Although we decided to avoid the potentially heartburn-inducing digestive tract danger, I have since taken greater notice of these co-branded relationships, what it takes for them to be successful, and how to legally create such partnerships.

The idea behind co-branding two or more different products or companies stems from the desire to – of course – bring in more revenue. The thought is that through leveraging the brand awareness, target demographic and marketing power by each of the goods or businesses, each party will sell more.

In fact, according to entrepreneur.com, A&W and Long John Silver’s at one time believed combination franchising to be “potentially the biggest sales and profit driver for the restaurant industry since the advent of the drive-thru window.”

It’s not just restaurants that have gotten into the game, although it is the most noticeable use of the concept. Lexus and Coach have partnered up, offering Coach-branded leather seats, interior and even a bonus Coach leather tote. We’ve also seen fast-food shops like McDonald’s team up with toy companies and kids’ movies to create fun value-added prizes for happy meals. You may have eaten Lay’s potato chips featuring KC Masterpiece barbeque flavoring. Ever brushed your teeth using Crest Whitening toothpaste with Scope Outlast breath freshening action? Stopped into Walmart only to find a Seva salon available for a quick mani/pedi?

All great examples of co-branding in efforts to gain more market share and/or cut down on operational costs.

The legal structure of these mergers are often rather complicated and specific – and rightfully so! A brand wants to safeguard its name and trademarks while protecting itself from liability. There is also the important financial arrangement, exclusivity issues, the term of the partnership and the termination provisions. Let’s take a look at each of these issues so you can decide if a potential co-branding relationship would be worth exploring for your business.

Licensing: this portion of the agreement will clearly define the manner in which one brand may utilize the other brand’s name, logo and intellectual property.

Payments and royalties: here, the document explains how the co-brands will divide sales revenue resulting from each entity’s use of the other brand.

Exclusivity: The contract will prohibit the co-brands from entering into agreements with third parties that would compete with the business of the co-brands or interfere with maximizing revenue.

Term: this part of the arrangement will define the amount of time that the brands agree to co-brand; usually a short initial term is negotiated (long enough for the brand strategy to take hold and produce revenue) followed by optional extension periods depending on the success of the program.

Termination provisions: the agreement will discuss specific events that would trigger a right of either party to terminate the co-branding agreement, such as one party violating the other’s trademark or a failure to meet certain revenue or performance goals.

Clearly, the creation of a solid symbiotic co-branding agreement that results in a win-win situation for both parties is of utmost importance. Of course, the concept must be sound as well (for example, co-branding 3M course-grit sandpaper and Cottonelle toilet paper would be disastrous, to say the least).

But legally speaking, without an attorney’s assistance, it is likely that important deal points will fall through the cracks resulting in an ill-conceived partnership destined for difficulties and lost revenue.

What we don’t know are the exact circumstances that led up to neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman pulling the trigger, shooting Trayvon Martin to death. Details are trickling out from various sources, including the police, Martin’s family, Zimmerman’s family, Martin’s girlfriend and Zimmerman’s lawyer. It’s reported that Zimmerman pursued Martin as he walked through the watchman’s gated community wearing a hoodie pulled up over his head.

Apparently, Zimmerman felt it was his duty to confront the 6’3” 17-year-old. After all, isn’t that what a neighborhood watch is for, making sure that the community is safe from crime? Checking into suspicious looking situations and people?

Therein lies the issue: what exactly made Zimmerman feel Martin was up to no good? Racial tensions are running high in the Florida town and across the entire country, as many believe Zimmerman simply assumed that a big black man with a hood fit the profile of a criminal. In fact, they say, he did more than assume. He pursued Martin to the point of confrontation, even after being told on the phone by a police dispatcher that he should stop following Martin.

This is where things get really fuzzy: Did Martin then attack Zimmerman, punch and possibly break his nose, repeatedly slam his head into the ground and reach for the gun (as Zimmerman claims?) Did Zimmerman have a right to pull the trigger because he felt his life was in danger?

Was his life really in danger?

Much of the discussion in the legal community surrounds Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. According to Business Insider’s Michael Brendan Dougherty, the law is an extension of the “Castle Doctrine,” which allows people to defend themselves with deadly force against a home intruder. He says “Stand Your Ground” laws empower citizens to defend themselves – using deadly force – if they reasonably believe their life or the lives of others are in danger, or to prevent a forcible felony.

In fact, the law allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. Zimmerman’s lawyer, Craig Sonner, said that Zimmerman felt “one of them was going to die that night,” when he pulled the trigger.

Interestingly enough, another Florida man was cleared on Wednesday thanks to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law. The judge, in his written opinion, stated that Greyston Garcia, 25, “was well within his rights” when he chased a man accused of stealing his car radio and stabbed the man to death. Garcia chased the alleged car-radio thief – Pedro Roteta, 26 – for more than a block, the Miami Herald reported. Roteta, the Herald said, was carrying a four-pound bag of car radios, which he swung at Garcia’s head; Garcia blocked the bag with one hand and stabbed Roteta in the chest. “Roteta’s swinging of the bag could have caused serious bodily injury or death, and placed Garcia in fear for his life,” the judge said.

But get THIS: after the fatal stabbing, Garcia did not call the police, but hid the knife and sold two of those car radios – and initially denied the killing when interviewed by police!

It is not yet clear how the Garcia ruling will affect the Zimmerman case, but here’s my opinion: I don’t think a so-called victim should have the right to invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law as a defense if the victim becomes the aggressor; so, in the Garcia case (and possibly in the Trayvon Martin case, according to the facts as we know them today), if the victim is no longer in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death and then decides to chase after or attack a fleeing perpetrator, the victim should not should be able to claim self-defense.

The issue that will continue to arise in these types of situations is the person’s state-of-mind and whether he/she acted “reasonably.” The statute only allows the person to use deadly force if he/she believes that serious bodily injury or death is imminent. Ultimately, it is going to be up prosecutors and, in some cases, a jury to decide if the person acted “reasonably.” In other words, was it reasonable for that individual to have used deadly force given the circumstances?

As I see it, the law is going to continue to create the following divisive issues:

1. It will give people a false sense of security (i.e. that they won’t be prosecuted if they claim to have acted in self-defense) and it will probably lead to more violence as seen in the Martin and Garcia cases.

2. Prosecutors and juries are going to have to decide whether or not a person acted reasonably in using deadly force, which is going to be extremely difficult since one of the two witnesses will no longer be alive to tell their side of the story.

3. Racial tensions will be brought to the forefront if prosecutors do not evenly apply the law moving forward (i.e. if a prosecutor elects not to charge a white person who claims protection under the law, but then elects to charge a black person who has a similar case.)

On April 10th, a Grand Jury will convene in Florida to consider charges in George Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin. I don’t envy their position. All I know for sure is that this is a tragedy, and it could have been avoided.

What do you think? Let me know by posting a comment on my facebook page at www.facebook.com/jmlawgroup or tweet me @lawmr, using the hashtag #standyourground.

I came across a particularly funny article at collegehoops.net, where the blogger gave his top ten excuses to get out of work for the tourney. Some of my favorites include:

10. I can’t make it in to work today. My keys are locked in my car, my car is locked in the garage and my wife is away for the week with the key to the garage.

4. You see my girlfriend’s friend’s cousin, her mother is a total flake and her three kids are getting taken away by Children’s Services and she is going to jail, and my girlfriend is working. Her cousin is out of town, so you see I have to stay home and watch them.

1. And the number one excuse for missing work is…………………..diarrhea!!! Just the mere mention of the word and your boss will immediately stop asking questions.

You may have also come across Dove’s fabulous Facebook promotion with Shaquille O’Neill. It’s “Shaq’s Big Excuse,” where you can craft the perfect reason that you won’t be in the office, submit your boss’s number and schedule a time for the message to be delivered. Shaq (or, obviously, a recording of Shaq) will call your manager and do the dirty deed for you! Check it out at: http://www.facebook.com/dovemencareus

But let’s just say – hypothetically – this rock-solid excuse for missing work is questioned by your superiors and they discover that you were actually down the street at Champp’s watching three simulcast games, sipping a cold one and eating nachos grande? What then? Well my friend, you are probably in some trouble.

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that employee/employer relationships are considered legally to be “at-will.” This means that either the employee or the employer can end the relationship for any or no reason. However, there are exceptions to the rule: an employer can’t fire an employee for a discriminatory reason (such as race, ethnic background, religion, age, sex, or disability.)

Additionally, in Pennsylvania, employers also can be found liable for a “wrongful discharge” if the firing violates public policy. Basically, an employer cannot require an employee to commit a crime, cannot prevent an employee from obeying the law, and cannot fire an employee if a law forbids the firing.

For example, employers have been held responsible for firing an employee for serving jury duty, refusing to take a polygraph test when administration of the test was forbidden by statute, refusing to serve alcohol to an intoxicated customer, and following legal mandates relating to reporting the use of nuclear materials.

So here’s the thing: unless you stopped at Champp’s on your way to jury duty, you are probably out of luck. If you are fired, it’s going to stick.

My advice? Take a vacation day. Enjoy the tourney guilt-free. If you need more information about the topic, please feel free to give me a call anytime. Except for tomorrow. My, uh, sister is getting a tummy tuck and she needs me to drive her to the plastic surgeon’s office. In Miami.

I don’t know if it’s the self-congratulatory vibe or the smugness of the rich and famous that just seems to emanate through the Kodak Theater. Perhaps it is the idea that these people are extremely overpaid for what they do, while so many are struggling to make ends meet in this day and age. Or maybe it’s a little of that, plus it’s just a really long and boring awards show! All I know is that after about half an hour, I’m ready to move on to another channel, go read a good book or even pop open my laptop and get some work done.

Turns out, though, many stars aren’t just one-trick-ponies, and they do much more than star in a couple movies to rake in the dough. Did you know that Dan Akroyd helped create a line of vodka, free of additives like sugar, glycerin or citrus oil? That’s right: Crystal Head Vodka, founded in 2008 with Newfoundland Liquor Corp and sold in a unique, clear, skull-shaped bottle just reached 55 million in sales. Akroyd’s not the only celeb entrepreneur by far.

Queen Latifah is co-owner of Flavor Unit Entertainment with business partner Shakim Compere, a firm that includes television and film production units, a record label and an artist management company. Alyssa Milano was frustrated at the lack of stylish female sports apparel out there, so she launched Touch by Alyssa Milano in 2007, a chic team-logo apparel company for women. Her business has experienced steady growth of up to 50% over the last three years; she has one million twitter followers and hopes to open on-site boutiques in stadiums around the country.

I know what you’re thinking. “If I had unlimited capital with which to start my own business, I would do it, too!” I get it; however, you don’t need a bank account like George Clooney to become an entrepreneur.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides several kinds of loans for budding business people such as you, including the 7(a) Loan Program, the Microloan Program, and the CDC/504 Loan Program.

According to www.sba.gov, the 7(a) Loan Program includes “financial help for businesses with special requirements. For example, funds are available for loans to businesses that handle exports to foreign countries, businesses that operate in rural areas, and for other very specific purposes.”

The Microloan Program “provides small, short-term loans to small business concerns and certain types of non-profit child-care centers. The SBA makes funds available to specially designed intermediary lenders, which are non-profit community-based organizations with experience in lending as well as management and technical assistance. These intermediaries make loans eligible to borrowers. The maximum loan amount is $50,000, but the average microloan is about $13,000.”

The 504 Loan Program “provides approved small businesses with long-term, fixed-rate financing used to acquire fixed assets for expansion or modernization. 504 loans are made available through Certified Development Companies (CDCs), SBA’s community based partners for providing 504 Loans.”

For complete details on all of these options, please visit www.sba.gov and click on “Loans & Grants.” You can also call the Philadelphia SBA District Office and speak directly with a local representative by calling 610-382-3062. Check out the Philly District Office web page for tons of great information and resources on starting a business: www.sba.gov/about-offices-content/2/3141.

Obviously it would be much easier to just HAVE the money, like our celeb entrepreneurs. But then we’d also have to deal with the paparazzi, all the prep for those marathon awards shows, “air kisses,” Ryan Seacrest and competition including the likes of Angelina Jolie’s leg. No, I’ll stick to watching – briefly – from my couch while eating pizza and drinking a beer.

It’s comforting to have such tangible nostalgic memories, which can conjure thoughts of people we loved who have passed and places we adored that have closed. I experienced a sudden time warp of this type recently when I read an article on Philly.com about a new “Old Original Levis” hot dog and sandwich shop that had recently opened on Old York Road in Abbington, PA.

One moment I was sitting at my desk on the 37th floor of a high-rise in center city, the next moment I was enjoying (in my mind) a Levis signature Champ Cherry soda on South and 6th with my grandfather and father beside me at the table, munching on Levis’ special: the famous hot dog with mustard and flaky fishcake served on one roll. The smell of fat frying and the sounds of people laughing over delicious food are burned in my memory like the grill marks on a well done frankfurter. The décor never seemed to change, and the eats were always top quality.

The comfort of knowing exactly what you were going to get when you walked into Levis’ was an art form the Levis family had mastered. I was heart-broken on that day back in 1981 when I found out that Levis’ had been sold, and the place was being redecorated. The profitable timelessness of Levis’ Hot Dogs and Sandwiches had been altered, and the new shop just wasn’t up to par.

Then, in 1990, Levis was purchased by Elliott Hirsh; not to recreate the restaurant’s golden years – not yet anyway – but to to obtain the rights and formula for the Levis signature soda I frequently enjoyed as a young boy: Champ Cherry. (Hirsh was a beverage manufacturer known regionally for his Elliott’s Amazing line.) My favorite little lunch spot, which wasn’t the same since it was sold in the early 80’s, closed two years later … I thought for good!

As the article on Philly.com says, “Nostalgia is a powerful thing, especially in the food business, where childhood memories are welded.” After producing Levis hot dogs wholesale to some level of success locally for several years, Hirsch became inspired to try his hand at selling Levis as a franchise operation, with the first shop being run by himself on Old York Road in Abington. I have yet to make it to the new “Old Original Levis,” but I am dying to get there and have a sip of that sweet Champ Cherry.

As an attorney that focuses in part on business law, this story piqued my interest in another way. When Hirsch bought Levis in 1990, his driving factor were the company’s assets – not so much the sandwich shop itself. He wanted the rights and formula for Champ Cherry.

When JM LAW GROUP represents clients that are buying and selling their business, we carefully and thoroughly discuss exactly what assets of the business are being bought or sold. For Elliott Hirsh, it was important to get the Levis name, recipes and formula for Champ Cherry. In other businesses, important assets could include customer lists, computer systems, intellectual property (trademarks, slogans, and logos), software, equipment, certain licenses (such as a liquor license), trade names, real estate, long-term contracts and more.

It is crucial to clearly specify what assets are being bought and/or sold when a business changes hands. If you are looking to buy or sell a business, please make sure to remember the significance in plainly defining the assets in question. Legal guidance is essential to ensure you are properly covering all your bases. Please feel free to give me a call – we can meet at Levis’ and talk about it over a hot dog and some Champ Cherry!

Well this week, you’d have to be living with your head in the sand if you haven’t heard all the buzz about the 2012 Philadelphia Home Show. From what I’ve caught, it’s going to be the biggest building, design and landscaping show this area has seen, and it opens Saturday, January 14th.

With exciting attractions like Todd Davis from HGTV’s Room Crashers, Kimberly Lacy from HGTV’s Curb Appeal: The Block, a visit from VH1’s Mob Wives, family fun on MLK Day, featured local food and beverage theme nights, thousands of new products and over 500 industry experts, I’m certainly not going to miss this one! In fact, I happen to know you can get $4.00 off your online ticket purchase with the code COMCASTNET at www.phillyhomeshow.com. Maybe I’ll see you there!

Which brings me to the real point of this blog, and that’s the state of the Philadelphia condominium market. Even though the residential market remains soft, Philly’s ultra-posh condos are selling like hotcakes (or should I say crepes) to local celebs, sports figures, major CEO’s and big business owners. 1706 Rittenhouse, the 31-story 31-condo grand tower has become home to the likes of Cliff Lee and his wife Kristen for “just” $4.85 million. In total, it is reported the building has sold $114 mil in luxury condo living thus far.

This condo-craze is relatively recent, since everything real-estate pretty much tanked in 2008 with the market crash and subsequent recession. In 2010, condominium development and sales slowly started to pick back up, spurred by newer projects such as Naval Square (a massive luxury housing development owned by Toll Brothers) as well as an auction at Murano (the 43-story glass tower at 21st and Market Streets) that allowed excited buyers to nab luxury condos at deep discounts. These types of projects encouraged the interest of first time homebuyers to consider the Center City condo market.

From there, demand has steadily increased, and the completion of some luxury condos – like the aforementioned 1706 Rittenhouse and 10 Rittenhouse – have made high-rise city dwelling a hot concept.

It’s not just the extravagant buildings that are grabbing buyers’ attention. It’s reported by the Philadelphia recorder of deeds that in the first quarter of 2011, just over 60% of condos sold were priced at less than $400,000.

Analysts believe the buyers were mostly first timers or people relocating from other cities, and feel that without the extended winter weather we experienced last year, even more units would have been sold. (Which begs the question, with the balmy winter we’re experiencing, just how much better sales will be in Q1 2012 compared to last year?)

We at JM LAW GROUP have handled many successful condominium transactions in Philadelphia, including a few at the gorgeous 10 Rittenhouse.

Our residential transaction support is comprehensive, including review of the Agreement of Sale, the condo documents, the buyer’s loan documents, all title documents and of course, attendance at settlement.

So head to the Home Show, get inspired, and when you decide to jump into Philadelphia’s growing condo market, give us a call. We’ve got a pretty decent eye for decorating, too.

But I digress.

You may remember a blog I wrote in early December about “Twibel” – that is, twitter libel – and the many other legal issues on the increase pertaining to Social Media. As we begin 2012, we are likely to see a trend in lawsuits dealing with various social media outlets.

Recently, a young man who blogged for PhoneDog, an interactive mobile news and reviews resource, was sued by the company (his employer) over the thousands of Twitter followers he amassed while working there. Noah Kravitz tweeted for PhoneDog as @Phonedog_Noah, but later changed his username when he left the company – taking 17,000 followers with him. Kravitz claims PhoneDog said he could keep the followers as long as he tweeted on their behalf from time to time; however, now PhoneDog is seeking $2.50 per follower per month – a whopping $370,000!

The company claims that the account’s followers were actually a “customer list,” that it had invested “substantial” resources into building it, and therefore the followers are the property of the company. In a written statement, PhoneDog said: “The costs and resources invested by Phonedog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of Phonedog Media … We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

Whether you agree with Mr. Kravitz or PhoneDog, this is just a modern-day twist on a long-standing legal subject: what actually belongs to an employee when he or she leaves a company?

In general, most companies have various protections in place in the form of specific agreements, company policies and procedures that ensure when an employee leaves the job, he or she doesn’t take anything of value from the company. For example, confidentiality agreements and non-solicitation agreements are commonly-known methods employers use to safeguard their property, staff and customers. Confidentiality agreements prohibit the employee from sharing with third parties (or themselves using) any items deemed “confidential” by the employer, including but not limited to customer lists, customer data, company financials, source code, computer systems, product design information, intellectual property (such as patents or trademarks) and sales leads. Non-solicitation agreements generally prohibit employees from soliciting company customers and other employees upon leaving the company.

In the twitter case involving PhoneDog, one question that will be debated is whether or not Mr. Kravitz’ followers are equivalent to leads that should belong to the employer – even if the twitter account belongs to and was registered by Kravitz himself. If the Twitter account was company-controlled, this would be a non-issue, but the fact that these followers could be considered a “customer list” makes this a heated dialogue.

This case will, in essence, set precedent in the context of whether an employer owns the fruits of its employees’ social media accounts. (In addition, the amount the company is claiming per follower will be another curious discussion, as many say a majority of followers for any give twitter account are inactive, or at the most, unengaged).

This is definitely a case to be watched. I believe it will prompt companies to even further define their social media policies and will cause many employers to outline – in their employment agreements, policies and procedures – what is and is not (or does/does not become) company property in the social media realm.

If your company doesn’t have a social media policy, employment agreements, or rock-solid legal policies and procedures in place, we should talk.

Please give me a call at 215-832-3600, or email me at josh@lawmr.com. We can get you set up so that twibel, or other more commonly-known employment issues, won’t ever be a problem.

The former Florida Gator quarterback who was also the first college sophomore to win the Heisman trophy, the first college player to both rush and pass for 20 or more touchdowns in a single season, and who earned the title of offensive MVP at the 2008 national championship game, is now taking the NFL by storm with his last-minute miracle wins and nontraditional scrappy style of play.

And yet people love to hate him. OK, so maybe hate is a strong word. Let’s just say some people seem to find his overt Christian beliefs and demonstrations both on and off the field to be distasteful.

You see, whenever Tebow makes a great play or needs to make one, he – in his own words – “talks to the man upstairs.” He drops to one knee, bows his head, and says a prayer thanking God or asking him for what he needs at the time, which recently included a 51-yard overtime field goal by his kicker to win the game against the Chicago Bears. I must point out that, at the time, it was the THIRD Tebow-led overtime win for the Broncos, bringing their record to 6-1 with him as quarterback. He has engineered five fourth-quarter comebacks.

When the chips are down the guy seems unstoppable, and he gives the “Big Coach” in heaven all the credit.

So what’s the big deal? Why do people find Tebow’s prayers and mentions of God, his beliefs and his staunch overt religious overtones so bothersome? Why did two Detriot Lions players find it OK to mock “Tebowing”(as the kneeling-prayer-stance has come to be known) on the field after a big play? Many sports columnists are spouting off their opinions on this confounding issue.

Some think it’s the whole puzzling package – his nontraditional awkward style on the field, the fact that he played for the often-disliked cocky Florida Gators, and the religion thing on top of all that. They are just WAITING for the guy to get tripped up, to fail, to finally fall on his face. Others get deeper and think it’s because Tebow makes us all feel uncomfortable by holding a mirror up to our own religious insecurities as he unapologetically and confidently speaks to and about God in every game and interview.

Whatever it is, he’s certainly captured the interest of football fans and non-fans alike, as he continues to succeed in a big way on a weekly basis.

As a sports agent, I am fascinated watching the story play out; however, as an attorney, I can’t help but think how this could perhaps turn into a legal issue for the Denver Broncos franchise. What if the Broncos organization got sick and tired of Tebow always talking about God, religion and his Christian beliefs? What if they felt it was bad for business and was a turn-off to the fans? Seems unlikely as long as Tebow keeps over-performing – everyone loves a winner (or if they don’t love him, they tolerate him because he’s winning!) But let’s just say his footwork goes from bad to worse, his shaky running game becomes downright wobbly, and his long load-up time before throws turns into sack-central.

Perhaps the “Tebowing” starts getting boos from the crowds, and the chats with and about God in interviews aren’t quite so acceptable. What then?

Now we’re talking about religion in the workplace, a very touchy and heavily regulated topic. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, workplace discrimination based on religion is absolutely prohibited. The EEOC clearly states that religious discrimination involves treating an employee unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs.

The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs. The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

The EEOC goes on to say that unless it would be an “undue hardship on the employer’s operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices. An accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”

In the case of Tim Tebow, it is very highly unlikely that the Broncos organization would be able to prove undue hardship. I mean, the guy briefly and humbly kneels to pray for mere seconds. Much less offensive, I’m sure you would agree, than Randy’s Moss’ famous touchdown dance where he pretended to lean over and “moon” Green Bay Packers fans in a 2004 playoff game. What about T.O.’s antics, or those of Ochocinco? Perhaps more amusing, but certainly also belligerent and disruptive.

No, even if the Broncos don’t like it, there is probably nothing they can do about it, so long as Tebow’s beliefs and practices don’t interfere with the job. My modest advice to Tebow: just keep winning! People might find your overt religiousness annoying, but more and more people are finding it charming … and perhaps having God on your side out there on that dangerous field isn’t such a bad idea, anyway.

While you’re at it – put in a good word for me, would ya, buddy?

And then I heard about “Twibel.”

You guessed it: Twitter Libel. Cases where defamation has taken place on the social media channel Twitter. One such case involves a tweet by an AP writer at a Timberwolves game in January 2011. The Tweet read as follows: “Ref Bill Spooner told Rambis he’d ‘get it back’ after a bad call. Then he made an even worse call on Rockets. That’s NBA officiating folks.” Of course Spooner claims he never said this to Timberwolves Coach Rambis and that the ensuing disciplinary investigation by his employer denigrated his professional reputation as a NBA referee.

Even worse (well, worse to you Taco Bell fans out there) was the live internet broadcasting of the rat infestation of the Greenwich Village Yum Brands franchise back in February 2007. As rats scurried around the restaurant, on tables and food prep areas, people watched in absolute horror online. Both Taco Bell and KFC, two of Yum Brands’ chains, were slapped with heavy health code violations and were forced to clean up their act in short order or risk being completely shut down. Between the rats and the 2006 e-Coli outbreak, stocks are still recovering. Personally, I haven’t touched a gordita since, and probably never will again!

Then there’s the poor airline industry, under attack at every turn it seems, and most times, rightfully so. In July 2009, United’s baggage claim workers mishandled a band’s expensive instruments – and the musicians witnessed the ill-treatment and destruction of a guitar. After getting no satisfactory redress for the poor conduct, the performers did what they do best: wrote a song about the egregious acts of the airline workers and posted it on You Tube. Nine million hilarious views later, the airline was in crisis management mode. (The band eventually got $3000 and donated it to a charity, but the damage was done to United’s reputation).

In a much less well-known case, Rojas vs. Schneider, Schneider dedicated an entire blog to Rojas, a level two sexual offender who had molested her daughter years ago. While to some that may seem understandable, Schneider crossed the line by also blogging negatively about Rojas’ entire family. Whether or not her words concerning the family were true, Rojas blames Schneider for his inability to get any sort of job. As Anna at BlogHer.com says in her online column, “Each of these cases has a very different set of facts, but all involve social media and alleged defamatory statements. Whether you have a blog, Twitter account, Facebook account or any other social media networking site account this is something to think about before hitting the publish or share button.”

As a result of increased litigation in the social media context, many businesses are developing social media policies for employees and consulting with attorneys in order to protect the business from lawsuits. Lindsay Lebresco, Social Media Manager at Lilly Pulitzer, recently spoke about this issue at the Social Media Plus conference in Philadelphia. She advocates choosing your social media team very wisely: who is an expert in your brand and able to communicate effectively? Who understands Social Media? Who is trustworthy and interested in engaging your audience positively, while not being afraid to address complaints in an honest thoughtful fashion? Lebresco also advocates creating a solid policy for your social media team – and employees in general – to follow.

Here are some great social media policy resources:

• Social Media Business Council (http://www.socialmedia.org/disclosure/)

• Social Media Governance (http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php)

Finally, Lebresco emphasizes training and developing your team through formal education, competitor and trade tracking, trade media reading and circulation and continuing education (conferences, seminars and the like). A couple of great online resources include Mashable, Social Media Today, MediaPost and Smart Brief.

If you have concerns about the legal consequences of utilizing social media in your business, I would be happy to talk with you….. Just message me on facebook at www.facebook.com/jmlawgroup or tweet me @lawmr.