US court fines Alston & Bird for LinkedIn searches on potential jury member

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently imposed a $10,000 sanction on law firm Alston & Bird LLP for violating a standing order that bars lawyers and their agents from conducting social media research in a way that notifies potential jurors of such activity. [Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc]

The sanction order, issued by Judge William H Orrick on October 28, 2025, arose during jury selection in Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., a long-running patent and trade secrets dispute. The Court found that Alston & Bird’s jury consultant had engaged an investigator who used LinkedIn to review the profile of a prospective juror, triggering LinkedIn’s automatic notification feature.

Judge Orrick said that while publicly available information may be examined, even “anonymous” LinkedIn searches are prohibited because they result in automatic notifications.

“I believe strongly in the right to privacy. Judges instruct jurors that they may not investigate the lawyers, parties, witnesses or issues in the case before them, and I think a concomitant right should preclude lawyers from rummaging around in the lives of prospective jurors,” the judge observed.

He added that with the growth of social media, boundaries on acceptable research are necessary:

“Individual privacy has been eroded over the last thirty years with the advent of various surveillance tools, the internet, smart phones, and social media. I do not think that jurors should lose any remaining privacy interests simply because they are called to do their civic duty, any more than I think that jurors should be able to investigate the lawyers in a case before agreeing to serve. And I think the ethical rule that lawyers not contact jurors should be strictly enforced.”

According to the order, Alston & Bird’s counsel informed the Court of the violation before voir dire (questioning of potential jurors), disclosed the information to opposing counsel to maintain parity and refrained from sharing it with the firm’s trial lawyer. The firm also explained that the investigator had only accessed publicly available data.

Judge Orrick acknowledged the firm’s prompt disclosure and noted that the violation was unintentional, but stressed that compliance with court orders was mandatory.

“It was Alston & Bird’s obligation to comply with my Standing Order, whether it agreed with it or not, and its failure to adequately inform and supervise its consultants, intentional or not, warrants a sanction,” he said.

While the judge reduced the penalty from what he initially contemplated, he cautioned that the leniency should not be viewed as a precedent:

“Counsel in every case before me are forewarned against future violations…No one should take as precedent the modest nature of the sanction in this particular case.”

[Read Order]