Daily Dicta: Who Knew? Selling Social Media Followers Is Now a Federal Offense
Pro tip: Don't hire a lawyer based on how many Twitter followers they have. You're welcome.
October 22, 2019 at 01:04 AM
4 minute read
There were surprises within surprises when the Federal Trade Commission on Monday announced its first-ever suit against a company for selling fake social media followers on platforms including Twitter, YouTube and LinkedIn.
First, who even knew that was illegal? Pathetic, sure. But against the law?
Second, the FTC revealed that it wasn't just the usual suspects like athletes and musicians who bought fake Twitter followers from Florida-based Devumi and related companies. The customers also included law firm partners.
What?!
Words cannot express my sadness that no names were named.
According to the FTC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, "Indicators of social media influence are important metrics that businesses and individuals use in making hiring, investing, purchasing, listening, and viewing decisions. If these metrics are misleading because they are faked, that could induce consumers to make less preferred choices."
(Pro tip: Don't hire a lawyer based on how many Twitter followers they have. You're welcome.)
The FTC reasons that now-defunct Devumi and its owner German Calas, Jr. "provided such users of social media platforms with the means and instrumentalities for the commission of deceptive acts or practices. Therefore, defendants' acts or practices … constitute deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act."
Oh Section 5 of the FTC Act, what won't you stretch to cover? If the statute was a superhero, it would definitely be Elastigirl. Which is possibly the nerdiest sentence any person has ever written, but I'm standing by it.
Alas, Calas and his company opted to settle rather than fight. The proposed court order bans the defendants from selling social media influence and imposes a $2.5 million penalty—the amount the FTC says Calas was paid by Devumi. But based on his financial representations to the commission, he's only on the hook for $250,000.
Calas and Devumi are represented by Pryor Cashman partner Jeffrey Alberts, who did not respond to a request for comment.
The FTC suit follows an action by New York Attorney General's office, which wrangled a $50,000 settlement from Calas and Devumi in January in the first-ever state level case for selling social media followers.
The FTC on Monday also announced a second settlement involving deceptive use of social media—though the action is not likely to strike terror in many hearts.
The FTC went after Texas-based Sunday Riley Skincare for posting fake reviews of its products on the Sephora.com website.
Sephora got suspicious of all the glowing testimonials coming from the same IP address and removed the reviews penned by Sunday Riley employees.
According to the FTC, Sunday Riley then got an Express VPN account to hide its IP address and location.
The FTC administrative complaint quotes from a July 2016 email that the owner wrote to her staff directing each of them to "create three accounts on Sephora.com, registered as … different identities." She also included step-by-step instructions for setting up new personas and using a VPN to hide their identities.
This strikes me as blatantly deceptive conduct, but the FTC declined to impose any monetary penalty. Instead, the defendants merely agreed not to make "any misrepresentation, expressly or by implication, about the status of any endorser or person providing a review of the product."
Ooh ouch (said no one).
Sunday Riley was represented by Behnam Dayanim of Paul Hastings, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
FTC Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, both Democrats, voted against accepting the deal, objecting to its "minimal sanctions."
"When fake reviews pollute the internet, it hurts our entire digital economy. But after an executive ordered employees to lie online, the @FTC settled the case for no consumer refunds, no forfeiture of profits, and no admission of wrongdoing. I voted no," tweeted Chopra—who has 4,244 followers, presumably all legitimately acquired.
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 AllLitigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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