Serving via Facebook has been around for quite a while now, opening another avenue for service of process. I think that the service via social media is acceptable when all other forms of service has been exhausted. Meaning, you cannot just file the summons and complaint a presto, service of process via Facebook.
In one case the judge allowed service of process via 2 different email addresses, Facebook and Linkedin. The defendant was overseas and statute was fast approaching.
I do have a couple of comments regard serving via social media and email. How do we know they are actively using them. If an email doesn’t get bounced back, does that mean the defendant is actually utilizing the account. I do know of software/service that will track the opening and the software/service has been used in the past to effectuate service. Should this be the means via email or just emailing it is sufficient.
On Facebook, I have noticed that some people seem to have abandoned the account. Same as LinkedIn. On many Facebook pages the blank picture is the only picture on the page. So I guess my question is how active, if any, do these site have to be for using it as alternate means of service.
In February 2009, service was first permitted in Alberta, Canada, by publication in a newspaper, forwarding a copy of the claim to the defendant’s former employer, and by sending a notice of the action via Facebook to the defendant’s profile. In March 2009, a New Zealand court first permitted service to be effected via Facebook and email. Then in 2012, the English High Court also permitted the practice.
So, welcome to the new world order, folks. Social media is here to stay. Learn about it and use it to your advantage when representing your clients. And, even if you don’t, I assure you, your opponents will.Click Here to Read More at NY Daily Record