04/25/24
June 03, 2009
Tony LaRussa Sues Twitter: St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa is suing Twitter over an imposter posting on the service under the name tonylarussa. La Russa, who wasn't able to get the account removed until he filed suit, claims trademark infringement and dilution, cybersquatting, and misappropriation of name and likeness. The account, which had four followers, had the location "Tossing Pujols' salad" and only three updates. One read, "drinking a cold Zima and wishing fucking Hancock was alive, I bet he could've gotten Jack Wilson out." Read the complaint
Pretty funny twitter page, though I can understand why Tony was pissed.
I understand too, but I don't find it funny.
The suit contains several examples of off-color statements made on the page, two of which make references, directly or indirectly, to the two active Cardinals' pitchers who died during recent regular seasons, Darryl Kile and Josh Hancock.
That's just poor taste.
posted by BoKnows at 11:43 PM on June 03, 2009
I'm with you on the bad taste...poor choice of words on my part...I meant funny as in a facetious/peculiar sort of way.
posted by dviking at 12:04 AM on June 04, 2009
What a douche, not to mention a recipient of piss poor legal advice. I'm sure Google probably links to it, so he can sue Google as well for it.
What an arse.
posted by Drood at 12:19 AM on June 04, 2009
Why? Because his name is being associated with vulgar and distasteful messages? Because those messages were about two former players who have passed? Because the only way to eliminate his name's association with the site was to take legal action?
posted by BoKnows at 12:50 AM on June 04, 2009
Erm, you did read he's suing for "trademark infringement and dilution, cybersquatting, and misappropriation of name and likeness"
Given Twitter had nothing to do with ANY of that, there are hundreds of fake celebrity accounts and this is the first time I've heard of the individual in question being unable to get Twitter to remove it. Usually the real celeb just has to prove they're who they say they are and Twitter shut it down in a heartbeat. In the case of Henry Rollins, someone said he was fake and they shut him down despite it actually being him.
So yes, the man is a melodramatic arse.
As for vulgar and distasteful messages... You have seen the Internet before, right?
Wouldn't surprise me if someone at Twitter, when Tony contacted them and said "I'm the real Tony La Russa", said "Who?" I could see that REALLY getting under his skin.
Seriously, I have never seen one celeb NOT get the account dealt with.
posted by Drood at 01:25 AM on June 04, 2009
Erm, did you read that his attempts on removing the page were unsuccessful prior to filing?
Only after filing the suit did the address come down on Twitter.com, according to the suit.
So it seems that the lawsuit is simply an attempt to have the page removed. Since it has been, I would assume the lawsuit to be dropped. And I think his reasons for doing so are valid:
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions as stated herein, Plaintiff (La Russa) has suffered significant emotional distress, damage to his reputation, and damage to the goodwill of his mark.
It's pretty easy to figure out that Twitter doesn't confirm identity, nor do I expect them to. In some respects, I do believe that the author of defamatory comments should be held accountable for what they write and post. If I were Twitter, I'd pass that buck, and save myself a lawsuit or at least the potential for them.
As for vulgar and distasteful messages... You have seen the Internet before, right?
Yes, yes I have. A few times, I think. Just because something is commonplace shouldn't make it acceptable.
posted by BoKnows at 02:02 AM on June 04, 2009
If this wasn't a team you follow would you still be just as up in arms? Twitter has an established policy for people to complain about this sort of thing. I have no idea if they did at the time, but it could definitely be resolved without the suit at this point.
And if you're so hopped up on the morality of stuff, maybe LaRussa shouldn't have driven drunk if he was worried about his reputation. Now tell me how he didn't do that, he was just napping in his car.
posted by yerfatma at 08:14 AM on June 04, 2009
I just find the prospect of suing a company with no apparent revenue stream or feasible business plan a bit amusing.
Twitter is quite popular, yes, and I like it for what it is, but I can't help but picture that scene from the Simspons when Bart's comic "Angry Dad" becomes a web-cartoon and they pay him with rolls of stock that are hung on the wall like toilet paper.
posted by Ufez Jones at 08:54 AM on June 04, 2009
Twitter has an established policy for people to complain about this sort of thing. I have no idea if they did at the time, but it could definitely be resolved without the suit at this point.
You definitely know it could be resolved without the lawsuit, huh? Despite the fact that the filing says they repeatedly asked Twitter to take it down and the company did nothing?
It amazes me that people defend companies in situations such as this. If you're incapable of weeding out fakes posting defamatory and libelous information, get the fuck out of the business.
posted by wfrazerjr at 11:37 AM on June 04, 2009
If this wasn't a team you follow would you still be just as up in arms?
Yes. Something similar happened to me. My name was associated with someone else's vulgar comments. Then my address was released and my wife's name. So yes, even though I don't have to worry about being followed simply by name recognition, having a name trashed without warrant rubs me the wrong way.
And if you're so hopped up on the morality of stuff, maybe LaRussa shouldn't have driven drunk if he was worried about his reputation.
LaRussa admitted to that, and has addressed it. The difference is, for me, at least the drunk driving was his own mistake. And he should have to face the music for mistakes that he makes, regardless of form. Wouldn't you rather be in control of your reputation? Or would you prefer to leave it up to an author, who will have no accountability or taste, and can reach a world-wide audience? I see that as a pretty easy decision.
posted by BoKnows at 01:28 PM on June 04, 2009
I don't believe that La Russa had to file the suit to get the offensive account taken offline. Twitter has a terms of service link on every page, and it includes the address of the site's designated DMCA agent: Twitter Inc., 539 Bryant Street, Suite 402, San Francisco CA 94107.
Any competent lawyer could have gotten the account pulled by (a) filing a DMCA takedown on the photo, if it was owned by La Russa, or (b) getting a subpoena for the IP address of the user. Twitter pulls accounts all the time on reports of inappropriate behavior.
La Russa also could have told his agent to contact Twitter and let them know he wants the account under his name. Twitter also takes usernames away from squatters all the time.
I think the real motive here is to see if he can get paid to make the suit go away.
posted by rcade at 02:00 PM on June 04, 2009
I think the real motive here is to see if he can get paid to make the suit go away.
The lawyer or LaRussa?
posted by BoKnows at 03:17 PM on June 04, 2009
And he should have to face the music for mistakes that he makes, regardless of form. Wouldn't you rather be in control of your reputation? Or would you prefer to leave it up to an author, who will have no accountability or taste, and can reach a world-wide audience?
Overwrought much? The fact that Twitter can be accessed from anywhere in the world != "world-wide audience" or I'd be famous now. And isn't being ridiculed publicly part of "[facing] the music"?
posted by yerfatma at 03:51 PM on June 04, 2009
The fact that Twitter can be accessed from anywhere in the world != "world-wide audience" or I'd be famous now.
That's a does not equal sign right? You are famous, it's that other guy that gets all the credit you deserve. Tough break.
I have zero problem with someone facing ridicule due to stupid, senseless actions. As long as those actions can be attributed to that person. I don't see that as the case here.
posted by BoKnows at 04:16 PM on June 04, 2009
The lawyer or LaRussa?
La Russa. Twitter's gotten $55 million in financing and some think it could be another YouTube, which Google bought for $1.65 billion. That probably makes it an attractive target for lawyers.
If all La Russa wanted was to get the offensive user knocked off, he could have done it in ways that wouldn't have spread the libelous material all over the world. The fake La Russa had 7 Twitter followers. Almost nobody on Earth was seeing that guy's microblog before it was pulled.
posted by rcade at 05:36 PM on June 04, 2009
That said, LaRussa may have not had dollar signs in his eyes. His lawyer certainly could. I don't doubt that money can be the motive for a lawsuit, I just haven't seen/read that yet.
posted by BoKnows at 06:36 PM on June 04, 2009
I just haven't seen/read that yet.
Weird, you'd think that would be the very first thing they would say, "My client's not really hurt, this is just a straight money-grab."
posted by yerfatma at 08:04 AM on June 05, 2009
yerfatma, I'm challenging you to a duel.
/stuffing socks with straw
posted by BoKnows at 11:38 AM on June 05, 2009
Dude, don't fuck with him. Fatty's got shins the size of highway pylons.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 11:59 PM on June 05, 2009
If all La Russa wanted was to get the offensive user knocked off, he could have done it in ways that wouldn't have spread the libelous material all over the world.
Having dealt with customer service from Facebook to Amazon (and let's not forget Microsoft and Dell), removing the imposter not have been as easy as Twitter claims it is on the TOS.
After five hours waiting to talk to customer service (an oxymoron if there ever was one), or spending an all-nighter to fix my PC before a business trip, hiring an attorney was the tamest of my revenge fantasies.
posted by cjets at 01:38 PM on June 06, 2009
That's true for consumers. But when you can involve the legal department, it's not that hard to get an online company to get something done. Most of these big companies are delete first and ask questions later.
posted by rcade at 02:16 PM on June 06, 2009
I have no idea how this went down. But maybe La Russa did contact them as a consumer and they blew him off.
And, maybe, by the time he got his lawyers involved he wanted to kick ass and take names.
Unless there is an impending divorce or other impending financial setback I'm not aware of, I just don't see him as the money grubbing type.
posted by cjets at 02:40 PM on June 06, 2009
Dude, don't fuck with him. Fatty's got shins the size of highway pylons.
You mean those little orange rubbery ones that blow over when you drive by them too fast?
/taking some straw out
posted by BoKnows at 12:07 AM on June 07, 2009
Twitter has since announced on June 6th what they are calling "verified accounts." These accounts will have a logo indicating that if the message is from some public official or agency then it really is them and not an impostor. I'd expect twitter hopes the rich and famous will be next in line for these verified accounts.
posted by Newbie Walker at 07:13 AM on June 10, 2009
Pretty funny twitter page, though I can understand why Tony was pissed.
Given that the site had a tag stating 'Bio Parodies can be fun for everyone", maybe a lawsuit is a bit much.