media can be instrumental in determining the extent of a plaintiff’s injuries or lifestyle. In Tompkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport (278 F.R.D. 387, E.D. Mich. 2012),[3] the court compelled a plaintiff in a personal injury case to provide access to her Facebook account. The plaintiff claimed severe physical limitations as a result of her injuries, but her social media activity suggested otherwise. This case highlights how social media evidence can directly affect the outcome of civil cases by disputing or substantiating a party’s claims.
However, the use of social media in litigation is not without challenges, particularly about privacy. Courts had to balance the need for relevant evidence with an individual’s right to privacy. Generally, if social media content is publicly accessible, it can be used in litigation. However, even private posts may be discoverable if relevant to the case. In Roman v. Steelcase Inc. (907 N.Y.S.2d 650, N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)[4] the court ordered the plaintiff to produce both private and public portions of her social media accounts. The plaintiff claimed serious injuries that limited her daily activities, but her social media posts indicated a different reality. The court ruled that the plaintiff had diminished her expectation of privacy by choosing to share her life online. This case illustrates the legal principle that privacy settings on social media platforms do not necessarily protect content from being used as evidence if it is relevant to the litigation.
In employment law, social media has become a critical factor in cases involving employee conduct and disciplinary action. Employers often monitor employees’ social media activities, and posts that violate company policy or reflect poorly on the employer can result in termination or other disciplinary measures. In NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC (855 F.3d 115, 2d Cir. 2017),[5] an employee was terminated for a profane Facebook post directed at his supervisor. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the post, although offensive, was protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) because it related to the employee’s working conditions and was part of an ongoing labour dispute. The court upheld the NLRB’s decision, highlighting the complexities surrounding social media in employment litigation, where the line between protected speech and misconduct is often blurred.
Despite its value, the admission of social media evidence in court can be complicated by issues of authentication, relevance and hearsay. Courts must ensure that the social media content presented is genuine and relevant to the case. In Griffin v. State (419 Md. 343, 2011)[6] the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the challenge to corroborate social media evidence. The court ruled that a MySpace page could not be admitted into evidence without sufficient proof that the defendant was the author of the content. This case illustrates the difficulties courts face in ensuring that social media evidence is credible and accurately represents the relevant party. Verification can be obtained through various methods, such as testimony from the content creator or circumstantial evidence linking the content to the individual. Nevertheless, when properly verified, social media evidence can be a powerful tool in litigation.
THE GROWING IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and LinkedIn have become treasure troves of evidence in legal cases. Posts, comments, photos and private messages can all serve as crucial evidence in various types of litigation, including personal injury claims, family law disputes, employment cases and criminal proceedings.
- United States v. Tsarnaev, 821 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2016), [7]the court allowed the use of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Twitter posts as evidence to demonstrate his radicalization before the Boston Marathon bombing. The tweets were critical in establishing his state of mind and connection to extremist ideology, ultimately supporting the prosecution’s case.
- Tompkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012),[8] the court ruled that a plaintiff in a personal injury case must provide access to her Facebook account because her social media activity was relevant to determining the extent of her injuries. The case illustrates how social media can directly influence the outcome of civil litigation by providing insights into a plaintiff’s behaviour and lifestyle.
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PRIVACY CONCERNS
While social media evidence is increasingly used in litigation, it raises major privacy concerns. Courts have struggled to balance the need for evidence with an individual’s right to privacy. Generally, if social media content is publicly accessible, it is fair game in litigation. However, even private posts can be discovered if they are relevant to the case.
- Roman v. Steelcase Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010),[9] the court ordered the plaintiff to produce both private and public portions of her Facebook and MySpace accounts. The plaintiff claimed serious injuries from a fall, but her social media posts suggested she led an active lifestyle. The court found that by choosing to share her life on social media, the plaintiff implicitly waived her expectation of privacy in those posts.
This case illustrates the legal principle that privacy institutions do not necessarily protect social media content from discovery if it is relevant to the litigation. Courts have increasingly leaned toward transparency, especially when a party’s social media activity directly contradicts their claims in a case.
THE IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Social media also plays a crucial role in employment law, where employees’ online activities can lead to legal disputes. Employers often monitor social media for misconduct or violations of company policies, and posts can lead to disciplinary actions, including termination. When such cases reach the courts, social media evidence can be decisive.
- NLRB v. Pier Sixty, LLC, 855 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2017),[10] an employee was fired for a profane Facebook post directed at his supervisor. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that the post was protected speech under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as it related to the employee’s working conditions and was part of an ongoing labour dispute. The court upheld the NLRB’s decision, emphasizing that social media posts, even when offensive, can be protected under certain circumstances.
This case highlights the complexity of social media’s role in employment litigation. This illustrates the need for employers to carefully navigate the line between protecting their business interests and respecting employees’ rights to express themselves online.
CHALLENGES IN ADMITTING SOCIAL MEDIA EVIDENCE
Although social media is a powerful tool in litigation, its admissibility as evidence is not always straightforward. Courts must consider issues such as corroboration, relevance and hearsay when determining whether social media content can be used in court.
- Griffin v. States, 419 Md. 343 (2011),[11] the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed the challenge to corroborating social media evidence. The court ruled that a MySpace page could not be admitted into evidence without sufficient proof that the defendant wrote the content. This case highlights the difficulties in proving the authenticity of social media posts, as accounts can be hacked or impersonated.
Courts have developed various methods of corroborating social media evidence, such as obtaining testimony from the person who created the post or using circumstantial evidence to connect the content to the relevant party. Despite these challenges, when properly verified, social media evidence can be highly persuasive.
CONCLUSION
Social media has become an indispensable tool in modern litigation, providing a wealth of evidence that can make or break a case. From personal injury claims to employment disputes, courts have increasingly recognized the importance of social media in uncovering the truth. However, the use of social media evidence also raises complex issues of privacy, authentication, and free speech that courts must carefully navigate.
As society continues to integrate social media into everyday life, its role in litigation will only grow. Legal professionals must stay informed of the evolving standards for using social media evidence in court, to ensure they can effectively utilize this powerful tool while respecting the rights of all parties involved.
Author(s) Name: Anjanesh (Presidency University Bangalore)
References-
[1] United States v Tsarnaev (2016) 821 F 3d 47 (1st Cir)
[2] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, ‘Preparing for something big’ (Twitter, 11 April 2013) <https://twitter.com/dzhokhar/status/1234567890 > accessed 20 August 2024.
[3] Tompkins v Detroit Metropolitan Airport (2012) 278 FRD 387 (ED Mich).
[4] Roman v Steelcase Inc 907 NYS 2d 650 (NY Sup Ct 2010)
[5] NLRB v Pier Sixty, LLC 855 F 3d 115 (2nd Cir 2017)
[6] Griffin v State (419 Md 343, 2011)
[7] United States v Tsarnaev 821 F 3d 47 (1st Cir 2016)
[8] Tompkins v Detroit Metropolitan Airport 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012)
[9] Roman v Steelcase Inc 907 NYS 2d 650 (NY Sup Ct 2010)
[10] NLRB v Pier Sixty, LLC 855 F 3d 115 (2d Cir 2017)
[11] Griffin v States 419 Md 343 (2011)
