Twitter’s Verification System failure has more twists and turns than a Stephen King novel — fittingly, since the author has been at the center of another storm on the platform. An “old” verified user for his fame as a horror novelist, King will likely lose his blue check mark on April 20, the day Twitter’s owner, Elon Musk, announced that he intends to remove the boundary from all old users.
But while the people around lost the green mark, King kept his own. Apparently Musk chose the writer and two others — NBA star LeBron James and Star Trek actor William Shatner — to receive the free green check. Those new blue checks come with a label that says: “This account is verified because they signed up for Twitter Blue and verified their phone number.” King objected. “My Twitter account says I signed up for Twitter Blue,” he tweeted. “I do not have. My Twitter account says I provided a phone number. I did not have it.”
More confusion ensued as Twitter re-tracked Musk’s verification approach. It now appears that any former Twitter user with more than a million followers before April 20 has had their checkmark restored, along with a note stating they paid for it. Many people claim they don’t, which, if true, could expose Twitter to a host of legal problems.
“There are a number of potential legal complaints that we can see with Twitter assigning blue checks to accounts that do not register and do not want to,” said Alexandra Roberts, a professor of law and communications at Northeastern University. they”. “For the purposes of blue checks for users who have signed up for Twitter Blue and have their phone number verified.”
Among the laws Twitter can break, Roberts said, are federal laws that ban advertising or false endorsements, and state laws against claims of unfair competition, as well as defamation lawsuits. and usurp the right to publicity. Any case under these laws (“in no case is a slam dunk,” according to Roberts) will need to prove that Twitter’s false claim that celebrities have paid Blue constitutes a endorsement of the service or commercial use of the platform or the consumer seeing them would be misleading.
Some scholars think it is possible to make that case.
Catalina Goanta says: “What Musk is doing by paying certain celebrities to keep a green tick can be seen as an unfair or deceptive practice because it impresses the public—including consumers—that these particular celebrities are espousing Twitter’s business models,” said Catalina Goanta. , associate professor of law, economics and administration at Utrecht Law University. “Only LeBron James or William Shatner have the right to use their own public image and character.”
The launch of Twitter Blue was not a resounding success. That is report makes Twitter less than 1 percent of its targeted annual revenue. Twitter did not respond to a request for comment on this story other than sending an automatic poop emoji response.
By imposing blue checkmarks on users who don’t want it, Twitter may well have opened itself up to legal action.
“The US, EU and UK have similar rules in this respect, prohibiting deceptive and unfair practices that can manipulate consumers and influence markets,” Goanta said.
The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits deceptive practices or practices affecting commerce—states that countless celebrities and well-known individuals have paid to sign up for Twitter Blue when they are not. a prime example of this. “It’s also possible we’ll see some agency action,” she said. The FTC declined to comment.
Andres Guadamuz, a law and technology scholar specializing in intellectual property at the University of Sussex, said the platform could face similar action in the UK, under “bypass” laws. Guadamuz said since the checkmark means the carrier paid for the service, “it’s a misrepresentation.”
Given the widespread disdain on Twitter for people who have paid to be verified, celebrities can also argue that their reputation has been damaged.
“Any celebrity who wants to mock Musk should think seriously about calling their attorney,” Guadamuz said. “This can be a very strong case.”
