SEC not altering compliance rules for social media
As the SEC figures out how the future of business compliance will incorporate online tools, it has decided that a total rewrite of its rules is not necessary because of the new role of social media.
March 13, 2014 at 05:55 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Social media has effectively altered a number of ways humans operate: the international political scene is different because of its use as a forum for activism; communication technology has changed because of social media's vital role; business has altered to incorporate a newfound method of marketing. But in one way, business will not change because of social media, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. As the SEC figures out how the future of business compliance will incorporate online tools, it has decided that a total rewrite of its rules is not necessary because of the new role of social media.
Some specific principles will stay in place. Financial Planning reports that the SEC will maintain its regulations regarding compliance, record keeping, and anti-fraud. The guidance provided for advertising and promotion — especially in terms of the records kept on the material post through advertising channels — will stay the same regarding the inclusion of entities such online social networks.
Senior Counsel at the SEC's Investment Adviser Regulation Office is quoted in Financial Planning's report: “Broadly, firms that communicate through social media must retain records of those communications covered by the record-keeping rule. It's really the content that's determinative rather than the form of communication used.”
It is no secret that marketing and advertising have experienced an overhaul since the inception of social media; Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and otter popular applications have caused the world of advertising to turn on its head. But in the legal world as well, social media is now a heavy part of legal usage. A 2013 study revealed that social media use among in-house counsel has reached an all-time high; 73 percent of respondents to a survey revealed that they use social media tools. No doubt, the integration of the SEC's rulings with the future of legal proceedings for businesses will have to flesh out one day.
Further reading:
Social media has effectively altered a number of ways humans operate: the international political scene is different because of its use as a forum for activism; communication technology has changed because of social media's vital role; business has altered to incorporate a newfound method of marketing. But in one way, business will not change because of social media, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. As the SEC figures out how the future of business compliance will incorporate online tools, it has decided that a total rewrite of its rules is not necessary because of the new role of social media.
Some specific principles will stay in place. Financial Planning reports that the SEC will maintain its regulations regarding compliance, record keeping, and anti-fraud. The guidance provided for advertising and promotion — especially in terms of the records kept on the material post through advertising channels — will stay the same regarding the inclusion of entities such online social networks.
Senior Counsel at the SEC's Investment Adviser Regulation Office is quoted in Financial Planning's report: “Broadly, firms that communicate through social media must retain records of those communications covered by the record-keeping rule. It's really the content that's determinative rather than the form of communication used.”
It is no secret that marketing and advertising have experienced an overhaul since the inception of social media; Facebook, Twitter,
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Policy Wonks' Obsession: What Will Tuesday's Election Mean for FTC Firebrand Khan?
6 minute readThe FTC's Rebecca Slaughter Wants Fair Competition, and a Good Night's Sleep
Trending Stories
- 1Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency Practices Stand to Gain from Trump Election
- 2Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
- 3Fighting Injustice: Son Secures Father's Honorable Discharge From U.S. Air Force
- 4'A Giant in the Legal Community': a Fulton County Judge Has Died
- 5Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250