Twitter’s verification system debacle has had more twists and turns than a Stephen King novel – fitting, given that the author has been at the center of yet another storm on the platform. King was a “legacy” verified user due to his fame as a horror novelist and likely expected to lose his blue check on April 20, the date Twitter owner Elon Musk announced his intention to remove the demarcation of all legacy delete users.
But while those around him were losing their blue checks, King kept his. It soon emerged that Musk had chosen the writer and two others — NBA star LeBron James and Star Trek actor William Shatner — to receive the blue check for free. Those new blue checks come with a label that says, “This account has been verified because they subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number.” King objected. “My Twitter account says I subscribed to Twitter Blue,” he tweeted. ‘Not me. My Twitter account says I gave a phone number. Not me.’
More confusion ensued when Twitter backtracked on Musk’s shut up or shut up approach to verification. It now seems that every long-time Twitter user with more than a million followers before April 20 has had their check checked, along with a note saying they paid for it. Many claim they haven’t, which if true could open Twitter up to a host of legal troubles.
“There are a number of potential legal claims we could see about Twitter assigning blue checks to accounts that haven’t signed up and don’t want them,” said Alexandra Roberts, a law and media professor at Northeastern University. “Since the blue checkmarks are for users who have subscribed to Twitter Blue and verified their phone number.”
Among the laws Twitter could violate, Roberts says, are federal laws prohibiting false advertising or endorsement and state laws against unfair competition claims, as well as lawsuits for defamation and misappropriation of the right of publicity. All cases under these laws (“none is a slam dunk”, according to Roberts) should prove that Twitter’s false claim that celebrities had paid for Blue constitutes an endorsement of the service or commercial use by the platform, or that consumers would be misled.
Some scholars think it is possible to make that case.
“What Musk is doing to pay some celebrities to keep a blue check mark could be considered an unfair or deceptive practice because it creates the impression among the public – including consumers – that these particular celebrities are endorsing Twitter’s business models” , says Catalina Goanta. , associate professor of law, economics and administration at the Faculty of Law of Utrecht University. “Only LeBron James or William Shatner have the right to use their own public personas and images.”
The launch of Twitter Blue is not a resounding success. It reportedly brings in Twitter less than 1 percent of its target annual revenue. Twitter did not respond to a request for comment on this story, other than sending an automated poop emoji response.
By imposing blue ticks on unwilling users, Twitter may also have opened up to regulatory action.
“The US, EU and UK have similar rules in this regard, prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices that can manipulate consumers and affect markets,” says Goanta.
Federal Trade Commission law prohibits deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce – claiming that countless celebrities and public figures have paid for a subscription to Twitter Blue when that doesn’t seem like a good example. “It’s also possible that we’re seeing agency action,” she says. The FTC declined to comment.
The platform could face similar action in the UK under “passing off” laws, says Andres Guadamuz, a law and technology graduate specializing in intellectual property at the University of Sussex. Because the check mark indicates that the carrier paid for the service, “it’s a misrepresentation,” says Guadamuz.
Given the widespread disdain on Twitter for people who have paid for verification, celebrities could also claim that their reputations have been damaged.
“Celebrities who want to troll Musk back should seriously think about calling their lawyers,” Guadamuz said. “This could be a very strong case.”
