Social media outlets have significantly changed the way we communicate with each other on a day-to-day basis - Tweeting, Gramming, DM-ing, TikTok-ing...? The courts have been paying attention.

Alternative service options have changed and expanded over the years consistent with how we communicate with one another. Indeed, in 2002, the Ninth Circuit explained, "Courts … cannot be blind to changes and advances in technology. No longer do we live in a world where communications are conducted solely by mail carried by fast ... sailing clipper … ships. Electronic communication via satellite can and does provide instantaneous transmission of notice and information. No longer must process be mailed to a defendant's door when he can receive complete notice at an electronic terminal inside his very office, even when the door is steel and bolted shut." See Rio Props. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Rio Props. case related to service by email, and while the Ninth Circuit did ultimately endorse service of process by email, it stated it was "cognizant of its limitations." Some of the same concerns connected with service of process by email - i.e., a lack of ways to confirm receipt, limited use of electronic signatures, compatibility problems, etc. - are certainly applicable to service by social media.

Additional concerns include social media profile authenticity and use of accounts by hackers or other third-parties. It is important to note courts have made different rulings on this issue, and appropriate service will depend on the type of case, jurisdiction, and potentially, facts related to prior service attempts. We are likely to continue to see courts and legislatures across the country attempt to balance changes in the way we communicate through technology with the constitutional notions of due process.

In an order, U.S. District Cecilia M. Altonaga told the Moskowitz Law Firm, which represents seven FTX investors in their proposed class action against a number of purported promoters of the company, that they could send their summons, their complaint and "future filings and discovery" in the case to defendant Tom Nash by tweeting a link to the filings at him and sending them to an email address that he had identified as his own in a February tweet.

plus.lexis.com/...