Tag Archives: Lorin L. Reisner

Social Media Bot Company Devumi LLC Reaches $2.5 Million Settlement with FTC for Sale of Misleading Social Media “Influence Indicators”

by Christopher D. Frey, Roberto J. Gonzalez, Jeh Charles Johnson, Jonathan S. Kanter, Claudine Meredith-Goujon, Lorin L. Reisner, Jeannie S. Rhee, Richard C. Tarlowe, Alessandra Baniel-Stark, Daniel J. Klein, and Taylor C. Williams.

Background

On October 21, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) settled its first-ever complaint against a company for selling fake indicators of social media influence such as phony likes, follows, views, and subscribers to users on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, Vine, and SoundCloud.[1] The company, Devumi LLC (“Devumi”), and its CEO, German Calas, Jr., settled the enforcement action with a $2.5 million fine.[2] The company was dissolved in 2018.[3]  Reporting suggested that Devumi maintained an estimated stock of at least 3.5 million automated accounts, thousands of which used personal details of real social media users (who had not engaged Devumi’s clients with follows, likes, etc.), and that these accounts were used to generate the false indicators of social media influence.[4] 

The FTC found, for example, that Devumi filled more than 58,000 orders for fake Twitter followers from a diverse set of buyers, including actors, athletes, musicians, investment professionals, lawyers, and experts who wanted to increase their appeal as influencers or otherwise boost their credibility.[5] Devumi filled over 800 orders for fake LinkedIn followers to marketing and public relations firms, consulting firms, and financial services companies, among others.[6] Continue reading →

Supreme Court Rules That Costs of Internal Investigation Are Not Recoverable As Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996

by Jessica S. Carey, Roberto Finzi, Michele Hirshman, Lorin L. Reisner, Richard C. Tarlowe, Christopher D. Frey, Nairuby L. Beckles, and David Giller

On May 29, 2018, in Lagos v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (the “MVRA”)[1] does not require a criminal defendant to pay the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with an internal investigation conducted by a corporate victim.[2] The Court left open the question of whether the MVRA extends to the costs of an internal investigation that is conducted at the government’s request or invitation. Continue reading →

Recent Decision Finds Waiver Based on “Oral Downloads” to the SEC

by Brad S. Karp, Jessica S. Carey, Andrew J. Ehrlich, Roberto Finzi, Michael E. Gertzman, Michele Hirshman,  Daniel J. Kramer, Lorin L. Reisner, Richard A. Rosen, Audra J. Soloway, Richard C. Tarlowe, Andrew D. Reich, and Joseph Delich

A federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida recently ruled that a law firm had waived work product protection over notes and memoranda of witness interviews when it provided “oral downloads” of those interviews to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

In a December 5, 2017 opinion, SEC Herrera, No. 17-cv-20301 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2017), Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman indicated that he was “not convinced” that “there is a meaningful distinction between the actual production of a witness interview note or memo and providing the same or similar information orally.”[1]

The opinion serves as an important reminder of the risks of waiver—and the need to take steps to minimize those risks—when disclosing information to a government agency. Continue reading →