The “Sharing” Economy And The Law ~ Rules And Regulations For A Digital Age #socialmedia #socialsales #eav

When social media platforms refuse to act, consumers need (and in California have) potential remedies to predatory acts by companies and their “goons” available.

However, the understanding of what is an “Anticompetitive Act” needs to change in relation to the quick changing digital economy.

When companies refuse to reign in their “leaders” and insist that these people are all “players” of which they have no control, despite their own Terms of Services which spells out limits on behavior that can be linked or conducted, again, Regulators need to act.

This action is necessary only because of the predatory and some thing anti-competitive acts of certain actors in the digital economy.

For instance, is this an “Anticompetitive Act” by Gareth Davies as he spent in game currency to cause people to block and unfollow another “player” and customer of Empire Avenue?

@Ross_Quintana From tomorrow im spending (e)200,000 launching missions to unfollow and block you everyday for the next month enjoi 🙂

— Gareth ツ (@me_gareth) June 15, 2012

Did it damage the business of the other Empire Avenue player? I’m unsure.

However I think most people think spending resources to cause people to unfollow another is anti social at least and potentially harmful to business.

With the “sharing” economy being the future according to Entrepreneur magazine, and costs and risk transferred to the end consumer, that being the typical social media platform user, entrepreneurs and larger businesses need to watch out for predators such as Gareth Davies OR they will lose the trust of consumers who will go onto the next platform that will keep them safe.

This is the problem Twitter currently has, as their moderation was substantially out of step with other larger social media platforms, and consequently Dick Costolo (then CEO) resigned subsequent to a very public “apology” tour (We suck at dealing with abuse”) centered on the abuse they had allowed on their platform, and VIjaya Gadde wrote a WA-PO op ed detailing how their policies were changing and they would be fighting abuse in future while protecting free speech.

If a San Francisco based corporation won’t deal with their abusive leaders, for consumers the next step is the San Francisco DA’s Office and the California DoJ amongst other potential remedies.

And regulators may adapt to the new digital economy and reconsider what is, and is not, an anticompetitive act.

Gareth Davies, a leader at EmpireKred has been suspended by Twitter for violent threats and tweeting the private information of a customer of then Empire Avenue’s. Empire Avenue refused to act to stop the abuse.

Chris Sandys (@usafa_93), also a “leader” at Empire Avenue wanted that history of abuse “off the record” and has a history of false allegations.

I hope the guy who keeps using my photo knows that when he gets the 189 dcma's notifications and looses he gets the legal bills also 🙂

— Gareth ツ (@me_gareth) November 6, 2015