Employer's Access of Employee's LinkedIn Account Does Not Violate CFAA or Lanham Act: E.D. Pa. | Practical Law

Employer's Access of Employee's LinkedIn Account Does Not Violate CFAA or Lanham Act: E.D. Pa. | Practical Law

In Eagle v. Morgan, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted partial summary judgment in a case involving an employer's alleged wrongful access to and control of a former employee's LinkedIn account. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the plaintiff's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Lanham Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff's state law claims to proceed. This case highlights the importance of instituting and maintaining social media policies addressing the ownership of social media accounts during and following employment.

Employer's Access of Employee's LinkedIn Account Does Not Violate CFAA or Lanham Act: E.D. Pa.

by PLC Labor & Employment
Law stated as of 13 Mar 2013 • USA (National/Federal)
In Eagle v. Morgan, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted partial summary judgment in a case involving an employer's alleged wrongful access to and control of a former employee's LinkedIn account. The court granted summary judgment to the employer on the plaintiff's Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and Lanham Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff's state law claims to proceed. This case highlights the importance of instituting and maintaining social media policies addressing the ownership of social media accounts during and following employment.
On October 4, 2012, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an opinion in Eagle v. Morgan, granting summary judgment to an employer on claims asserted by a former employee under the CFAA and Lanham Act. The plaintiff claimed that her former employer wrongfully accessed and temporarily controlled her LinkedIn account after her employment was terminated.
The former employee, Linda Eagle, was a co-founder of co-defendant Edcomm, Inc., a financial services training company. While Eagle was president of Edcomm, she established a LinkedIn account and used it for professional and personal purposes. Another Edcomm employee, Elizabeth Sweeney, assisted Eagle in maintaining the account and had access to her LinkedIn password. Edcomm, which recommended that all employees maintain LinkedIn accounts, generally had a practice of effectively owning employees' LinkedIn accounts and accessing those accounts and related information after termination of employment, if it did not steal the former employee's identity.
In June 2011, Eagle's employment was terminated and Edcomm changed Eagle's LinkedIn password and account profile to display the name and image of her replacement, Sandy Morgan. Following these changes, Eagle temporarily could not access her LinkedIn account.
Eagle filed suit against Morgan, Edcomm and other defendants, alleging 11 causes of action including:
  • Two claims for violations of the CFAA.
  • One claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
  • Several claims under state law.
The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Eagle's CFAA and Lanham Act claims, while preserving her state law claims for later resolution, holding that Eagle did not:
  • Present any evidence that she suffered a legally cognizable loss or damages while her LinkedIn account was accessed and controlled by Edcomm, and that she therefore could not maintain claims under the CFAA.
  • Meet her burden of showing that the defendants' use of her LinkedIn account caused a likelihood of confusion, in part because the account displayed Morgan's name and photo, and that she therefore could not maintain her claim under the Lanham Act.
Update: On March 12, 2013, the court issued a trial order on Eagle's remaining state claims. The court found that Edcomm identified LinkedIn accounts as a potential issue when employees left the company, but never instituted a social media policy addressing account ownership. On this basis, the court found for Eagle on the following three state law claims:
  • Unauthorized use of name.
  • Invasion of privacy by misappropriation of identity.
  • Misappropriation of publicity.
However, the court also found that Eagle failed to prove damages, and was therefore unable to recover from her former employer.

Practical Implications

Although employer and employee ownership of social media accounts is a developing area of law, this case highlights the importance of maintaining employee policies addressing employer and employee ownership of, access to and expectations of privacy for LinkedIn and other social media accounts. Written policies disseminated to and acknowledged by employees may help minimize the risk of legal disputes resulting from an employee's claim of ownership of a social media account following termination of employment.
As part of a social media policy, employers should consider advising employees that the employer considers all social media accounts used for business purposes on behalf of the company proprietary, including all log-in and password information and associated content. Employers also should consider implementing a separate set of guidelines or rules about the business use of social media if they employ any individuals whose job duties include business use of social media (for example, using social media for marketing purposes).
For more information on employer use of social media, including a sample social media policy, see the following PLC resources:

Court Documents