Newspaper Sues Former Employee Over Twitter Account, Charging Trade Secret Violations
The owner of The Roanoke Times alleges reporter Andy Bitter illegally kept his Twitter account when he left, and the case may have far-reaching consequences for the business use of social media accounts.
August 13, 2018 at 12:31 PM
6 minute read
A lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia is pitting a news publisher against a former reporter over a Twitter account connected to a local newspaper, but used solely by the reporter for years.
BH Media Group, a publisher of 31 local daily newspapers, including the Virginia-based The Roanoke Times, has brought a lawsuit against former employee and sports journalist Andy Bitter over his use of a Twitter account that BH Media claims to own, citing employee contracts Bitter signed.
The lawsuit was filed by lawyers from Williams Mullen, who declined to be interviewed for this article. Bitter also declined to be interviewed as well.
The lawsuit is unique as it is treads into fairly uncharted waters in trying to define how a social media account related to a business should be treated under the law. The case likewise shows the nascent and novel legal strategies attorneys are looking to leverage in litigating social media ownership and disputes.
In a complaint filed on Aug. 7, BH Media charged that Bitter violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act, in addition to related state laws in Virginia, for continuing to use the Twitter account in question. The complaint said the company acquired the Twitter account in 2013 as part of a larger purchase of another news publisher. Since at least 2011, only Bitter used the Twitter account, which posted Roanoke Times sports articles and other sports-related content, and currently has over 27,000 followers.
When Bitter resigned in July 2018 to go to sports journalism outlet Athletic Media Group, he refused to hand over the account, whose password and login information were only known to him, according to the complaint.
BH Media claimed that Bitter broke a contractual agreement, given that the company's handbook states that the Twitter account belonged solely to the publisher. What's more, the complaint alleged that because the Twitter account provides direct access to over 27,000 users that have “indicated an interest in the products of the [Roanoke] Times,” and “provides invaluable insight into the interests of those individuals and entities and general trends across that curated list of followers,” it is a trade secret of the company.
Aaron Swerdlow, an associate at Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro, noted that the argument that a Twitter account constitutes a trade secret “has been employed in [a] couple of cases, most notably in a case PhoneDog v. Kravitz” in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
But Jeffrey Neuburger, partner at Proskauer Rose, said BH Media's argument is “slightly different” from others utilized for such litigation. “It seems from the complaint that the plaintiff is not actually arguing that the Twitter followers are a trade secret, but arguing that the access credentials and the ability to interact with those followers and extract information from those followers is a trade secret.”
Neuburger noted that most all cases that have argued some aspect of a social media account are trade secrets, including PhoneDog, have settled out of court, so it's a not entirely clear how the arguments will hold up in trial.
And in the particular action being brought by BH Media, there seems to be concrete arguments for and against classifying the account as a trade secret. For one, there is “contractual and economic evidence to support it being trade secrets belonging to the newspaper,” Swerdlow said. There is also the “argument that [Bitter] wouldn't have gotten a job at The Athletic if he didn't have the Twitter followers with him.” On the other hand, “it could be argued that most of the followers are following the reporter and not the publication”, he added.
“From a business perspective. the value of this account could be the information the reporter is disseminating. And the 27,0000 followers, that can be duplicated elsewhere. Presumably most of the followers would go over” if the reporter were to switch accounts, he said.
The issue of the Twitter account's ownership will directly impact whether Bitter is found to have violated the trade secret laws, as well as the other federal laws. But determining who owns a social media account that is tied to a business or an office can be a fairly difficult task. “It's a complex issue. It's very fact-specific,” Swerdlow said.
BH Media alleged ownership of the account in part because what was agreed to by Bitter in the employee handbook. But it's difficult to definitively rule on the question of ownership without knowing Bitter's side as well. “It's possible there are facts not included in the complaint that are more favorable to the defendant,” Swerdlow said.
Neuburger added that it is likely “a number of facts are going to be discovered to evaluate ownership. Obviously the company's policies and employment contracts are going to be important, and the measure of control the company had over the Twitter account.”
But also important is “who had administrative privileges, who the account was registered under, and who controls the passwords,” he said.
While this case has the potential to influence how future courts address social media accounts connected to a business, many are skeptical that it will even go to trial in the first place. Neuburger noted that almost all cases involving social media accounts “have settled after some primary ruling by the court, a motion to dismiss, something like that. If history is an indicator of future, I would say the same thing is going to happen here. The cost of litigation is high, and I'm guessing neither party is anxious to spend that.”
Read the complaint here:
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
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