WHEN

 TWEETS  GET  REAL:  APPLYING  TRADITIONAL  CONTRACT  LAW  THEORIES  TO  

THE  WORLD  OF  SOCIAL  MEDIA      

Kristen Chiger1

Back in November 2010, rapper Ryan Leslie announced that his personal laptop

had been stolen out of his Mercedes.2 Leslie “tweeted” what appeared to be an offer of a

million dollar reward for the safe return of the MacBook.3 When one of his Twitter

followers, Armin Augstein, found the laptop and attempted to return it to Leslie and

collect his million dollar reward, Leslie refused to pay Augstein.4 As a result, Augstein

brought suit against Leslie.5

Similarly, in May 2008, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall

entered into a three-year Talent Agreement with Hanesbrands6 to promote and advertise

Hanesbrands’ products that were sold under the Champion trademark.7 The Talent

Agreement contained a Morals Clause, which stated that if Mendenhall were to become

the subject of a public controversy, Hanesbrands had the right to terminate the

                                                                                                               
1
Kristen Chiger is a 2013 J.D. Candidate at Barry University, School of Law. Ms. Chiger wishes
to thank her mentor, Professor Marc Edelman, for his assistance in developing the concept of this paper,
and for all the other countless ways he contributed to her success and accomplishments throughout her time
in law school.
2
See Ryan Leslie Offers One Million Dollars For Stolen Laptop Return, SINGERSROOM, Nov. 8,
2010, at http://singersroom.com/content/2010-11-08/Ryan-Leslie-Offers-One-Million-Dollars-For-Stolen-
Laptop-Return/ (stating that Ryan Leslie had his laptop stolen out of his Mercedes).
3
See Rob Markman, Watch The Throne Tracks Lost With Ryan Leslie’s Laptop, MTV.COM, Oct 4,
2012 at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694935/ryan-leslie-watch-the-throne-lost-tracks-laptop.jhtml
(explaining that, “desperate to reclaim the work that he’d lost, Leslie offered a million-dollar reward”).
4
See Rob Markman, Ryan Leslie Sued For $1 Million Over Laptop Reward, MTV.COM, Oct. 26,
2011, at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673241/ryan-leslie-laptop-lawsuit.jhtml.
5
See Rob Markman, Watch The Throne Tracks Lost With Ryan Leslie’s Laptop, MTV.COM, Oct 4,
2012 at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1694935/ryan-leslie-watch-the-throne-lost-tracks-laptop.jhtml
(stating that “the singer is being sued in a trial that is scheduled to start on October 22”).
6
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 719 (M.D.N.C. 2012)(stating that “In
May 2008, Mr. Mendenhall and Hanesbrands, a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business
located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, entered into a Talent Agreement”).
7
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 719 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“Under the
terms of the Talent Agreement, Hanesbrands would use the services of Mr. Mendenhall to advertise and
promote Hanesbrands' products sold under the Champion trademark.”).

  1  

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529
agreement.8 On May 2, 2011, just one day after the President announced the capture and

death of Osama Bin Laden, Mendenhall put out a series of controversial tweets relating to

the matter. Based on these tweets, just a few days later on May 5, 2011, Hanesbrands

informed Mendenhall of their intent to terminate their Talent Agreement and Mendenhall

filed suit against Hanes for breach of contract.9

While the popularity of social networking in today’s society continues to sky

rocket, so do the inevitable issues surrounding the legality of statements and agreements

made using social media sites such as Twitter. This paper will address recent cases and

controversies involving Twitter, while discussing and applying contract law—both

traditional and modern—to such incidents.

Part I of this paper will give a background on Twitter, discussing its role and

popularity in today’s society. Part II will discuss the legal issues involved with

contractual agreements made over Twitter, and whether the reward tweet authored by

Ryan Leslie indeed constituted a valid offer. Part III of this paper will address the case of

Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., and will discuss the issue of whether a tweet made in

violation of a Morals Clause is sufficient grounds for termination of a Talent Agreement

contract. Part IV will discuss scandals involving public figures that took place as a result

                                                                                                               
8
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 719-20 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (The
agreement stated that “If Mendenhall commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any
situation or occurrence (collectively, the “Act”) tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute,
contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public or
any protected class or group thereof, then we shall have the right to immediately terminate this
Agreement.”).
9
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 721 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“In a letter
dated May 5, 2011, and addressed to Rob Lefko, one of Mr. Mendenhall's representatives at Priority Sports
and Entertainment, Hanesbrands' Associate General Counsel, L. Lynette Fuller–Andrews, indicated that it
was Hanesbrands' intent to terminate the Talent Agreement effective Friday, May 13, 2011.”).

  2  

Electronic
Electroniccopy
copyavailable
availableat:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529
of Twitter. Finally, part V will conclude and discuss legal issues that may arise in the

future.

I. ABOUT TWITTER

Twitter, a social media site started in 200610, is a “real-time information network

that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find

interesting.”11 Users are able to create and share “tweets,” which are postings that can be

up to 140 characters in length.12

Unlike lengthy blog posts, Twitter gives users the opportunity to say what’s on

their mind without having to take the time or energy to write full-length postings at

regular intervals.13 Twitter has been called “microblogging” due to the fact that tweets

may only contain 140 words or less.14 Each tweet is made in order to answer the question

“what are you doing?” and is then published in the twitter feed of those users who

“follow.”15

                                                                                                               
10
See Eric Johnson, Facebook’s Myspace Moment: Why Twitter Is Already Bigger Than
Facebook, FORBES, September 26, 2012, at
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/09/26/facebooks-myspace-moment-why-twitter-is-already-
bigger-than-facebook/ (The article states that “Twitter was started when Jack Dorsey sent an SMS message
at 9:50pm PT on March 21, 2006.”).
11
See https://twitter.com/about.
12
See https://twitter.com/about (“At the heart of Twitter are small bursts of information called
Tweets. Each Tweet is 140 characters long, but don’t let the small size fool you—you can discover a lot in
a little space. You can see photos, videos and conversations directly in Tweets to get the whole story at a
glance, and all in one place.”).
13
See Anita Hamilton, Why Everyone’s Talking about Twitter, TIME, March 27, 2007, at
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1603637,00.html#ixzz2CPC9Xncb (The article states
that those who have “ever fancied yourself a blogger” but did not have the time to keep one can “set your
inner blogger free” using Twitter.).
14
See Anita Hamilton, Why Everyone’s Talking about Twitter, TIME, March 27, 2007, at
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1603637,00.html#ixzz2CPC9Xncb (The author states
that while some people refer to Twitter as microblogging or moblogging, she likes to think of it as “simply
blogging for regular people.”).
15
See Anita Hamilton, Why Everyone’s Talking about Twitter, TIME, March 27, 2007, at
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1603637,00.html#ixzz2CPC9Xncb (The author explains
that tweets are limited to 140 characters, and are used to answer the question “what are you doing?”).

  3  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 Perhaps the most well known Twitter feature is the hashtag. Hashtags are words

or phrases that follow a “#” symbol.16 They are used as a way for Twitter users to find

others who are talking about the same subject.17 For example, if someone hashtags the

word “winning,” the likely results following a click of the linked word would yield

several others who are discussing things such as great accomplishments, competition

results, or Charlie Sheen.18

Among the site’s millions of users are several celebrities and public figures.19

While Twitter is a great way to instantly exchange information in “real-time,” it is no

stranger to public scandals20 and legal issues.

II. TWEETS FOR KEEPS: CONTRACT FORMATION & SOCIAL MEDIA

On March 23, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Florida held that an instant message exchange effectively modified a written agreement

                                                                                                               
16
See Ashley Parker, Twitter’s Secret Handshake, NYTIMES.COM, June 10, 2011, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/fashion/hashtags-a-new-way-for-tweets-cultural-
studies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (The article defines hashtags as “words or phrases preceded by the #
symbol”).
17
See Ashley Parker, Twitter’s Secret Handshake, NYTIMES.COM, June 10, 2011, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/fashion/hashtags-a-new-way-for-tweets-cultural-
studies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (Hastags are used as a way of users to “organize and search messages”
for words or phrases within real-time updates.).
18
See Ashley Parker, Twitter’s Secret Handshake, NYTIMES.COM, June 10, 2011, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/fashion/hashtags-a-new-way-for-tweets-cultural-
studies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (When Charlie Sheen had his “meltdown” back in 2011, he tweeted the
phrase “#winning” and it immediately caught on and highlighted hashtags as “one of the newest ways
technology has changed how we communicate.”).
19
See Kelly Phillips Erb, Microblogging: Is Twitter the New Blog?, Pa. Law., July/August 2009,
at 34 (stating that the “appeal of Twitter has gone beyond celebrities and politicians.” The author goes on to
note that even President Obama has a Twitter account.).
20
See Porcher L. Taylor, III. et. al., The Reverse-Morals Clause: The Unique Way to Save Talent's
Reputation and Money in A New Era of Corporate Crimes and Scandals, 28 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 65,
110-11 (2010) (The author notes that “armed with Twitter, talent are just possibly one tweet away from
scandal.”).

  4  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

which contained a “no-oral modification clause.”21 In the case of CX Digital Media v.

Smoking Everywhere, CX Digital Media, Inc., (“CX”) filed suit against Smoking

Everywhere, Inc. (“Smoking Everywhere”) for damages owed based on a modification

agreement, which was made entirely through instant messages.22

Despite Smoking Everywhere’s argument that an online conversation lacks the

“specificity and directness” needed to form a valid contract, the court ruled otherwise.23

Judge Cecilia Altonaga held that the conversation at issue was indeed an “unsigned

writing” that contained valid offer and acceptance.24 Essentially, the ruling made it clear

that, where a contract requires a written and signed modification, an online instant

message exchange is sufficient to meet such requirement.

The Cx Digital Media case tells us that contracts formed over the internet are just

as binding and valid as those that are formed in person.25 “Tweets” are similar to instant

messages, and if a dispute involving a sales contract formed over Twitter takes place in

                                                                                                               
21
See generally CX Digital Media v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., No. 09-62020, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 29999, (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011) (The court held that an instant messaging conversation could
modify a contract.).
22
See CX Digital Media, Inc. v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999, 7,
2011 WL 1102782 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011)(The parties engaged in a day-long instant messaging
conversation where they discussed a number of topics, one of which was the modification agreement in
question.).
23
See CX Digital Media, Inc. v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999, 30,
2011 WL 1102782 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011) (Smoking Everywhere argued that an online conversation
lacks the “specificity and directness” needed in order to modify a contract.).
24
See Williston § 29:42 ("[W]here, following the oral modification, one of the parties materially
changes position in reliance on the oral modification, the courts are in general agreement that the other
party will be held to have waived or be estopped from asserting the no oral modification clause."); See also
CX Digital Media, Inc. v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999, 40, 2011 WL
1102782 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011) (The court reasoned that, because Smoking Everywhere was aware of
the changes and did not complain, the “signed-writing” argument did not hold weight).
25
CX Digital Media, Inc. v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29999, 37, 2011
WL 1102782 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011) (The court ruled that the “instant-message conversation, as an
unsigned writing” was sufficient enough under Delaware law to properly modify the “Insertion Order” in
question.).

  5  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

the future, the CX Digital Media case will likely set the precedent. A similar decision was

rendered in the case of Augstein v. Leslie, which involved a reward offer.

A. Tweeter Beware: Reward Offers Can Be Binding

While touring Germany, rapper Ryan Leslie’s laptop was stolen.26 The laptop’s

hard drive contained Leslie’s intellectual property, including unreleased tracks that were

scheduled to be included in his upcoming album.27 As a result, Ryan posted a video to

YouTube offering a million dollar reward for the return of the laptop and later “tweeted”

the link to the video.28 Armin Augstein found the laptop in a park while walking his

dog.29 However, Leslie refused to pay Augstein the promised million dollar reward.30

As a result, Augstein brought suit against Leslie in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York.

This first issue to be determined by the court was whether the tweet Leslie made

containing the $1 million dollar reward for the return of the laptop constituted an offer, or

whether it was simply an invitation to negotiate. Leslie argued that the reward was not an

                                                                                                               
26
Augstein v. Leslie, 11 Civ. 7512 (HB) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2012) (“Defendant, a New York
resident, advertised a $1 million reward for the return of his laptop and other personal property that was
stolen in Germany”).
27
See Rob Markman, Ryan Leslie Sued For $1 Million Over Laptop Reward, MTV.COM, Oct. 26,
2011, at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1673241/ryan-leslie-laptop-lawsuit.jhtml (The article quotes
Leslie stating that, “I lost my computer out here in Germany. I actually had my whole new album on there,
which I had been working on in secret, and it got stolen.”).
28
See Greg Watkins, Producer Ryan Leslie Sued For $1 Million Over Failed Laptop Reward
Payment, ALLHIPHOP.COM, October 25, 2011, at http://allhiphop.com/2011/10/25/producer-ryan-leslie-
sued-for-1-million-over-failed-laptop-reward-payment/ (Stating that Leslie Ryan “took to Twitter” to
originally offer a $25,000 reward, which was later raised to $1 million.).
29
See Adrian Chen, If You Offer a $1 Million Bounty for Your Missing Laptop, You Must Pay It,
GAWKER.COM, October 25, 2011, at http://gawker.com/5853256/if-you-offer-a-1-million-bounty-for-your-
missing-laptop-you-must-pay-it (The article states that Augstein found the missing laptop “while walking
his dog in the park.”).
30
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (“After Augstein returned
the laptop and hard drive, Leslie refused to pay the reward”).

  6  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

offer, it was simply “an advertisement.”31 According to Leslie, if it was indeed an

advertisement, no contract resulted.32 The test of whether a binding obligation may

originate in advertisements addressed to the general public is “whether the facts show

that some performance was promised in positive terms in return for something

requested.”33

In the classic case of Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc. a similar

issue arose.34 In Lefkowitz, the defendant, Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (“GMSS”),

placed an advertisement in a local newspaper stating that a stole worth $139.50 was

available for only $1, on a first come first serve basis.35

Like Leslie, GMSS contended that it was simply an advertisement and a

“unilateral offer” that could be withdrawn without notice.36 GMSS also argued that an

advertisement is not an offer, but rather an invitation for an offer.37

                                                                                                               
31
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (“Leslie attempt to
persuade the court that the video is not an offer but an advertisement.”).
32
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (“Advertisements, Leslie
argues, are generally considered offeres.”).
33
1 Williston, Contracts (Rev. ed.) s 27.
34
See generally Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d
689 (1957).
35
See Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 189, 86 N.W.2d 689,
690 (1957) (The defendant published an advertisement that stated “Saturday 9 A.M. Sharp 3 Brand New
Fur Coats. Worth to $100.00. First Come First Served $1 Each”).
36
See Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 190, 86 N.W.2d 689,
690 (1957) (The defendant contended that “a newspaper advertisement offering items of merchandise for
sale at a named price is a ‘unilateral offer’ which may be withdrawn without notice.”).
37
See Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 251 Minn. 188, 190, 86 N.W.2d 689,
690-91 (1957) (Defendant contended that “advertisements are not offers which become contracts as soon as
any person to whose notice they may come signifies his acceptance by notifying the other that he will take
a certain quantity of them”, but rather “an invitation for an offer of sale on the terms stated, which offer,
when received, may be accepted or rejected and which therefore does not become a contract of sale until
accepted by the seller; and until a contract has been so made, the seller may modify or revoke such prices
or terms.”).

  7  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 The court in Lefkowitz ruled for the plaintiff, concluding that the advertisement in

question “was a clear, definite, and explicit offer of sale by defendant and left nothing

open for negotiation, and plaintiff, who was first to appear at defendant's place of

business to be served, was entitled to performance on part of defendant.” Based on the

Lefkowitz ruling, it appears Leslie’s statement that "I am offering a reward of $20,000,”

followed later by a tweet which reaffirmed followers that Leslie was “absolutely

continuing my Euro tour + I raised the reward for my intellectual property for $1mm”

indeed constituted an offer and left nothing open for negotiation.

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc. is another similar case which involved the question of

whether a statement made was an offer or simply an advertisement. In Leonard, a

television commercial viewer brought suit against Pepsico, Inc., asking the court to

enforce an alleged contractual commitment of Pepsico to provide a fighter jet aircraft in

return for “Pepsi points.”38 The “Pepsi points” promotion in question “encouraged

consumers to collect ‘Pepsi Points’ from specially marked packages of Pepsi or Diet

Pepsi and redeem these points for merchandise featuring the Pepsi logo.”39

In a commercial advertisement some of the “prizes,” along with their point values,

were displayed and towards the end of the commercial the words “HARRIER FIGHTER

7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS” appeared.40 Leonard attempted to collect the 7,000,000 Pepsi

                                                                                                               
38
See generally Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) aff'd, 210 F.3d 88
(2d Cir. 2000).
39
Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, 118 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.
2000).
40
See Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d
Cir. 2000) (Explaining that the commercial ended by a military drumroll sounding, followed by the
following words appearing on the screen: “HARRIER FIGHTER 7,000,000 PEPSI POINTS.”).

  8  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

Points needed, and when Pepsi refused to honor the offer and provide the jet fighter,

Leonard brought suit against Pepsi.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in

favor of defendant Pepsico. However, their reasoning for doing so was based on the fact

that, although the fighter jet was featured on the commercial advertisement, it did not

appear in the product catalog featuring all of the items.41 In contrast, the Augstein reward

offer was not followed with a formal writing of any sort.

Unlike the commercial in question in the Leonard case, Leslie’s conduct:

“was meant to induce performance. Leslie was not seeking

a promise from an individual who would return belongings,
rather he was seeking performance—the actual return of his
property. In addition, his videos and other commentary
cannot be reasonably understood as an invitation to
negotiate because, similarly, Leslie was not soliciting help
to find his property, but the actual return itself.”42
B. Do Tweets Pass the Reasonable Objective Person Test?

The second issue involved in the case of Augstein v. Leslie was whether a

reasonable person would have understood the offer made via Leslie’s tweet to be an

offer, rather than an invitation to negotiate.43 Being that there is not much case law out

                                                                                                               
41
See Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 2d 116, 124 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) aff'd, 210 F.3d 88 (2d
Cir. 2000) (The court stated that the case is distinguishable from Lefkowitz because “First, the commercial
cannot be regarded in itself as sufficiently definite, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to
a separate writing, the Catalog.).
42
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012).
43
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (The court stated that
Leslie relied “on the fact that the offer was conveyed over YouTube (a website where many advertisements
and promotional videos are shared, along with any number of other types of video) to undermine the
legitimacy of the offer.”).

  9  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

there involving offers made over Twitter, several factors should be considered. The

traditional “reasonable objective person test” must be applied.44

In the classic well-known contracts law case Lucy v. Zehmer, the reasonable

person standard is put to the test.45 In this case, two men negotiate the sale of a farm after

having some alcoholic drinks.46 Zehmer wrote a statement on the back of a restaurant

check offering the sale of his farm to Lucy for $50,000.47

Although Zehmer signed the written offer, Zehmer later claimed he was not

serious about the offer and it was done in jest.48 However, the court ruled that even if

Zehmer was not serious about selling his farm to Lucy, the fact that Lucy believed it to be

a serious offer—as would any other reasonable person—showed the offer was indeed a

valid, binding offer.49

In the case of Augstein v. Leslie, the court found that “a reasonable person

viewing the video would understand that Leslie was seeking the return of his property

and that by returning it, the bargain would be concluded.”50 It is clear that unlike in Lucy,

                                                                                                               
44
See 12 Am. Jur., Contracts, § 19, p. 515 (“An agreement or mutual assent is of course essential
to a valid contract but the law imputes to a person an intention corresponding to the reasonable meaning of
his words and acts. If his words and acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree, it
is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of his mind.”).
45
See generally Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954).
46
See Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 496, 84 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1954) (Stating that Zehmer and
Lucy “had one or two drinks together” the night of the agreement in question).
47
See Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 495, 84 S.E.2d 516, 518 (1954) (The facts state that Zehmer
“took a restaurant check and wrote on the back of it, ‘I do hereby agree to sell to W. O. Lucy the Ferguson
Farm for $50,000 complete.’”).
48
See Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 494, 84 S.E.2d 516, 517-18 (1954) (Zehmer believed that the
offer was “made in jest”).
49
See Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493, 501-02, 84 S.E.2d 516, 521 (1954) (The court stated that, “If
it be assumed, contrary to what we think the evidence shows, that Zehmer was jesting about selling his
farm to Lucy and that the transaction was intended by him to be a joke, nevertheless the evidence shows
that Lucy did not so understand it but considered it to be a serious business transaction and the contract to
be binding on the Zehmers as well as on himself.”).
50
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012).

  10  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

Leslie’s offer was a serious one, and was not made in jest. The tweet that conveyed the

reward offer was viewable by over 450,000 “followers.”51

Leslie’s reward offer was also made several times, through various social media

outlets along with Twitter.52 Thus, it is clear that any reasonable person who read the

offer contained in the tweet would believe it to be a serious one. Therefore, the offer

made by Leslie indeed passes the “reasonable objective person test.”

C. Absence of Signature Not a Defense

When it comes to agreements formed online, and specifically over Twitter, it

should be noted that raising the Statute of Frauds signature requirement as an affirmative

defense would not hold much weight. Reason being, at the turn of the millennium, two

electronic contracting statutes were put in place: the Electronic Signatures in Global and

National Commerce Act (“E-Sign”) and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

(“UETA”).

The E-Sign and UETA were passed by congress and signed into law by President

Clinton in 2000, and were designed to eliminate barriers to electronic commerce.53 The

                                                                                                               
51
See https://twitter.com/ryanleslie/followers.
52
See Augstein v. Leslie, 2012 WL 4928914 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012) (“Leslie mentioned the
$20,000 reward for the return of his property in a YouTube video on October 24, 2010. In the video, Leslie
says, ‘I am offering a reward of $20,000.’ He also implied that the lost property was worth much more than
$20,000. On November 6, 2010, a video was posted increasing the reward to $1,000,000. At the end of the
video, a message reads, ‘In the interest of retrieving the invaluable intellectual property contained on his
laptop & hard drive, Mr. Leslie has increased the reward offer from $20,000 to $1,000,000 USD.’ The
increase of the reward was publicized on Leslie's Facebook and Twitter accounts, including a post on
Twitter which read, ‘I'm absolutely continuing my Euro tour + I raised the reward for my intellectual
property to $1mm’ and included a link to the video on YouTube. News organizations also published reports
on Leslie's reward offer, both in print and online. Finally, Leslie was interviewed on MTV on November
11, 2010, and reiterated the $1,000,000 reward, saying ‘I got a million dollar reward for anybody that can
return all my intellectual property to me.’”).
53
See Prefatory Note to the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (1999), 74 U.L.A. 211 (The
prefatory note states that the “draft of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is presented for final

  11  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

purpose of the laws was to establish that electronic signatures and electronic records

generally satisfy the legal requirement set forth by the statute of fraud’s signature

requirement.54 Thus, if a contract for the sale of a good is formed over Twitter, or any

other type of online communication, an electronic signature would suffice.

III. LADY DUFF GORDON MEETS THE TWEETS

The classic contract law case of Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon establishes

that there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing present in every contract.

The recent case of Hanesbrand v. Mendhenall shows that this same covenant is present in

Talent Agreements being challenged based on a series of controversial tweets.

The day after Osama Bin Laden’s death was announced by President Obama,

Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall released a series of controversial tweets

regarding the capture and death.55 Mendenhall had been spokesman for Hanesbrands’

Champion products, and as a result of the tweets Hanesbrands tried to terminate the

Talent Agreement, contending that Mendenhall’s tweets were in violation of a moral

clause found within the agreement.56

                                                                                                               
approval to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws convened in Denver,
Colorado for its 108th Annual Meeting.”).
54
See § 2-201. Formal Requirements; Statute of Frauds., Unif.Commercial Code § 2-201 (“(1)
Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is
not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a
contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is
sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly
states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of
goods shown in such writing.”).
55
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (Stating that
on May 2, 2011 Plaintiff issued “tweets regarding Osama bin Laden, whose death had been announced by
President Obama on May 1, 2011”).
56
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 721 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (On May 5,
2011, Hanesbrand’s general counsel sent Mendenhall’s representatives a letter explaining that Hanesbrands
intended to “terminate the Talent Agreement effective Friday, May 13, 2011.”).

  12  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 Mendenhall has had a history of using his Twitter as a somewhat political

platform to express his views regarding parenting and relationships, women, Islam, and

the ways NFL compares to a slave trade.57 Hanesbrands never made any indication that

they were not pleased with these tweets.58 However, on May 2, 2011, Mendenhall issued

the following tweets regarding the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, just one day

after President Obama announced bin Laden’s death:

What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how

people can HATE a man they never even heard speak.
We've only heard one side ...
I believe in God. I believe we're ALL his children. And I
believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge.
Those who judge others, will also be judged themselves.
For those of you who said we want to see Bin Laden burn
in hell and piss on his ashes, I ask how would God feel
about your heart?
There is not an ignorant bone in my body. I just encourage
you to # think
@dkller23 We'll never know what really happened. I just
have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper
down demolition style.59
There was a strong reaction by the public to these tweets, which led Mendenhall

to issue an explanation two days later.60 Just a few days after Mendenhall issued his

                                                                                                               
57
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“Plaintiff
used his Twitter account to candidly express his views about Islam, women, parenting and relationships,
and made comments in which Plaintiff compared the NFL to the slave trade.”).
58
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“Plaintiff
alleges that in response to these tweets, ‘Hanesbrands at no time suggested that it disagreed with Mr.
Mendenhall's comments or that his tweets were in any way inconsistent with the values of the Champion
brand or his obligations under the Talent Agreement, or that because of his tweets, Hanesbrands believed
Mr. Mendenhall could no longer continue to effectively communicate on behalf of and represent Champion
with consumers.’”).
59
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (M.D.N.C. 2012).
60
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720-21 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (In
response to some negative reaction to the May 2, 2011 tweets, Mr. Mendenhall issued the following
explanation: “I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater

  13  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

explanation, on May 5, 2011 Mendenhall’s agent received a letter from Hanesbrands

informing him that Hanesbrands would be terminating the Talent Agreement, pursuant to

the morals clause in the contract.61 Hanesbrands also issued a public statement to ESPN

which explained their decision to terminate the Talent Agreement.62

                                                                                                               
understanding of my recent twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this
outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and
any organization that I am a part of. First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin
Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose
families were affected. Not just in the US, but families all over the world who had relatives in the World
Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if
they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off
to war. Last year, I was grateful enough to have the opportunity to travel over seas and participate in a
football camp put on for the children of U.S. troops stationed in Germany. It was a special experience.
These events have had a significant impact in my life. ‘What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing
how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side ...’ This
controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a
murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and
human ethics. In the bible, Ezekiel 33:11 states, ‘Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign
LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.
Turn! Turn from your evil ways ...’ I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to
face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as
parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror
celebrating a man's death. Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate
conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I've said is with the intent of
expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as
American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to
be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the
timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally
harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name. It was
only meant to encourage everyone reading it to think.”).
61
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 721 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“In a letter
dated May 5, 2011, and addressed to Rob Lefko, one of Mr. Mendenhall's representatives at Priority Sports
and Entertainment, Hanesbrands' Associate General Counsel, L. Lynette Fuller–Andrews, indicated that it
was Hanesbrands' intent to terminate the Talent Agreement effective Friday, May 13, 2011, pursuant to
Paragraph 17(a) of the Agreement. (Complaint, Ex. C).”).
62
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 721-22 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (On May
6, 2011, Hanesbrands stated the following to ESPN: “Champion is a strong supporter of the government's
efforts to fight terrorism and is very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of the U.S. Armed
Forces. Earlier this week, Rashard Mendenhall, who endorses Champion products, expressed personal
comments and opinions regarding Osama bin Laden and the September 11 terrorist attacks that were
inconsistent with the values of the Champion brand and with which we strongly disagreed. In light of these
comments, Champion was obligated to conduct a business assessment to determine whether Mr.
Mendenhall could continue to effectively communicate on behalf of and represent Champion with
consumers. While we respect Mr. Mendenhall's right to express sincere thoughts regarding potentially
controversial topics, we no longer believe that Mr. Mendenhall can appropriately represent Champion and
we have notified Mr. Mendenhall that we are ending our business relationship. Champion has appreciated
its association with Mr. Mendenhall during his early professional football career and found him to be a
dedicated and conscientious young athlete. We sincerely wish him all the best.”).

  14  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 As a result of Hanesbrands’ attempt to cancel the Talent Agreement, Mendenhall

filed suit against them on July 18, 2011.63 Mendenhall alleged that Hanesbrands

breached the Talent Agreement contract “[b]y its actions purporting to terminate the

Talent Agreement and Extension under Section 17(a), and by its failure and refusal to pay

amounts due Mr. Mendenhall.”64 Specifically, Mendenhall alleged that:

“the unilateral action taken by Hanesbrands is unreasonable, violates the

express terms of the Talent Agreement and Extension, is contrary to the
course of dealing between the parties with regard to Mr. Mendenhall's use
of Twitter to freely express opinions on controversial and non-
controversial subjects, violates the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
implied in every contract, and constitutes a breach of the Talent
Agreement.”65
Hanesbrands filed motion for summary judgment.66 However, Mendenhall

defended his claim based on the notion that it was unreasonable for Hanesbrands to

cancel the contract based on the tweets in question. Mendenhall argued that, although the

Morals Clause allowed termination of the Talent Agreement contract if Mendenhall were

to be involved with a “public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule67” etc., it does not

grant Hanesbrands the right to terminate simply because the company disagreed with

Mendenhall’s personal tweets.68

                                                                                                               
63
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 722 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (Stating that
Mendenhall filed action on July 18, 2011).
64
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 722 (M.D.N.C. 2012).
65
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 722 (M.D.N.C. 2012).
66
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 722 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (“Defendant,
in its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, contends that it was within its rights under the express terms
of Section 17(a) to terminate the Talent Agreement and Extension with Mr. Mendenhall pursuant to Section
17(a) of the Agreement.”).
67
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 720 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (17(a) states
that if Mendenhall “commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any situation or
occurrence tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or tending to
shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public or any protected class or group thereof,”
Hanesbrands would have the right to terminate the contract.).
68
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 726 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (Mendenhall
noted that Hanesbrands issued a public statement to ESPN indicating that the company’s reasons for

  15  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 Under New York law, in every contract there is an implied duty of good faith and

fair dealing, which prohibits the parties to the agreement from acting arbitrarily or

irrationally in exercising their discretion.69 Therefore, although Section 17(a) of the

Talent Agreement contract provides Hanesbrands with discretionary termination rights,

the discretion must be exercised under the implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing.70 Thus, the Court determined that Hanesbrands’ attempt to terminate the Talent

Agreement contract based on mere disagreement with the statements contained in

Mendenhall’s tweets may have been unreasonable and Hanesbrands’ Motion for

Summary Judgment was denied.71

IV. TWITTER SCANDALS

As with any social network site, Twitter has seen its fair share of public

scandals72, many of which involve contract law related issues. For example, during a

conversation believed to be off-the-record, President Obama voiced his opinion about the

Kanye West and Taylor Switft incident at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards.73 After

                                                                                                               
terminating the Talent Agreement contract was because Hanesbrands “strongly disagreed with Mr.
Mendenhall’s comments.”).
69
See Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389, 663 N.E.2d 289, 291 (1995) (The court
stated that where a contract allows for the exercise of discretion, “this pledge includes a promise not to act
arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that discretion.”).
70
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 726 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (Stating that
any discretion granted to Hanesbrands by Section 17(a) “is subject to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.”).
71
See Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 728 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (The Court
ruled that a judgment on the pleadings would not be warranted and denied Hanesbrands’ Motion for
Judgement on the Pleadings.).
72
See e.g. Frances Romero, Top 10 Twitter Controversies, TIME, June 6, 2011, available at
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2075071_2075082_2075118,00.html.
73
See MTV awards: West Disrupts Swift’s Speech, CNN.COM, September 14, 2009, at
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-14/entertainment/mtv.music.video.awards_1_taylor-swift-mtv-video-
music-awards-awards-show?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ (The article states that Kanye West rushed onstage and
grabbed the microphone from Taylor Swift during her acceptance speech, in order to “let loose an outburst”
on behalf of Beyonce Knowles, who he believed should have won.).

  16  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

President Obama called Kanye West a “jackass” for the stunt, his remark ended up on

Twitter.74

An ABC News employee by the name of Moran tweeted President Obama’s

comment just after hearing it.75 However, little did Moran know, by doing so he

breached an explicit agreement—made between the news station conducting the

interview and the White House—that all of President Obama’s “pre interview chitchat”

was to be considered off the record.76

Within an hour, the tweet was deleted, but the story had already gotten out.77 As

a result, ABC News had to call the White House to apologize for the breach of contract

caused by the tweets.78

Similar to the way written contracts are binding, so are written tweets. This did

not work out in Chris Brown’s favor during a scandal he was involved with in late

2010.79 In a series of angry tweets directed at former B2K artist Raz-B, Brown tweeted

                                                                                                               
74
See Matea Gold, Obama, Kanye West and trouble with Twitter, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
September 16, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/entertainment/et-abctwitter16
(Explaining that the comment ended up on Twitter because an ABC News employee tweeted about it.).
75
See Matea Gold, Obama, Kanye West and trouble with Twitter, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
September 16, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/entertainment/et-abctwitter16
(After hearing President Obama make the comment, ABC News employee Moran tweeted,"Pres. Obama
just called Kanye West a 'jackass' for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won," Moran tweeted.
"Now THAT'S presidential.").
76
See Matea Gold, Obama, Kanye West and trouble with Twitter, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
September 16, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/entertainment/et-abctwitter16
(“the explicit agreement CNBC made with the White House that Obama's pre-interview chitchat was off
the record.”).
77
See Matea Gold, Obama, Kanye West and trouble with Twitter, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
September 16, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/entertainment/et-abctwitter16 (The
article explains that within an hour, Moran realized the breach caused and deleted the tweet, but the story
“was already out.”).
78
See Matea Gold, Obama, Kanye West and trouble with Twitter, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
September 16, 2009, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/16/entertainment/et-abctwitter16
(Stating that “ABC News quickly called CNBC and the White House to apologize.”).
79
See Gil Kaufman, Chris Brown, Raz-B In Bitter Twitter Feud Over Rihanna, MTV.COM,
December 30, 2010, available at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1655091/chris-brown-raz-b-bitter-

  17  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

the “N-word”80 along with other words associated with homophobia81 and domestic

violence. The day after the “tweet war” between Chris Brown and Raz-B, Brown issued

a public apology.82

However, perhaps the most well-known Twitter scandal to date—at least in the

world of politics—involved former United States Representative Anthony Weiner.83 On

Friday, May 27, Weiner tweeted a waist-down photograph of a man’s briefs to a 21-year-

old female college student in Seattle.84 Shortly thereafter, Weiner removed the tweet,

claiming that his account was hacked.85

                                                                                                               
twitter-feud-over-rihanna.jhtml (Brown was involved in a “tweet war” with artist Raz-B. Brown described
the incident as follows: "I was minding my damn business and Peter pan decides to pop off!!! I'm not mad
though!!! I'm just not silent nor am i one of these scary R&B cats!!" Brown later tweeted, "I'm not
homophobic! He's just disrespectful!!!").
80
See Gil Kaufman, Chris Brown, Raz-B In Bitter Twitter Feud Over Rihanna, MTV.COM,
December 30, 2010, available at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1655091/chris-brown-raz-b-bitter-
twitter-feud-over-rihanna.jhtml (The article states that according to reports, Brown got heated when another
artist by the name of Raz-B tweeted “I’m just sittin here thinking how can n---as like [Eric Benet] and
[Chris Brown] disrespect women as intelligent as Halle Berry, Rihanna.” Brown tweeted back, “N---a you
want attention! Grow up n---a!!! Di-- in da booty ass lil boy.”).
81
See Gil Kaufman, Chris Brown, Raz-B In Bitter Twitter Feud Over Rihanna, MTV.COM,
December 30, 2010, available at http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1655091/chris-brown-raz-b-bitter-
twitter-feud-over-rihanna.jhtml (At one point, Brown tweeted to Raz-B, “Di-- in da boot ass lil boy.”).
82
See TMZ Staff, Chris Brown Homophobic? – I Apologize, I’m Not Homophobic, TMZ.COM,
December 30, 2010, available at http://www.tmz.com/2010/12/30/chris-brown-apologize-homophobic-
twittter-raz-b-razb/ (Chris Brown issued the following statement to TMZ: "Yesterday was an unfortunate
lack in judgment sparked by public Twitter attacks from Raz B, who was bent on getting attention. Words
cannot begin to express how sorry and frustrated I am over what transpired publicly on Twitter. I have
learned over the past few years to not condone or represent acts of violence against anyone. Molestation
and victims of such acts are not to be taken lightly; and for my comments I apologize -- from the bottom of
my heart. I love all of my fans, gay and straight. I have friends from all walks of life and I am committed,
with God's help, to continue becoming a better person.").
83
See Associated Press, Timeline of Rep. Weiner’s Online Sex Scandal, FOXNEWS.COM, June 11,
2011, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/11/timeline-rep-weiners-online-sex-scandal/.
84
See Associated Press, Timeline of Rep. Weiner’s Online Sex Scandal, FOXNEWS.COM, June 11,
2011, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/11/timeline-rep-weiners-online-sex-scandal/.
85
See Associated Press, Timeline of Rep. Weiner’s Online Sex Scandal, FOXNEWS.COM, June 11,
2011, available at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/11/timeline-rep-weiners-online-sex-scandal/
(The article states that shortly after the photograph was tweeted, Weiner “quickly deleted it and sends out a
tweet saying that his Facebook account was hacked.”).

  18  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 However, the photo was eventually identified as being a photo of Weiner. And, a

few days later, Weiner admitted that he was indeed the one who tweeted it.86 This was

only after the Twitter follower, to whom Weiner tweeted the photograph, came forward

to offer evidence that she had been in an ongoing “sexting” conversation with the

congressman.87 Weiner ultimately resigned from his position as congressman as a result

of the scandal, which came as a disappointment to those who elected him into office—

especially since he was a leading candidate for the next mayor of New York.88

V. CONCLUSION

When it comes to the contract law issues associated with online agreements, the

internet, and social media, it is clear that the law is evolving with the times. This first

became evident in 2000, with the passing of acts such as E-Sign and UETA. These acts

give validity to those contracts that are created and signed electronically. The evolution

of contract law within the digital age continued with the ruling in the recent case of CX

Digital Media v. Smoking Everywhere, Inc., where the court ruled that contracts formed

using social media such as instant messages, and perhaps tweets, will be binding.

                                                                                                               
86
See Chris Cuomo, Anthony Weiner: ‘The Picture Was of Me and I Sent It’, ABC NEWS, June 6,
2011, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-anthony-weiner-
picture/story?id=13774605#.ULoZzYXQI1w (Weiner eventually admitted to tweet the photograph, stating
“I take full responsibility for my actions. The picture was of me, and I sent it.).
87
See Chris Cuomo, Anthony Weiner: ‘The Picture Was of Me and I Sent It’, ABC NEWS, June 6,
2011, available at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rep-anthony-weiner-
picture/story?id=13774605#.ULoZzYXQI1w (The woman involved in the conversation was Meagan
Broussard, a 26-year-old nursing student and mother from Texas. Broussard provided, to the press, “dozens
of photos, emails, Facebook messages, and cell phone call logs” to show the extent of the lewd exchanges
between herself and Weiner. It was only after Broussard came forward that Weiner confessed to his
actions.).
88
See Raymond Hernandez, Anthony D. Weiner Announces His Resignation, NYTIMES.COM, June
16, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/nyregion/anthony-d-weiner-tells-friends-he-
will-resign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (The article describes Weiner as a “once-promising politician
whose Brooklyn roots and scrappy style made him a leading candidate to be the next mayor of New York”
and explains that he made the decision to resign as congressman “after long and emotional discussions with
his political advisers and his wife, whom friends described as devastated by the behavior of her husband of
11 months, and worried about the couple’s financial future.”).

  19  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529

 The decision in the case of Augstein v. Leslie further affirmed this. Augstein

made it clear that reward offers made over Twitter are also binding. The court in

Augstein concluded that if a reasonable objective person would find a tweet to contain an

offer to perform in exchange for money, then such offer is valid.

It will come as no surprise if litigation involving contract formation and Twitter

continues to increase in the future. In order to avoid excessive litigation, the solution

could be for congress to amend a law currently in place, such as E-Sign or UETA.

Simply adding language to validate contracts formed over social media sites, in addition

to the validation of those formed and signed electronically, would solve the issue.

While it is normally very difficult for government officials to regulate activities of

the internet, in this instance it would take nothing more than an amendment. Doing so

would not only prevent future litigation involving social media contracts from clogging

up the court systems, but it would also force users of sites such as Twitter to use—or,

tweet—with caution.

  20  

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2249529