Social Media and the Law... again!

Tween pop sensation Justin Bieber caused a riot at Roosevelt Field Mall in Long Island, NY this past week when he was scheduled to appear for an autograph signing.

While you probably don't care, the story does get interesting since the use (or lack thereof) of his Twitter account lead to the arrest of James Roppo, a representative from Bieber's record Label.

According to the Associated Press, a huge crowd had formed to catch a glimpse of the mini-star and crowding/shoving was becoming a safety issue.

Police asked Roppo to help disburse the crowd by sending out a Twitter message notifying fans that Bieber would not be allowed into the mall until things calmed down. When Roppo refused, he was arrested on several misdemeanor charges, including "failure to cooperate with police".

Despite this strange request, two Tweets were seen on Bieber's Twitter account at 4:30pm and 4:33pm first asking the crowd to calm down and leave, then stating that one of his people had been arrested.

I really don't care for Bieber or this article, but the fact that refusing to send a Tweet contributed to a man's arrest is something worth discussing. Just recently, I posted a blog about how a man's Facebook status saved him from jail. Now we're seeing the other side of the spectrum.

There is no doubt that Social Media is becoming more and more important in our lives but I really struggle with this particular incident. Even if Roppo had agreed to send out the Tweet, the police were going on the assumption that a large majority of the existing crowd would see it instantly and just pack up and go.

Twitter is a great way for an artist to keep in touch with his or her fans by letting them have some insight into their life or by notifying them of upcoming events. It is not a method of crowd control.

It will be interesting to see how this - and future cases - progress when Social Media comes into play.

Facebook Status Used as Alibi

On Saturday, October 17, 2009 at 11:49am, 19 year old Rodney Bradford updated his Facebook status from his father's apartment in Harlem to say: "Where's my pancakes?"

In a recent court case, those three words were accepted by the judge as an alibi and got Rodney off of alleged armed robbery charges that took place moments later.

This is a unique first and, from my perspective, a very dangerous precendent.

After being arrested for alleged participation in a mugging at gun-point that took place around the sane time, Bradford's lawyer, Robert Reuland used the Facebook status (along with testimony from Bradford's father) as an alibi proving that Bradford was, in fact, in the apartment at the time of the robbery.

Facebook provided evidence (using IP tracking) that the posting did, in fact come from the apartment at that time.

With Social Media playing an increasing role in our lives, I expect we will be seeing more of this in future legal cases. On one hand, I'm glad to see Bradford's name cleared. On the other, this creates a scary precedence.

Anyone can update your status if they have a username and password. What is stopping someone from now planning to commit a crime and having a friend login to their account from their home right before the crime is committed and type in a status update?

Social media sites have been used in court cases before. They have been used to demonstrate infidelity in divorce cases or to check in on sick employees.

Social media brings a lot of good into our lives, but the Bradford case just proved that technology can also add a whole other layer of complexity to our lives. I look forward to reading about future cases where Facebook and other social media sites play an active part in court cases.

You can read the full article on the Bradford case by clicking here.

Bud sues Brick over "Lime"

The "King of Beers" has been making a lot of headlines lately. First they scored some media with their response to Coors Light's "cold" billboard, now they're at it again by suing the Brick Brewing Company over the launch of their Red Baron Lime product.

According to the article at Bloomberg.com, the issue is with Red Baron's green label and the use of limes. The beer giant claims that: "Brick’s label will lead people to believe its Red Baron beer is associated with, authorized by or in some way connected with Anheuser". A-B is seeking an undisclosed sum in addition to $500,000 in punitive damages.

Bud Light Lime has been incredibly successful both from an awareness campaign and from Canadian sales. It's no wonder others are trying to cash in on the popular flavour. Even still, flavoured beers - particularly lime - are not new. Mexican beers have been served with a lime wedge since the dawn of time. The ol' "Lime n Lager" has been favoured by many as a refreshing twist on a straight beer.

Some thoughts on this fiasco:

- Bud Light Lime was developed partly with the intention of stealing share from expensive imports like Corona. Red Baron, a value-brand priced around 25% lower than Bud Light Lime, is looking to steal share from the global giant. A-B takes offense to this.

- A-B is suing a tiny brewery with limited capacity and distribution for half a million + the undisclosed amount. How much Red Baron Lime do you think they're actually going to sell?

- This is a classic case of David vs. Goliath that, if anything, will probably help generate sales for Red Baron. Really A-B... choose your battles.

- What's more is that Brick recently settled another lawsuit with Labatt (part of the In-Bev A-B family) over packaging similarities between the Red Baron brand and Labatt's value brand, Brava, which is brewed by the recently acquired Lakeport Breweries.

All this aside, I really hope the courts vote in favour of Brick. This law-suit appears to be a scare tactic more than anything legit and I'm glad Brick has decided to stand their ground this time around. I'm all for defending your IP, trademarks, etc. against legitimate threats or theft, but come on....

...do you really think anyone would be confused by these two packages?