Photo Credit: Jetsy Beatz, How to Send a Networking DM to Instagram That Works, Entrepreneur, (Nov. 18, 2020) https://www.entrepreneur.com/starting-a-business/how-to-send-a-networking-dm-on-instagram-that-works/358968.

Authored By: Claire Tomberlin

July 31, 2023

The last thing that an individual expects when getting a text message or a notification on Instagram, Facebook, or other social media platform is to learn that they have been served with legal papers. With the use of social media being at an all-time high, courts have been faced with the question of whether service via social media is an acceptable alternative for in-person service.

Historically, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant and the defendant must be personally served for service to be deemed proper.[1] But what does being personally served mean? Traditionally, an individual is personally served when a copy of the summons and complaint is given to either the individually personally, someone of suitable age at the individual’s dwelling, or to “an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process.”[2] While this may seem restrictive, the methods that have been permitted by courts to satisfy the personal service requirement have been relaxed and expanded throughout the years.[3]

In 1945, the Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington established that in-person service of process is not necessary to satisfy the service requirement.[4] The standard was clarified to ask whether the method of service was “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”[5] This expansion included service of process by mail and by publication in a widely read newspaper.[6] These new forms of service still presented problems though, such as when a defendant is hard to locate or perhaps misdelivery of the mail.[7] Now, with the world evolving and functioning mainly through technology, can these problems be prevented?

Service processers have begun to take advantage of the use of social media and have tried to use it to properly serve notice on individuals. While this may seem valid, some courts have been hesitant to fully accept the way that the world is virtually changing. 4.80 billion people around the world use social media and visit around 6.6 different platforms each month.[8] The average person spends 2 hours and 24 minutes per day on social media which is equivalent to 15 percent of an individual’s waking hours.[9] If the world spends such a significant amount of time on these platforms, it seems that using social media as a form of service would be “reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action.”

In 2008, Australia became the first country to allow service of process through social media, allowing service through Facebook after personal service and publication turned out to be unsuccessful.[10] Canada and New Zealand soon followed in Australia’s footsteps, again allowing service through the popular media outlet, Facebook.[11] What court in the United States would be brave enough to take this leap of faith?

In 2011, the Fourth District Family Court of Minnesota became the first court in the United States to allow service of process via social media.[12]  In Mpafe v. Mpafe, the court allowed service to the defendant through e-mail, Facebook, and Myspace.[13] Since, other courts have begun to allow this type of service as well.[14] To determine whether this form of service would be proper, the courts have analyzed if the defendant could be served by conventional means, “if the relief sought was appropriate for service by publication”, and if this form of service would violate the individual’s due process rights.”[15] Most courts have allowed alternative service to include electronic service as long as it is a reliable form of contact, especially when individuals and entities are not required to have a physical address. Despite wanting to eliminate defendants’ avoidance of service, some judges prefer to stick to the old school ways and refuse to get on board with service via social media. Recently in Florida, an attempt to serve Shaquille O’Neal via Twitter and Instagram was deemed to be “factually unsupported and legally insufficient” even after several attempts to serve him at his residences.[16] Is it more reasonable to allow service through an Instagram account or make process servers go to extremes like throwing a stack of papers in front of a speeding car?[17]

While a traditional method of service of process may be preferred, it is not always practical. The question now is whether an adoption for service via social media will bring more problems than it solves. This form solves a lot of problems such as timeliness and use of money. Documents sent by social media or by text message comes across instantaneous, so it would be an efficient means of service of process.[18] It also allows service upon individuals when their physical location is not known, saving money and time trying to track down a hard-to-find defendant. Serving legal papers via social media is also an inexpensive way to complete the process.[19] All of this seems to be seamless and secure, but what route must be taken if it cannot be guaranteed that the individual checks their social media, email, or texts?[20] A guideline giving a time frame of when the individual must have logged into their social media accounts in order to be deemed as reliable could be a reasonable solution.[21]

With the increase of judges allowing service by electronic communication, more guidance about how to effectively use these methods is needed. Currently, with the answer to a request of service via social media depending on if the demand is in front of an old school judge or not further hinders the goal of having a fair judicial system. The courts that are hesitant to transition over into the new electronic world may be less reluctant if a universal standard for analysis of when this alternative method is sufficient is developed. With the extreme use of social media and electronic communication, there will be a high demand for it in the future, and it may become a common way to locate and communicate with individuals.

---

[1] Pennoyer v. Neff, 95. U.S. 714, 722-27 (1877).

[2] Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2).

[3] Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

[4] Id.

[5] Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 318-19 (1950).

[6] Id. at 318-19 (establishing that where U.S. was effective, publication in a newspaper was not a sufficient way of service).

[7] See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(A); Kevin W. Lewis, Comment, E-Service: Ensuring the Integrity of International E-Mail Service of Process, 13 U.L. Rev. 285, 302 (2008).

[8] Kepios, Global Social Media Statistics, Datareportal, https://datareportal.com/social-media-users (last visited July 4, 2023).

[9] Id.

[10] John G. Browning, Served Without Ever Leaving the Computer: Service of Process via Social Media, 73 Tex. B.J. 180, 181 (2010).

[11]  Keely Knapp, Comment, #serviceofprocess@socialmedia: Accepting Social Media for Service of Process in the 21st Century, 74 La. L. Rev. 547, 570-71 (2014).

[12] Mpafe v. Mpafe, No. 27-FA-11-3453 (D. Minn. May 10, 2011), available at https://www.scribd.com/document/70014426/Mpafe-v-Mpafe-order#

[13] Id.

[14] See Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku, 5. N.Y.S. 3d 709, 712-13 (N.R. Sup. Ct. 2015) (allowing service via Facebook when defendant could not be found); St. Francis of Assist v. Kuwait Financial House, 2016 WL 5725002 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) (permitting service on a foreign defendant via Twitter); Seaboard Marine Ltd., Inc. v. Magnum Freight Corp., 2017 WL 7796153, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2017) (allowing service through email when the defendant evaded service); see also David Zaslowsky, Court Authorized Service of Process by Twitter on Crypto-Influencer,  Blockchain (May 8, 2023) https://blockchain.bakermckenzie.com/2023/05/08/court-authorizes-service-of-process-by-twitter-on-crypto-influencer/. (“The court said that e-mail, social media, and posting on a designated website were reasonably calculated to give notice.”)..

[15] K.A. v. J.L., 161 A.3d 154, 158 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2016).

[16] David Steele, Shaq Couldn’t Be Served Via DM, But Plenty of Others Can, Law360 (May 12, 2023).

[17] Id.; see also Ryan Boysen, In Trying To Dodge Service, Shaq Is Playing A Losing Game, Law360 (May 19, 2023) (“Process servers claim to have finally served O’Neal a few weeks ago by throwing a stack of legal papers at his speeding in car in Georgia.”).

[18] See Jennifer Hord, How SMS Works, How STUFF WORKS, http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-mail-messaging/sms.htm (last visited Oct. 29, 2012).

[19] See Angela Upchurch, “Hacking” Service of Process: Using Social Media to Provide Constitutionally Sufficient Notice of Process, 38 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 559, 560 (2016) (“Social media, by contrast, is a free medium, and the user can both receive and send information.”).

[20] See Doe v. Hyassat, 337 F.R.D. 12, 15-16 (S.D. N.Y.  2020) (denying service via Facebook without evidence demonstrating the Facebook account belonged to the defendant or that the defendant regularly used the account).

[21] See Melodie M. Dan, Social Networking Sites: A Reasonably Calculated Method to Effect Service of Process, 1 Case W. Res. J.L. Tech. & Internet 183, 216-18 (2010).