Twitter verification system The debacle has had more twists than a Stephen King novel, which is fitting, given that the author has been at the center of yet another storm on the platform. King, a “legacy” verified user due to his fame as a horror novelist, likely expected to lose his blue check mark on April 20, the date Twitter owner Elon Musk announced he planned to remove the demarcation from everyone. legacy users.
But while those around him lost their blue ticks, King kept his. It soon emerged that Musk had chosen the writer and two others, NBA star LeBron James and Star Trek actor William Shatner, to receive the blue check for free. Those new blue checks come with a label that reads: “This account is verified because they are subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number.” King objected. “My Twitter account says I signed up for Twitter Blue” tweeted. “I have not done it. My Twitter account says that I have given a phone number. I don’t.
More confusion followed when Twitter backtracked on Musk’s put or shut up approach to verification. It now appears that any legacy Twitter user with more than a million followers before April 20 has had their checkmark reset, along with a note saying he paid for it. Many claim they haven’t, which, if true, could expose Twitter to a host of legal troubles.
“There are a number of potential legal claims we could see about Twitter issuing blue checks to accounts that didn’t sign up for them and don’t want them,” says Alexandra Roberts, a professor of law and media at Northeastern University. “Since the blue checks are intended to be for users who are subscribed to Twitter Blue and have verified their phone number.”
Among the laws that Twitter could be breaking, Roberts says, are federal laws that prohibit false advertising or endorsement and state laws against unfair competition claims, as well as lawsuits for defamation and misappropriation of the right of publicity. Any case under these laws (“neither is a piece of cake,” according to Roberts) would have to show that Twitter’s false claim that celebrities paid for Blue constitutes endorsement of the service or commercial use by the platform, or that consumers who see them would be deceived.
Some scholars believe that it is possible to make that case.
“What Musk is doing by paying certain celebrities to keep a blue mark can be considered an unfair or deceptive practice because it gives the impression to the public, including consumers, that these specific celebrities endorse Twitter business models,” says Catalina. Goanta. , associate professor of law, economics and governance at Utrecht University Faculty of Law. “Only LeBron James or William Shatner have the right to make use of their own personalities and public images.”
The launch of Twitter Blue has not been a resounding success. Is reportedly making Twitter less than 1 percent of its anticipated annual revenue. Twitter did not respond to a request for comment on this story beyond sending a poop emoji automated response.
By imposing blue ticks on unwilling users, Twitter could also have opened itself up to regulatory action.
“U.S. The US, EU and UK have similar rules in this regard, prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices that can manipulate consumers and affect markets,” says Goanta.
The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce: Alleging that countless celebrities and well-known individuals have paid for a Twitter Blue subscription when they haven’t seems like a good case in point. “It’s also possible that we’ll see some action from the agency,” she says. The FTC declined to comment.
The platform could face similar action in the UK, under “fasing off” laws, says Andrés Guadamuz, a law and technology academic specializing in intellectual property at the University of Sussex. Because the verification mark implies that the carrier has paid for the service, “it’s a misrepresentation,” says Guadamuz.
Given the widespread disdain on Twitter for people who have paid for verification, celebrities could also argue that their reputations have been damaged.
“Any celebrity who wants to troll Musk again should seriously think about calling their lawyers,” says Guadamuz. “This could be a very strong case.”
—————————————————-
Source link