Tony La Russa Sues Twitter Over Fake Profile

from the let's-try-this-again... dept

Video Savant has sent in the news that St. Louis Cardinals’ manager Tony La Russa is suing Twitter, claiming that the company is guilty of trademark infringement, cybersquatting and misappropriation of likeness and name, because someone set up a fake Tony La Russa profile. He claims that he tried to contact the service and was unable to get them to take down the fake profile (which seems odd, since the company has apparently been pretty good about taking down fake accounts upon request). However, when he was unable to do that, he filed the lawsuit. Either way, it’s difficult to see the lawsuit going very far. While (tragically) there is no section 230 or DMCA-type safe harbors for trademark, common sense should make it clear that it’s not Twitter that’s the liable party here (if there’s any liability), but whoever created the account. Even then, it’s difficult to see this getting very far. The use wasn’t “in commerce” which should preclude most trademark claims, and the nature of the fake La Russa tweets suggests that anyone who read them would likely realize that it was a parody of the real La Russa. Still, there was a similar issue recently with Kanye West getting angry over fake users on Twitter — but it hardly seems like something worth suing about. If the person is so famous, then it’s not hard for them to (as West did) point out that the profile is fake, and it shouldn’t much matter any more.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Tony La Russa Sues Twitter Over Fake Profile”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“the real problem with fake accounts for the average joe is when you go for your next job and your employer scans social networking sites about you… you might miss out without even knowing why.”

I agree and there should be a site where I can search about me everywhere and then require an injunction wherever my name appears on the internet without my authorization.

A says:

Re: Re: Re:

“the real problem with fake accounts for the average joe is when you go for your next job and your employer scans social networking sites about you… you might miss out without even knowing why.”

This has happened to me. It’s sad that law makers are sleeping while people’s lives are being destroyed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“If twitter is unable to identify who created the fake account, it isn’t a big jump to assume that someone within Twitter created the account.”

I find that unlikely, it’s highly unlikely someone within twitter would have a motive to create a fake account about someone else. It’s possible but it’s also possible other people created it. How would twitter know, people can use proxies to change their hostmask and such (or they can use TOR). There are ways of hiding ones identity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Why not? Let’s say you are working at Twitter, and as a joke, someone says “what would a profile look like coming from a baseball coach?” The posts would be all like “we played good game @ end we lost too bad”?

There is no reason to specifically exclude Twitter or a rogue Twitter employee- if they can’t say WHO did it, then it would be who own the domain, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Umm, no. It means that if the Twitterites can’t point at a user / IP / email / name combination to say who owns the account, the assumption is that the account is owned by Twitter itself.

The “rogue internet user” is turning into the “two black youths” of the 21st century.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Umm, no. It means that if the Twitterites can’t point at a user / IP / email / name combination to say who owns the account, the assumption is that the account is owned by Twitter itself.

This is simply not true. The law says it’s not true, and there is not a single case on record that says that.

Please. Do not make up stuff.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So if I go to a crowded mall and someone steals my wallet without me knowing, do I sue the mall? It might have been an employee, perhaps one of those security guards, but it also could have been (and is most likely) one of the non employees in the crowd. It could have been anyone, you can’t hold the mall guilty until proven innocent.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Why not?”

Why couldn’t have been Tony La Russa himself, just so he can have an excuse to sue? If there is money in it for him, that’s a good motive (certainly much better than your, “someone at twitter thought it was funny” motive). The most someone should be able to sue twitter for is an injunction (and perhaps, if it’s not unreasonable for twitter to keep logs, a request of the IP addresses/Hostmasks and times that the person created the account and logged in).

ChurchHatesTucker (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“If twitter is unable to identify who created the fake account, it isn’t a big jump to assume that someone within Twitter created the account.

“Quite simply, Twitter needs to do a better job of knowing WHO is responsible for the accounts.”

They require an email address to associate with the account. That’s it, and all there needs to be.

Does Tony have a trademark on his name? Is there anyone else on the planet with the same name? Do THEY have a trademark? Is this account being used for commerce? In TLR(tm)’s business? Is it Parody? Way too many variables. Not their gorram problem.

Jojo Biggs says:

How would you know?

He claims that he tried to contact the service and was unable to get them to take down the fake profile (which seems odd, since the company has apparently been pretty good about taking down fake accounts upon request).
====================================================

Seems odd? How would you know? Work there? Twitter is only 45 employees, makes ZERO money in profit, only has investor money and has to monitor millions of infringers everyday. You know what’s odd? When Twitter collapses and requires to charge every text message a dime to a dollar. You’ll be cursing and will leave immediately.

What’s odd is Mike Masnick, coming across like a new Mickey Mouse character, but has his head up his bar exam butt. That’s what’s odd. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS A FELONY and the case is Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena. Look it up, while you still have eyes and a brain that works, fool.

Derick Schaefer (user link) says:

La Russa Suit Doesn't Stand A Chance

What La Russa’s attorney’s haven’t advised him on is The Telecommunications Act of 1996. He’s dead in the water. At least Twitter had the decency to pull the page off as they really didn’t have to. I applaud that. I wrote a detailed post about this at http://www.orangecaster.com/social-media/2009/06/generational-equity-a-scam-or-black-hat-social-media-victim/

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...