On January 5, we posted a blog entry about the case of PhoneDog v. Kravitz, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  In short, during his employment with PhoneDog, Kravitz  used a PhoneDog twitter account (@PhoneDog_Noah) to disseminate information on behalf of the company and to promote its services.  After Kravitz left PhoneDog, he continued tweeting under the PhoneDog twitter handle on behalf of his new employer.  Although he later changed the handle to omit reference to PhoneDog (@noahkravitz), he kept the 17,000 twitter account followers.

PhoneDog sued Kravitz, asserting claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with prospective employment advantage, and conversion, based on his use of the PhoneDog handle and his retention of the twitter account’s followers.  Kravitz moved to dismiss PhoneDog’s claims for interference with prospective economic advantage, arguing that PhoneDog failed to establish that one or more of its economic relationships had been disrupted by Kravitz’s alleged conduct, and that it had been harmed as a result.  

On January 30, the court denied Kravitz’s motion and the case will move forward.

Please see full article below for more information.