We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-5 of 5

New Arkansas law protects employees' social media accounts

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 9 2013

Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe recently signed H.B. 1901 into law, prohibiting employers from asking employees or job applicants for social media

Federal court finds plaintiff states valid claims against ex-employer that hacked LinkedIn account, but fails to award damages

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 2 2013

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently ruled that an employee properly pled several state law causes of action against her previous employer

eDiscovery Advantage, Volume 2, Issue 4 - 21112012

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 21 2012

Since the last edition of eDiscovery Advantage, predictive coding has again been the focus of judicial decisions, the International Trade Commission and the Federal Trade Commission have worked on streamlining eDiscovery through amendments to their internal rules, and New Jersey has passed legislation limiting an employer’s ability to gain access to employees’ social media accounts

Social media

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2012

The NLRB Office of General Counsel issued a second report addressing social media because it recognizes social media usage continues to be a “hot topic” on which “practitioners, human resource professional, the media, and the public” need legal guidance

Employer may be liable for accessing employee’s LinkedIn account

  • Winston & Strawn LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 16 2012

A Pennsylvania court recently found that a plaintiff who alleged her employer unlawfully took control of her LinkedIn account could not proceed on claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Lanham Act, although the court did find that the former employee could proceed on her state law claims for invasion of privacy, identity theft, conversion, and tortuous interference