on July 20, 2016
There are many ways in which professionals and
companies are being harmed online and on social media. One increasingly common
form of online harassment is impersonation of the person (or company) that the
harasser is intending to harm through the creation of fake public personas
on social media platforms or websites.
Impersonations, or impostor
accounts as they are known on Facebook, are generally prohibited by the major
online and social media players like Google, Twitter and Facebook.
Unlike
with standard internet defamation, removal of online impersonations can
generally be accomplished without a court order.
Google+
Despite
its relative lack of success, impersonations are fairly common on
Google+. This includes people creating impersonating accounts in
order to publish false Google reviews, or alternatively to start a blog
(through Google’s blog-publishing service, Blogger) about or in the name
of the person being targeted.
Google+’s User Conduct and Content
Policy prohibits impersonations, specifically the use
of Google+ “to mislead or confuse users by pretending to be someone else or
pretending to represent an organization you do not represent.” Thus, in
response to a legitimate impersonation report about a Google+ account that is
deceiving other users as to the user’s true identity, Google is typically
willing to suspend the offending Google+ account.
Affected
persons can report an impersonation—effectively a removal request—through
Google+’sonline form.
In addition to providing basic information and the URL of the offending Google+
profile, the reporting party must also provide a copy of his or her valid
government-issued photo ID (e.g. a driver’s license) and also any information
describing the impersonation.
This
last section is key, as it represents the person’s chance to explain how he or
she is being impersonated and why the impersonation is in violation of
Google’s policies. In other words, this is the person’s opportunity to make a
case for removal of the profile about them.
YouTube
The
reporting process is, unsurprisingly, akin to that of the one for Google+,
in which the reporting party is asked to provide similar information, including
an explanation of how the YouTube channel is deceiving the public as to the
YouTube channel owner’s identity.
A
successful impersonation request can result in both suspension of the offending
channel and also deletion of the channel’s posted videos.
Twitter
Twitter
is arguably the most common forum for impersonation, given the ease with which
someone can create an account in another’s name, coupled with the public nature
of most accounts.
While
Twitter does allow for parody and other similar accounts—which are fairly
common—Twitterprohibits accounts that portray “another person
in a confusing or deceptive manner.” Such accounts are subject to a
permanent suspension of the account.
Twitter
impersonation policy violations can be reported through its online form, or directly through the
offending accounts in question. The latter involves clicking the “gear”
icon on the account’s profile, selecting “Report” and then indicating “They’re
being abusive or harmful” and choosing “Pretending to be me or someone else.”
Shortly
after, Twitter will email the person submitting the report about next steps.
For example, if someone were to submit a report on another’s behalf (such as an
attorney), Twitter will ask for proof that the submitting party is authorized
to represent the person being impersonated (e.g. a document showing authorization,
plus the submitting party’s ID and business card).
Facebook
Finally,
Facebook similarly prohibits “impostor accounts,” as we touched on a couple years ago on our blog.
Facebook
offers an online form for people without a
Facebook account, but otherwise asks Facebook users to report imposter accounts through the specific offending
profile itself (and Facebook will ask for similar
information as the other sites).
Company-Specific
Impersonations
Each
of the described online forms and other processes for reporting impersonation
violations are intended to put a stop to legitimate deceiving/misleading online
impersonations.
Companies
seeking to put an end to similar behavior can sometimes use the same reporting
mechanisms described above. Of course, companies have even better arguments for
removal if they can demonstrate trademark violations, as we have discussed
previously regarding Facebook and others.
For
more information, contact Colleen Devanney at 855.542.9192 or cmdevanney@vorys.com. Read more about the
practice at http://www.defamationremovalattorneys.com/.
No comments:
Post a Comment