If you’re defending against a car accident claim and someone posts a video on Facebook of an accident, it’s not admissible in court. A judge may find the video to be an exception to the general rule protection because it could be used as the basis of direct evidence. Still, it will not be treated as a forum equivalent to traditional digital evidence.Â
This means that if someone clips a video and posts it to Facebook, it can only be used against the person who posted the video on their social media account unless there’s an agreement otherwise.
Facebook Video Post Protection
No law protects social media postings. It is not the same as traditional digital evidence. When you post to Facebook, you create content available to be viewed by anyone, and it becomes publicly accessible after 24 hours, according to Facebook’s policies. If a car accident occurred and someone posted a video on their story, there’s no way for them or anyone else to limit access while the content is live other than waiting until it’s gone down “in a matter of seconds.”
A video posted to social media isn’t private. It doesn’t have the same protections as traditional digital evidence. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, you can use social media evidence, but it will not be treated in the same manner as a traditional digital record that is created and maintained by a forensic computer examiner.
The primary difference between traditional digital and social media evidence is that traditional digital evidence must survive judicial scrutiny for authenticity, integrity and trustworthiness. Social media has a lower standard of admissibility because it’s not being used as a record of information generated by a computer or networks like e-mail messages, web browsing histories, or network protocol data captures.
Online privacy is a fallacy, especially when it comes to social media. You almost never know who will view what you write online. A private profile or message can be screenshotted and shared. More so, someone could send you a friend request to access your data.
The Ambiguity Surrounding the Use of Social Media Video Evidence
The use of social media in litigation is highly problematic. The legal issues around using social media in a court trial are more complex than many people realize. Thus, before considering using Facebook video posts as evidence, you should see how a Tucson car accident attorney can help you.
The legal outcome of many automobile accidents will come down to who was at fault in this crash. Many people believe they can rely on the video evidence from their dashcam or Facebook posts and put their case in front of a jury.
However, it is essential to remember that video evidence is not always admissible in court for the following reasons:
- Video does not show what happened before or after the accident
- Video does not indicate that someone engaged in negligent behavior
- Video does not show what was going on inside a vehicle involved in an accident
- Video may provide false hope for those involved because it gives a distorted representation of events through human error
- Video may not accurately show what is happening within the vehicle
- Video system may not record or save video correctly
- Video device or system may malfunction or be inoperative
Facebook Video Post Authenticity
The first issue is that social media postings can be difficult to authenticate. We’ve all seen posts on Facebook and other digital platforms that are obviously not from the person whose name appears on the account. It’s almost always a fake account.
You could assume that a screenshot of someone’s public profile and claiming it is from the person being sued is proof enough for them, but you would be wrong. Using Facebook videos as evidence will not satisfy traditional discovery obligations due to their unreliability as direct evidence.
About the author:
With a BA in communications and paralegal experience, Irma C. Dengler decided to make the best of her writing skills. She decided to turn complicated legal matters into something more palatable for the masses. Therefore, Irma became a law communicator who writes about everyday problems so everyone can understand them and take the appropriate action. She specialized in personal injury cases, as they are more common than anyone thinks, but her areas of expertise also include civil law, criminal law, insurance-related issues, and more.
