Much been said about the power, pleasures and pitfalls Twitter, to many the greatest and most instant form of social media available.  With over 100 million users and more than 250 million tweets a day, this is quite understandable.

It would seem that this platform is now even flexing its muscles in legal spheres.  Picture this.  You manufacture and sell a range of unique products and discover that one of your competitors has, at least in your opinion, copied your product range.

In the good old days, you would rush into your attorney’s office and insist that “a strongly worded letter” be sent to your competitor, demanding that it immediately stop copying you, or face being sued.  More often than not, your letter (and the numerous reminders that would no doubt have followed) would be ignored, and a year (and a hefty legal bill) later you’d all be in Court fighting it out, hoping that the Judge ultimately agrees with you.

Now fast forward the same facts into 2012....scrap the lawyers, save the trees and forget the Courts.  Post a feature on your blog inviting your customers to “spot the difference” between your respective products.  Then tweet the blog post to your substantial crowd of followers, and sit back and let Twitter, Facebook and your followers sort the problem out for you.

I hear you saying, “Yeah, right...unlikely...”  Well, believe it or not, this is exactly what happened recently in the case of two jewellery designers.  Tatty Devine, a UK based manufacturer of handmade jewellery was of the view that a US based competitor, Claire’s Accessories, had created a range of jewellery that closely resembled its own designs.  Scrap the lawyers, save the trees and forget the Courts.  Through its blog, Tatty Devine called on its readers to spot the differences between the various items.  The blog feature was also tweeted to its followers, resulting in a massive amount of attention to the debate within very little time.  Not only did the issue trend on Twitter, numerous negative comments and complaints were posted on Claire’s Accessories’ Facebook page, resulting in the withdrawal of a number of its designs.

“Great!” you shout.  “Let’s all scrap the lawyers, save the trees and forget the Courts!”  But easy tiger, ever heard that old adage that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is?  The Tatty Devine story, although on the face of it appears to have provided swift justice at no cost and is therefore Good, unfortunately, and not to be outdone, The Bad and The Ugly lurk in the dark and forgotten recesses.

Let’s have a look at The Bad.  It is dangerous to ignore widespread criticism on social media platforms, as numerous corporations have learned.  In 2010 The Gap discovered that launching a new logo could be risky business, when the massive dislike expressed by its online followers prompted The Gap to revert to its old logo. Claire’s Accessories was therefore forced to do something. However, a withdrawal of its jewellery due to public demand, was likely to be seen as an admission of guilt when in fact Claire’s Accessories may well have had perfectly valid defences.  There is after all nothing illegal about copying a competitor’s products, provided certain requirements are met.

Although Tatty Devine enjoyed a measure of success, this was by no means a final resolution of the problem as Claire’s Accessories are free to re-introduce the offending jewellery into the market or “copy” Tatty Devine’s designs in future.  A Court-issued interdict usually prohibits these acts and disregarding such an interdict is punishable in a number of ways.

Tatty Devine’s insinuation of copying, and even third party comments on its blog, could well have been met with a claim for defamation by Claire’s Accessories in the event that a Court had found nothing wrong with Claire’s Accessories’ conduct.  This defamation claim could even be accompanied by a claim for damages should Claire’s Accessories have suffered loss in the form of reduced sales or damage to its reputation.

The Ugly is just that.  Is the forcing of settlements in legal disputes by way of pressure exerted through social media not tantamount to mob justice?  Does it not conjure up images of vigilantes and kangaroo courts handing out “justice” as and when they deem fit?  What happened to one of the basic rules of law:  hear both sides?

I don’t know about you but I’m uneasy.

Publication Name: Social Media

Date: June, 2013